Tuesday, 13 January 2009
O bring my terug na die ou Noordkaap
My next post on this blog (not before the evening of 14 January) will be from the tiny settlement of Middelpos in the Northern Cape, South Africa. My internet connection there is painfully slow (and cannot be upgraded) which makes trawling the internet and the blogosphere difficult. I would therefore be grateful for any references to Lockerbie-related news items that readers care to send to me. But no large attachments, please, which take an eternity to download.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Allow Lockerbie appeal to go ahead
This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:
'There are those who believe it may seem in the interests of Scotland, England and the US that there should be no further appeal.
'Think of the saving of expense, think of the avoidance of disruption to the Scottish criminal system. (...)
'Perhaps Scottish politicians are being advised that they should encourage the Libyans to persuade Mr Megrahi to abandon his appeal, with a view to immediate repatriation.
'In 2007, Tony Blair claimed to have reached a "memorandum of understanding" to allow Libyan prisoners held in the UK to be repatriated to Libya, when there were no outstanding legal issues against them in the UK. This memorandum of understanding is, we believe, to be ratified this month. It is simply not in the gift of a British Prime Minister to decide the disposal of those convicted under Scottish criminal law. That is the prerogative of Holyrood ministers.
'On April 4, 2008, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "Anybody connected with and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction we will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and uphold the international agreements that had previously been made." This latter refers to the agreement of the US, UK and Libya, that if found guilty, the accused would serve their sentences in Scotland.
Since Mr Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can be considered for repatriation, then unless the First Minister does a high-profile U-turn and appears to give in to the desires of the civil servants in Westminster, Mr Megrahi could find himself no nearer home and with no prospect of any appeal, since an abandoned one cannot be resumed.
'There is only one way to redress some of the damage caused to the reputation of Scotland's judicial system; that is to bite the bullet and allow the evidence to be re-examined in a fair appeal court. (...)'
Dr Swire is correct: an application for transfer back to Libya cannot be made while Mr Megrahi is pursuing an appeal. Any such application would require the appeal to be abandoned. A cynic, such as I, might say that that is an outcome that would be welcomed by the Crown Office and by Scottish Justice Department civil servants who, behind the scenes, may well be encouraging such an application to be made. And, as Dr Swire points out, the application might in any event be refused, if the First Minister's words are worth the paper they are written on.
If the appeal were abandoned, would that necessarily mean the end of any attempt to establish the unjustness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi? There are two ways in which the campaign to clear Mr Megrahi's name might be continued.
(a) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could be instructed to place all of the material gathered by them for the appeal into the public domain. This would enable interested persons to see that, had the appeal not been abandoned, it would have succeeded. It might also lead to pressure for the setting up of an official enquiry into the Lockerbie affair, which would --it is to be hoped and expected -- result in Mr Megrahi’s exoneration and that of Libya.
(b) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could apply on his behalf for a royal pardon and submit in support the material gathered for the appeal. The Queen grants or refuses such a pardon on the advice of Ministers (in this case it would be the Scottish Ministers). I have no doubt that Scottish Justice Department civil servants would advise the Scottish Ministers to dismiss the application for a pardon. But it is possible that the Ministers would reject that advice, particularly if Scottish public opinion were mobilized in support of a pardon.
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's issue of The Scotsman. He points out consequences that have flowed from the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to move the focus of the Lockerbie investigation away from Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC and towards Libya.]
'There are those who believe it may seem in the interests of Scotland, England and the US that there should be no further appeal.
'Think of the saving of expense, think of the avoidance of disruption to the Scottish criminal system. (...)
'Perhaps Scottish politicians are being advised that they should encourage the Libyans to persuade Mr Megrahi to abandon his appeal, with a view to immediate repatriation.
'In 2007, Tony Blair claimed to have reached a "memorandum of understanding" to allow Libyan prisoners held in the UK to be repatriated to Libya, when there were no outstanding legal issues against them in the UK. This memorandum of understanding is, we believe, to be ratified this month. It is simply not in the gift of a British Prime Minister to decide the disposal of those convicted under Scottish criminal law. That is the prerogative of Holyrood ministers.
