Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence

A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.

The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.

The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)

Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.

Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.

Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.

Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.

But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.

But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.

Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”

Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.

Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.

Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.

In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.

The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)

Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.

In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.

Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.

New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.

Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.

The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.

[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]

Eleventh procedural hearing: day three

As far as I can discover, the only newspaper that provides a report on the third day of the procedural hearing is The Herald. The following are excerpts:

'The Crown yesterday insisted further investigations over undisclosed documents relating to the key witness in the Lockerbie trial, to be carried out ahead of an appeal into the case, were "unnecessary".

'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, this week began a challenge to demand undisclosed material they believe will help free their terminally ill client at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

'The Crown Office and the Advocate General are opposing this, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist. (...)

'Ronnie Clancy, QC, advocate-depute acting for the Crown, said searches had already been undertaken voluntarily by police since the defence's move was launched last year and referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's three-year investigation into the case.

'He argued the SCCCR's investigation - which referred Megrahi for a fresh appeal - was sufficient. (...)

'A delegation from the Crown Office is also to travel to Malta and "one of the tasks in hand is to actively seek consent for disclosure" of documents.

'It will also approach other foreign sources as some material could have security issues in their own jurisdiction should it be made public.

'Mr Clancy said an answer will be sought within 28 days and the defence team given the 170 documents or reasons why they should not be disclosed. (...)

'He also said the wide scope of the information sought was restrictive and said it indicated the call for disclosure was a "grand fishing expedition".

'Elements of the broad scope search could be narrowed down, Ms Scott suggested.

'She added: "What has taken place in terms of this voluntary exercise is not a proper search at all."

'Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie will give their decision at a later date. Megrahi's appeal is due to start on April 27.'

Eleventh procedural hearing: day two

Three newspapers have today published reports on the second day's proceedings in the current procedural hearing in which Mr Megrahi's legal team is seeking disclosure of documents which the Crown claims either do not exist or are not disclosable.

The report in The Times can be read here; that in The Herald here; and that in the Glasgow Evening Times here.

At the end of the third day of submissions today (Friday, 20 February) the court made avizandum, ie announced that it would take time to consider and prepare its judgment on the issues raised. If tomorrow's newspapers report on the submissions made during the third day's proceedings, I shall provide links on this blog.

Crown fights to keep 48 pieces of Lockerbie trial evidence secret

This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald, reporting on the (eleventh) procedural hearing in Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal held yesterday. The article reads in part:

'Prosecutors are trying to keep secret 48 pieces of evidence relating to the Lockerbie trial, including a secret fax that could discredit a key Crown witness.

'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 bombing, yesterday began a challenge over material they believe will free their terminally ill client.

'But the Crown Office and the UK Advocate General are fighting against disclosure, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist.

'The Herald can today reveal that the first item on the list is a fax which, the Libyan's defence team claims, places a fundamental question mark against the original trial testimony of Tony Gauci, who sold clothes later found in the wreckage of PanAm 103 at Lockerbie.

'Judges at Camp Zeist were told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989, while the fax at the centre of yesterday's proceedings is allegedly dated six days earlier.

'Megrahi's team believes that confusion and disparity further compromises the integrity of a man described as an "important witness" at the trial. (...)

'Another previously unseen fax from the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) or committee, which was set up after Lockerbie to investigate the case and included representatives from Scottish forces and the security services, refers to a meeting between Mr Gauci and FBI agents when Scottish police were not present. However, no record or statement has been shared with the defence.

'Another JIG fax referred to yesterday indicates that there are other missing statements in relation to Mr Gauci, saying he saw the key clothes purchaser the day afterwards, and identified him as someone other than Megrahi.

'That document refers to concerns among the Scottish police at the time that "the witness was trying to please them".

'The defence also claims that the Crown pre-trial precognition of Mr Gauci was missing and was only recently discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defence is also seeking "undisclosed information about discussion of reward money".