'On April 4, 2008, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "Anybody connected with and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction we will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and uphold the international agreements that had previously been made." This latter refers to the agreement of the US, UK and Libya, that if found guilty, the accused would serve their sentences in Scotland.
Since Mr Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can be considered for repatriation, then unless the First Minister does a high-profile U-turn and appears to give in to the desires of the civil servants in Westminster, Mr Megrahi could find himself no nearer home and with no prospect of any appeal, since an abandoned one cannot be resumed.
'There is only one way to redress some of the damage caused to the reputation of Scotland's judicial system; that is to bite the bullet and allow the evidence to be re-examined in a fair appeal court. (...)'
Dr Swire is correct: an application for transfer back to Libya cannot be made while Mr Megrahi is pursuing an appeal. Any such application would require the appeal to be abandoned. A cynic, such as I, might say that that is an outcome that would be welcomed by the Crown Office and by Scottish Justice Department civil servants who, behind the scenes, may well be encouraging such an application to be made. And, as Dr Swire points out, the application might in any event be refused, if the First Minister's words are worth the paper they are written on.
If the appeal were abandoned, would that necessarily mean the end of any attempt to establish the unjustness of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi? There are two ways in which the campaign to clear Mr Megrahi's name might be continued.
(a) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could be instructed to place all of the material gathered by them for the appeal into the public domain. This would enable interested persons to see that, had the appeal not been abandoned, it would have succeeded. It might also lead to pressure for the setting up of an official enquiry into the Lockerbie affair, which would --it is to be hoped and expected -- result in Mr Megrahi’s exoneration and that of Libya.
(b) Mr Megrahi’s lawyers could apply on his behalf for a royal pardon and submit in support the material gathered for the appeal. The Queen grants or refuses such a pardon on the advice of Ministers (in this case it would be the Scottish Ministers). I have no doubt that Scottish Justice Department civil servants would advise the Scottish Ministers to dismiss the application for a pardon. But it is possible that the Ministers would reject that advice, particularly if Scottish public opinion were mobilized in support of a pardon.
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's issue of The Scotsman. He points out consequences that have flowed from the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to move the focus of the Lockerbie investigation away from Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-GC and towards Libya.]
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Diary of a vengeance foretold
Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's monumental 174-part series on OhMyNews International on the events that led up to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie came to an end on 31 December 2008. The series can be accessed here.
Saturday, 3 January 2009
US media beginning to see the light
[What follows is excerpted from a long op-ed entitled "20 Years Later, the Lockerbie Terror Attack Is Not as Solved as We Think" on the website of US News & World Report by Nathan Thrall, a well-known American writer on US politics and Middle East affairs. The full article can be read here.]
But though a chapter may have closed, the Lockerbie case is today further from resolution than it has been since the investigation began 20 years ago.
An official Scottish review body has declared that a "miscarriage of justice may have occurred" in the conviction of the Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The reviewers examined a secret document, provided to the United Kingdom by a foreign government and seen during Megrahi's trial by only the prosecution, that they said cast serious doubts on Megrahi's guilt. A new appeal of Megrahi's conviction is scheduled for this coming spring. The U.N. special observer appointed by Kofi Annan to Megrahi's trial, Hans Koechler, has declared that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, as have the legal architect of his special trial, Prof. Robert Black, and a spokesperson for the families of the British victims, Jim Swire.
Piece by piece, the major elements of the prosecution's case are falling apart. A high-ranking Scottish police officer has said vital evidence was fabricated. One of the FBI's principal forensic experts has been discredited. The lord advocate—Scotland's chief legal officer—who initiated the Lockerbie prosecution has called the credibility of the government's primary witness into question, stating that the man was "not quite the full shilling...an apple short of a picnic." Another prosecution witness now claims, in a July 2007 sworn affidavit, to have lied about the key piece of evidence linking Libya to the bombing.So if the case against Megrahi and his government is so thin, why would Libya pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie's victims?
One answer came from Libya's prime minister. He told the BBC that his government took no responsibility for Lockerbie and had merely "bought peace," agreeing to pay compensation to the families of victims because it was the only means of ending the far more costly sanctions against his country. Saif al-Qadhafi, the Libyan leader's son and one of the regime's most prominent spokespersons, recently told CNN that Megrahi "had nothing to do with Lockerbie." When asked why his government would pay the victims of a terrorist act in which they played no role, Qadhafi responded, "There was no other way around. Because there was a resolution from the Security Council, and you have to do it. Otherwise, you will not get rid of the sanctions. It was very political. Very political."
Megrahi has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and may not live to see his second appeal. If he does live and his appeal succeeds, a new and independent international investigation—as has been called for by the U.N. observer to the Lockerbie trial—may commence. If it does, the investigators will return to the primary suspect of the first year and a half of the original investigation: a cell of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, whose bank account, according to a CIA officer involved in the investigation, received a transfer of $11 million two days after Lockerbie and whose leaders the investigators believed had been contracted by Iran to avenge America's inadvertent shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner carrying 290 passengers and crew.
Yet the more likely outcome is that Megrahi will die just before or after his second appeal and that with the closure of his death, like that of Libya's payments, most will forget that the Lockerbie case remains unsolved.
But though a chapter may have closed, the Lockerbie case is today further from resolution than it has been since the investigation began 20 years ago.
An official Scottish review body has declared that a "miscarriage of justice may have occurred" in the conviction of the Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The reviewers examined a secret document, provided to the United Kingdom by a foreign government and seen during Megrahi's trial by only the prosecution, that they said cast serious doubts on Megrahi's guilt. A new appeal of Megrahi's conviction is scheduled for this coming spring. The U.N. special observer appointed by Kofi Annan to Megrahi's trial, Hans Koechler, has declared that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, as have the legal architect of his special trial, Prof. Robert Black, and a spokesperson for the families of the British victims, Jim Swire.
Piece by piece, the major elements of the prosecution's case are falling apart. A high-ranking Scottish police officer has said vital evidence was fabricated. One of the FBI's principal forensic experts has been discredited. The lord advocate—Scotland's chief legal officer—who initiated the Lockerbie prosecution has called the credibility of the government's primary witness into question, stating that the man was "not quite the full shilling...an apple short of a picnic." Another prosecution witness now claims, in a July 2007 sworn affidavit, to have lied about the key piece of evidence linking Libya to the bombing.So if the case against Megrahi and his government is so thin, why would Libya pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie's victims?
One answer came from Libya's prime minister. He told the BBC that his government took no responsibility for Lockerbie and had merely "bought peace," agreeing to pay compensation to the families of victims because it was the only means of ending the far more costly sanctions against his country. Saif al-Qadhafi, the Libyan leader's son and one of the regime's most prominent spokespersons, recently told CNN that Megrahi "had nothing to do with Lockerbie." When asked why his government would pay the victims of a terrorist act in which they played no role, Qadhafi responded, "There was no other way around. Because there was a resolution from the Security Council, and you have to do it. Otherwise, you will not get rid of the sanctions. It was very political. Very political."
Megrahi has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and may not live to see his second appeal. If he does live and his appeal succeeds, a new and independent international investigation—as has been called for by the U.N. observer to the Lockerbie trial—may commence. If it does, the investigators will return to the primary suspect of the first year and a half of the original investigation: a cell of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, whose bank account, according to a CIA officer involved in the investigation, received a transfer of $11 million two days after Lockerbie and whose leaders the investigators believed had been contracted by Iran to avenge America's inadvertent shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner carrying 290 passengers and crew.
Yet the more likely outcome is that Megrahi will die just before or after his second appeal and that with the closure of his death, like that of Libya's payments, most will forget that the Lockerbie case remains unsolved.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Lockerbie Trial is an Historic Miscarriage of Justice
This is the headline over another article by Hugh Miles, this time on The Cutting Edge website. It reads in part:
'Since the British Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
'For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September, he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
'The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various British intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. In November 2008, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January 2009.
'"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black Q.C., the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was June 27, 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."'
The full text can be read here.
'Since the British Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
'For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September, he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
'The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various British intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. In November 2008, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January 2009.
'"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black Q.C., the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was June 27, 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."'
The full text can be read here.