'This is thought to relate to undisclosed discussions that Mr Gauci and his brother, Paul, could be influenced by the rumour of financial remuneration.

'Ms [Maggie] Scott [QC for Megrahi] warned that there was a "reasonable" or "real" possibility that the Crown's failure to hand over the material could constitute a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to a person's right to a fair trial.

'She explained that, in its written responses to the defence, the Crown had argued that in some cases the calls for information were too wide, in others that the information does not exist and/or that it is not relevant. The hearing continues until at least tomorrow.'

In the course of her submissions to the court Ms Scott referred to the "wholesale opposition" by the Crown to the defence team's requests for disclosure.

In an accompanying article, Lucy Adams writes:

'The trial and world's media was told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989. However, new evidence yesterday revealed that it actually took place on September 8, yet no record of this meeting or what it uncovered has been shared with the defence team.

'A new document unearthed during the three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and not previously discussed in public, alerted commission members and defence lawyers to the fact this photoshow had taken place.

'Maggie Scott, Megrahi's QC, said yesterday: "This is part of the history of what happened, which goes to the centre of the reliability of evidence."

'Ms Scott said: "No further information in relation to this photoshow has been disclosed. All we know is that is that he does not make a positive identification but that there is a reference to hairstyles and features.

'"The whole process of selection is important and that is why this background history is so necessary."

'She also revealed that the commission's report said it was a "matter of some concern" that a police statement about the September 8 event had never been recorded.

'Despite the inconsistencies in his 19 statements to the police, even the appeal court described Mr Gauci as reliable.

'However, the commission found that just four days before an ID parade at which he picked out Megrahi, Mr Gauci saw a photograph of the Libyan in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.'

Lockerbie Fears

Relatives of the victims of an airliner Libyan terrorists blew up over Scotland 20 years ago are appealing to British Ambassador Nigel Sheinwald for information on any secret talks to release the convicted mastermind of the attack to Libya.

"I have a great fear that your government may revisit promises made concerning the transfer of the convicted bomber back to Libya," Francis J. Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, said in a letter to Mr. Sheinwald on Friday.

Mr. Duggan said he is concerned by newspaper reports that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi might be included in a treaty between Britain and Libya to transfer other Libyan prisoners held in British jails to Libya. The treaty is expected to be considered by the British Parliament in April.

Mr. Duggan, a Washington lawyer, said he has been unable to "determine, from a reading of the treaty, whether al-Megrahi was specifically considered during the negotiations leading up to the agreement."

"There were many British citizens killed on Dec. 21, 1988, and relatives of those passengers on Pan Am 103 were assured that the proposed treaty did not cover the Lockerbie bomber," Mr. Duggan said, adding that American relatives of the victims are also petitioning the U.S. government to block any transfer of Megrahi to Libya.

[From the Embassy Row column of today's edition of The Washington Times. The full article can be read here.]

FBI Lab in Serious Trouble

This is the headline over Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's most recent article in OhMyNews International. The article reads in part:

'In a few days, the National Academy of Sciences will release a report regarding forensic science in the US in general. The report takes a special look at the FBI forensic laboratories.

'Scientists who worked on the report allege that the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department, tried repeatedly to block its release. Senator Shelby accuses the National Institute of Justice of having attempted to influence the panel.

'According to people who have seen the current draft, the document is "a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting."

'The report suggests that that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the forensic analyses.

'It states that the Bureau forensic lab relies on untested theories conducted by poorly trained technicians who have no training in sciences and statistics. (...)

'The author can now announce that the technical report regarding the bomb that exploded on board of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie is seriously flawed. Once corrections are made, a spectacular conclusion follows. The Lockerbie verdict is scientifically impossible. A summary of this new report, which was reviewed by top experts in the field, will be soon made available to our readers.'

The FCO and public interest immunity

‘The Foreign Office (FCO) solicited the letter from the US State Department that forced British judges to block the disclosure of CIA files documenting the torture of a British resident held in Guantánamo Bay, The Observer can reveal.

‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.

‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)

‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."

‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’

The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.

The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.

"Highly-sensitive negotiations"?

I have just discovered an article in The Scotsman on 11 February 2009 by Ross Lydall regarding Scottish Questions in the House of Commons. The issue that he raises is whether, given there is now a devolved Scottish Government and Parliament, there is any point in having a UK Parliament session of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland when he no longer has ministerial responsibility for anything other than such few topics as remain undevolved. In the course of this article, the following sentence appears:

"Similarly, the highly-sensitive negotiations involving the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, and those who stood trial in London in connection with the Glasgow Airport attack, would have involved oversight by Scotland Office officials."

I do not know what "highly-sensitive negotiations" Mr Lydall is referring to. If he is alluding to the contacts that have taken place regarding a possible transfer of Abdelbaset Megrahi to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence, I know that on the British side those involved have been the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (responsible for the undevolved topic of foreign relations) and the Scottish Government Justice Department (responsible for the devolved topic of prisoner transfer in respect of persons in Scottish prisons). It would surprise me greatly if the Scotland Office, which has absolutely no relevant ministerial responsibility, had been involved in those contacts.

'Lockerbie Witnesses Were Paid'

This is the headline over a new article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International. It reads in part:

'In recent times, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments offered to key witnesses of the Lockerbie trial.

'Specifically, there have been rumors that Majid Giaka, Paul and Tony Gauci were each paid about US$4 million for their help in the conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. (...)

'Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the Lockerbie investigation, forcefully denied that witnesses were ever offered any money.

'"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone--including the CIA," Marquise told OhmyNews. "This issue came up at trial and I spoke with the defense lawyers about it in Edinburgh in 1999 -- before trial. No one was promised or even told that they could get money for saying anything. Every FBI agent was under specific orders not to mention money to any potential witness." (...)

'A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Jeff Stein, the national security editor of the Congressional Quarterly, that a key witness, Tony Gauci, and his brother were each paid somewhere between $3 million to $4 million for providing information leading to the conviction of Megrahi.

'Moreover, former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf confirmed to OhmyNews that rewards were paid in the context of the Lockerbie trial.

'"I knew that rewards payments were made, but not the amount. The Awards for Terrorism Information program has been around since the 1980s, and has been expanded to rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of international indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic. When I worked at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the State Department I was involved in the program," Scharf wrote in an email to OhmyNews. (...)

'Prof Black, often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agrees. "The issue of payments made or promised to witnesses forms an important part of the Grounds of Appeal," Black told the author.

'"At one time in Scotland, if payment had been made, or promised, to a witness that was an absolute bar to his giving evidence. Today, it is simply a factor that must be taken into account in assessing his credibility. However, in order for this to be done, it is necessary that the court should know that the payment was made or promised. Failure by the Crown to disclose the promise or the payment is a serious breach of their duty to the court and to the administration of justice," Black said.'

Looking for Lockerbie (cont'd)

On 24 January, I mentioned on the blog a new book with this title: see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/01/looking-for-lockerbie.html. A lengthy and very interesting article about the book appears today in the Daily Record.

Logarbaidh: ceartas Lagh na h-Alba no dìoghaltas Ameireaga?

This is the title of a long article by Seon C Caimbeul in Gaelic about Lockerbie in today's issue of The Scotsman. As a Lowland Scot, I do not, I'm afraid, speak or read Gaelic. If any kind, Gaelic-speaking reader provides me with a translation or a summary, I'll be delighted to post it on this blog.

Truth and justice mean more than national security

[The following letter from Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga died aboard Pan Am 103, appears in today's edition of The Herald.]

The Herald is to be congratulated on its excellent coverage of the comments made in London by Their Lordships Thomas and Lloyd Jones in their written ruling concerning "threats" to "national security" were they to publish a summary of alleged torture of a suspect detained at Guantanamo Bay ("MP demands truth on UK torture claim", and Leader, The Herald, February 5).