Lord Fraser's folly
This is the heading over a letter from David J Black (no relation) in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:
'Putting aside the fact that Lord Fraser is not, to the best of my knowledge, a qualified clinician, and so cannot possibly pronounce on the matter of whether a bereaved parent may, or may not, be exhibiting the characteristics of so-called "Stockholm syndrome" 20 years after the murder of a beloved daughter, some fundamental issues must surely arise about Lord Fraser's own motives and methods.
'It would appear that he is in receipt of information concerning Mr Al Megrahi's state of health, including a prognosis which indicates that he is expected to die in a few years, rather than a few months. It would be helpful to know who provided such sensitive information to him, since even a detained foreign national in this country has the right to expect a measure of confidentiality as far as his medical records are concerned, except where a court decides that some disclosure may be essential during legal proceedings.
'Some of us might have reason to consider Lord Fraser's comments in a wider perspective. As an invited witness at the Fraser inquiry into the catastrophic Holyrood building project, I was far from alone in being underwhelmed when his "no-one is to blame" report was published in 2004. Lord Fraser today suggests Dr Swire is "too close" to the Lockerbie disaster to have an objective opinion, and thus the "Stockholm syndrome" label is applied as an instrument of denigration. However, it seems to me that it was Lord Fraser who exhibited all the classic symptoms of that particular malaise as a result of being "too close" to those within the UK establishment who sought to minimise their exposure to the Holyrood scandal.
'Lord Fraser should be obliged to send a personal letter of apology to Dr Swire. This is unlikely to happen, of course. So much for the season of goodwill.'
'Putting aside the fact that Lord Fraser is not, to the best of my knowledge, a qualified clinician, and so cannot possibly pronounce on the matter of whether a bereaved parent may, or may not, be exhibiting the characteristics of so-called "Stockholm syndrome" 20 years after the murder of a beloved daughter, some fundamental issues must surely arise about Lord Fraser's own motives and methods.
'It would appear that he is in receipt of information concerning Mr Al Megrahi's state of health, including a prognosis which indicates that he is expected to die in a few years, rather than a few months. It would be helpful to know who provided such sensitive information to him, since even a detained foreign national in this country has the right to expect a measure of confidentiality as far as his medical records are concerned, except where a court decides that some disclosure may be essential during legal proceedings.
'Some of us might have reason to consider Lord Fraser's comments in a wider perspective. As an invited witness at the Fraser inquiry into the catastrophic Holyrood building project, I was far from alone in being underwhelmed when his "no-one is to blame" report was published in 2004. Lord Fraser today suggests Dr Swire is "too close" to the Lockerbie disaster to have an objective opinion, and thus the "Stockholm syndrome" label is applied as an instrument of denigration. However, it seems to me that it was Lord Fraser who exhibited all the classic symptoms of that particular malaise as a result of being "too close" to those within the UK establishment who sought to minimise their exposure to the Holyrood scandal.
'Lord Fraser should be obliged to send a personal letter of apology to Dr Swire. This is unlikely to happen, of course. So much for the season of goodwill.'
Monday, 29 December 2008
Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or "War by Other Means"
This is the title of the most recent post by Baz on The Masonic Verses blog. It provides a fascinating account of the geo-political background to the selection of Libya as fall-guy for the Lockerbie atrocity. The full text can be read here.
Friday, 26 December 2008
Another straw in the wind
"On Dec 21, 1988 -- almost exactly 20 years ago -- I was finishing my graduate work at Syracuse's Maxwell School in upstate New York. I was on duty at Hendricks Chapel when Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed by terrorists. It still brings me to a boil -- how I lost friends; how the press behaved that day; how the Libyans have managed to bribe their way into world acceptance -- as though any sum of money will bring back innocent lives. The worst part of it is there is a strong body of evidence suggesting Syria had a much larger role in the murders than the United States is prepared to acknowledge. For me and many others, flight 103 remains wholly unsolved. I cry for those murdered in the air and in Lockerbie, Scotland, on that tragic day. It all remains an open festering wound."
From an article by UPI international columnist, Marc S Ellenbogen. Yet another example of US news media beginning to appreciate the flimsiness of the "official" explanation of Lockerbie.