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has commented at some length (and with obvious discomfort) on the "intelligence relationship" and the "real risk" posed by the disclosure of terror-related intelligence in the public arena. This is not a new ploy but one being increasingly used by western politicians to hide embarrassing and unpalatable truths.

As a member of UK Families Flight 103 (the British Lockerbie victims families support group) I attended all but 12 days of the 10-month Lockerbie trial in Zeist and the subsequent first appeal. More recently, during the initial stages of the second appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, allegedly "significant information" which, in the submission of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission could significantly affect the verdict has been deliberately withheld from the defence and thereby the public by virtue of the fact that (being the subject of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate signed by Mr Miliband) it may not be revealed in open court because it "might jeopardise UK security".

The main guarantees of justice in both England and Scotland are (a) the independence of the judiciary to be free and unrestrained by "political" inducements, threats or considerations and (b) a free press allowed to report and comment on what is said within the court confines.

So, we currently have two cases (in England and Scotland) where the full and impartial administration of justice is being actively obstructed and inhibited by political considerations said to be on the basis of national security. The European Convention on Human Rights requires that any accused should enjoy "equality of arms" and both English and Scottish law require that "justice shall be done and be seen to be done". That all now seems to be subject to any dubious and unexplorable claim that it is "not in the interests of national security"

In the first century the satirist Juvenal asked: "Who will guard the guards themselves?" Now we find that in two separate jurisdictions the Foreign Secretary and person or persons unknown are trying to obstruct or inhibit the fair and impartial conduct of two very major cases.

When is truth and justice going to become more important than vested geopolitical interests?

Proposed amendment to speed Lockerbie appeal verdict

Professor Robert Black, an expert in Scots law, has written an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which would allow the judges to make a judgment after hearing just one part of the appeal.

Alex Neil, SNP MSP for Central Scotland, has offered to table the amendment and speak to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, about the issue. (...)

The appeal, due to begin on April 27, is expected to last for more than a year and because of its complexity will be broken down into separate subject chapters with a gap of some four weeks between each.

Mr Black hopes the amendment would mean judges could release Megrahi after just two or three "chapters" rather than waiting until the summer of 2010 for a decision.

Mr Black said: "If the court is satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice after just two chapters, why not decide it there and then?

"As far as I am aware this is the first time in Scotland an appeal has been broken down like this into such specific, separate chapters. Once they have heard enough, I want them to be able to say they quash the conviction and release Megrahi to allow him to die as a free man.

"To ensure the rest of the evidence cannot then be swept under the carpet, I would want them to hear the rest of the chapters in open court afterwards."

[From an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full article can be read here.]

The complete text of the proposed amendment, along with an explanatory memorandum is as follows:

New section to be inserted into Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46)

Staged Appeals
(1) Where an appeal is heard in stages with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each stage and there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next, the court, if the appellant at or before the end of any stage requests, shall
(a) give judgement on such grounds of appeal as have been argued, and
(b) exercise such of its powers under section 118(1) as it deems appropriate
before the commencement of argument on the grounds of appeal allocated to the succeeding stage.

(2) Where the interval between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next is less than four weeks, the court may, if it thinks fit and the appellant requests, exercise the powers conferred in subsection (1).

(3) Where the court exercises the power conferred in subsection (1) or subsection (2), it shall continue to hear and shall give judgement upon the grounds of appeal allocated to the remaining stages of the appeal unless the appellant intimates his abandonment thereof.

(4) Where, in respect of each individual stage, the court has disposed of the grounds of appeal allocated thereto by affirming the verdict of the trial court, the court shall, at the conclusion of the appeal, consider whether, having regard to the whole grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings in which the appellant was convicted.

(5) This section shall apply to appeals already before the court.

Explanatory Memorandum

1. In criminal appeals it is the normal practice for all of the grounds of appeal to be argued at a single diet extending over as many days as are required for the submissions of the appellant and the Crown to be heard. Judgement is then delivered by the Appeal Court, either immediately or after taking time -- whether days or weeks -- to consider. If an adjournment is for any reason required before the arguments are concluded, it is normally short and, on recommencement of the hearing, the arguments resume where they had left off.

2. In long and complex criminal appeals, it is competent for the Appeal Court to order that the appeal be heard in sections or stages, with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each individual stage, and with an interval of weeks or months between those stages. This has been done in relation to Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal. The purpose of this amendment of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46) is to secure that the Appeal Court has power in such cases to deliver judgement at the end of each individual stage on the grounds of appeal argued in the course of that stage.

3. Subsection (1) provides that where there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of one stage and the beginning of the next, the Appeal Court must give judgement on the grounds of appeal argued in the first stage before the second stage commences, if the appellant has made a request to that effect at or before the end of the first stage. Subsection (2) provides that where the interval is less than four weeks, the Appeal Court may at its discretion give judgement on those grounds of appeal where the appellant has so requested.

4. Subsection (3) provides that the Appeal Court shall continue to hear the remaining stages of the appeal even if the court has delivered judgement quashing the appellant’s conviction after the conclusion of a prior stage. This is subject to the power of the appellant to abandon the grounds of appeal allocated to all or any of the remaining stages.

5. Subsection (4) provides that where the Appeal Court has given judgement at the end of each stage rejecting all of the grounds of appeal allocated to that stage, the court must nevertheless at the end of the final stage consider whether, having regard to the cumulative effect of the submissions on all of the grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose.

6. Subsection (5) provides that the powers conferred shall apply to appeals which have already been lodged in court at the date of passing of the section.

[Briefing note: It is rumoured that the various stages in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal, which is scheduled to begin on 28 April 2009, may not be concluded until well into 2010. Mr Megrahi is terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer. The purpose of this piece of law reform is to make it possible for his conviction to be quashed without his having to wait until after all the separate stages of his appeal have been concluded for the court to deliver judgement. This will maximise his chances of seeing his name cleared before he succumbs to his disease.]

Break in service

For the next few days I shall be at Gannaga Lodge, where there is no internet connection. Any Lockerbie developments will be taken account of when I return to Middelpos, probably on Friday 6th.

Mum of shot WPC calls for Megrahi swap

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

The mother of Yvonne Fletcher, the policewoman shot dead outside the Libyan embassy in London almost 25 years ago, has urged the British government to allow the Lockerbie bomber to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya.

Queenie Fletcher, 75, said it would be right for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to be allowed to return home. (...)

“I know he is ill and I think he should be returned to a prison in Libya so his family can visit him,” said Fletcher.

“The appeal could still go ahead in Scotland, but he could stay in prison in Libya.

“It’s got to be a fair exchange, so Yvonne’s case can be closed. I’d like the police here to be given permission to interview whoever they’ve got to interview in Libya and see whoever they need to for someone to be brought to trial.” (...)

Megrahi lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002. However, in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court after deciding that his conviction was not safe. A bail application was refused last year despite claims by Megrahi’s defence team that he did not have long to live. The court ruled that he did not meet the requirement of having less than three months to live.

Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “I can’t say anything about [Queenie Fletcher's] request in terms of allowing detectives access to Libya. But in relation to her comments about my client being allowed to return to Libya, this is a testament to Mrs Fletcher’s humanity and compassion.”

[The full article can be read here. Two points of clarification: 1. A transfer of Megrahi back to Libya could not in law take place unless he abandoned his present appeal. He cannot be repatriated and the appeal continue (see the immediately preceding post). 2. For bail to be granted by the court pending an appeal, there is no legal requirement that the appellant have less than three months to live. That is a rule of practice, not of law, that is applied where a prisoner applies to the Scottish Government for release on compassionate grounds. If Megrahi were to be granted bail by the court, or compassionate release by the Scottish Government, his appeal could continue and he could live with his family in Scotland during the appeal proceedings.]