From an article by UPI international columnist, Marc S Ellenbogen. Yet another example of US news media beginning to appreciate the flimsiness of the "official" explanation of Lockerbie.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Courage amid grief and facing up to offensive remarks
This the headline over a long article by Nicola Barry in The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a wide circulation in the north of Scotland. The final sentence reads:
"Lord Fraser is a man who should be allowed to fade into the obscurity he so deserves."
Well said, Ms Barry! The full article can be read here.
"Lord Fraser is a man who should be allowed to fade into the obscurity he so deserves."
Well said, Ms Barry! The full article can be read here.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Reaction to Lord Fraser's "Stockholm syndrome" outburst
Today's edition of The Herald carries two letters critical of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's recent remarks about Dr Jim Swire suffering from Stockholm syndrome. They can be read here.
Monday, 22 December 2008
Questions Remain Unanswered Two Decades After Plane Bombing Over Lockerbie
This is the title of a long and interesting article on the CNS News website by their International Editor, Patrick Goodenough. It is particularly significant in that it comes from a United States news organization (indeed, one with clear conservative sympathies) and retails in some detail the very real concerns that exist about the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi and the thesis of Libyan responsibility for the Lockerbie disaster.
Terror and Tears
A one-hour special programme with this title was broadcast yesterday by Syracuse NY television station News10Now to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster, in which 35 students from Syracuse University were killed. The programme, presented by Bill Carey, can be viewed here.
New questions raised over Lockerbie bombing
Here is an excerpt from an article published in yesterday's edition of The Jerusalem Post:
'Megrahi, who has always denied involvement, lost an appeal against his conviction in 2002, and was only given leave to mount a second appeal in June 2007. A Scottish legal review commission found six potential grounds for a miscarriage of justice, including flaws in the process by which he was identified and, reportedly, the non-disclosure of a classified report on the timer purportedly used in the bomb. The commission referred the case back to the Scottish courts.
'The overturning of Megrahi's conviction could revive the bombing investigators' original theory, widely believed by many of those close to the case, that Lockerbie was not a Libyan plot at all, but was, rather, carried out by Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, on behalf of Iran.
'Among the leading figures who publicly voiced this assertion was then trade minister Ariel Sharon, who told a press conference in Madrid seven weeks after the bombing, "Israel believes it was Ahmed Jibril."
'The spokesman for the Lockerbie victims' families, the UN's observer on the case and the Scottish law professor who formulated the legal framework under which Megrahi was tried all said they were convinced the conviction will be overturned.'
'Megrahi, who has always denied involvement, lost an appeal against his conviction in 2002, and was only given leave to mount a second appeal in June 2007. A Scottish legal review commission found six potential grounds for a miscarriage of justice, including flaws in the process by which he was identified and, reportedly, the non-disclosure of a classified report on the timer purportedly used in the bomb. The commission referred the case back to the Scottish courts.
'The overturning of Megrahi's conviction could revive the bombing investigators' original theory, widely believed by many of those close to the case, that Lockerbie was not a Libyan plot at all, but was, rather, carried out by Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, on behalf of Iran.
'Among the leading figures who publicly voiced this assertion was then trade minister Ariel Sharon, who told a press conference in Madrid seven weeks after the bombing, "Israel believes it was Ahmed Jibril."
'The spokesman for the Lockerbie victims' families, the UN's observer on the case and the Scottish law professor who formulated the legal framework under which Megrahi was tried all said they were convinced the conviction will be overturned.'
Press coverage of 20th anniversary events
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Lockerbie: was it Iran? Syria? All I know is, it wasn't the man in prison
A lot of powerful people would be embarrassed if the truth, whatever it is, came out
Last week saw more than its share of stories about miscarriages of justice. But spare a thought this Christmas for the victim of the biggest miscarriage of justice in Scottish legal history, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 en route from London to New York, 20 years ago today. (...)
Megrahi's conviction was a shocker. No material evidence was presented linking him to the bombing, let alone any evidence that he put the bomb on the plane or that he handled any explosives. Even the prosecution subsequently questioned the credibility of its star witness.
Nevertheless, keen to move on, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing although it never accepted guilt. Gaddafi paid $2.7bn (£1.8bn) in compensation to the victims' families – $10m for every victim. The final payment was made this year. US lawyers took approximately a third of the final amount. But the economic and humanitarian price for Libya was far higher: UN sanctions over an 11-year period inflicted billions of dollars' worth of economic damage on Libya and prevented thousands of Libyan citizens from travelling abroad. (...)
Since the Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various UK intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. Last month, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January.
"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black QC, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was 27 June 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."
There are, however, two obstacles to the British plan. Firstly, the decision to transfer Megrahi lies with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. Upset that the Government reached an agreement over Megrahi without consulting him first, Mr Salmond has ruled out any transfer.
Secondly, whether Megrahi dies in jail in Scotland or Libya, under Scottish law his appeal can still go ahead without him. "Any interested person can continue the case. In this case one of Megrahi's children could continue with the appeal to clear their father's name," says Professor Black. (...)
The fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, however, and the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system rest in the hand of the Scottish courts. Megrahi's acquittal, posthumous or otherwise, will undo a heinous wrong and return us to where we were 20 years ago – searching for the truth behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
[From an article by Hugh Miles in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The full text can be read here.]
Last week saw more than its share of stories about miscarriages of justice. But spare a thought this Christmas for the victim of the biggest miscarriage of justice in Scottish legal history, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 en route from London to New York, 20 years ago today. (...)
Megrahi's conviction was a shocker. No material evidence was presented linking him to the bombing, let alone any evidence that he put the bomb on the plane or that he handled any explosives. Even the prosecution subsequently questioned the credibility of its star witness.
Nevertheless, keen to move on, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing although it never accepted guilt. Gaddafi paid $2.7bn (£1.8bn) in compensation to the victims' families – $10m for every victim. The final payment was made this year. US lawyers took approximately a third of the final amount. But the economic and humanitarian price for Libya was far higher: UN sanctions over an 11-year period inflicted billions of dollars' worth of economic damage on Libya and prevented thousands of Libyan citizens from travelling abroad. (...)
Since the Crown never had much of a case against Megrahi, it was no surprise when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.
For 11 years, while legal proceedings were pending and throughout the trial, the British Government argued that a public inquiry into Lockerbie was not appropriate as it would prejudice legal proceedings. After the conviction, it switched tack, arguing instead that no public inquiry was necessary. But if the conviction were overturned, there would no longer be a reason to hold back. For Megrahi, this cannot come soon enough. In September he was diagnosed with advanced terminal prostate cancer.
The British Government is preparing for Megrahi to be transferred to Libya for the rest of his sentence. This would eliminate the risk of an acquittal and lessen the chance of a subsequent inquiry. Applications for a transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, which for the Government raises the convenient prospect that Megrahi will abandon his appeal so he can die at home. But letting Megrahi die a condemned man reduces the chance of Scottish prosecutors, the police, various UK intelligence services plus many American and other foreign bodies being asked a lot of difficult questions. Last month, a general agreement on the exchange of prisoners was signed between Libya and Britain paving the way for such a transfer. The agreement will be ratified in January.
"The Crown and the prosecution are using every delaying tactic in the book to close off every route available to Megrahi except prisoner transfer, as this means he has to abandon his appeal," commented Professor Robert Black QC, the Scottish lawyer who was the architect of the original trial who feels partly responsible for the miscarriage that occurred. "It is an absolute disgrace. It was 27 June 2007 when the SCCRC released its report and sent its case back to the criminal appeal court, and here we are 18 months later and the Crown has still not handed over all of the material that the law requires it to hand over and it is still making every objection conceivable."
There are, however, two obstacles to the British plan. Firstly, the decision to transfer Megrahi lies with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. Upset that the Government reached an agreement over Megrahi without consulting him first, Mr Salmond has ruled out any transfer.
Secondly, whether Megrahi dies in jail in Scotland or Libya, under Scottish law his appeal can still go ahead without him. "Any interested person can continue the case. In this case one of Megrahi's children could continue with the appeal to clear their father's name," says Professor Black. (...)
The fate of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, however, and the tarnished reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system rest in the hand of the Scottish courts. Megrahi's acquittal, posthumous or otherwise, will undo a heinous wrong and return us to where we were 20 years ago – searching for the truth behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
[From an article by Hugh Miles in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The full text can be read here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)