[The following is from today's edition of The Guardian. The complete article can be read here.]
The key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial was coached and steered by Scottish detectives into wrongly identifying a Libyan sanctions buster as the bomber, his appeal lawyers claim.
Lawyers acting for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will tell an appeal court that Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, was interviewed 23 times by Scottish police before giving the evidence that finally led to Megrahi's conviction for the bombing in 1991 (sic; the correct year is 2001). (...)
The first stage of the Libyan's lengthy appeal, which may take until next year to complete, will focus on his claims that the original trial judges were wrong in law to convict him and wrong to discard crucial evidence which undermined their guilty verdict.
Gauci identified Megrahi as the purchaser of clothes at his shop on Malta which were later allegedly packed in the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. But the Libyan's lawyers will claim there is now substantial evidence undermining the credibility of Gauci's testimony.
Megrahi's lawyers now believe Gauci received a "substantial" reward from the US government after his conviction thought to be as much as $2m - a payment not disclosed at the trial. The case against Megrahi hinges on Gauci's claim that the clothes allegedly packed into the suitcase bomb were bought on 7 December - the only day when Megrahi was in the area. Megrahi's lawyers say they can now prove they were bought up to two weeks before then, when the Libyan was not in the country.
Megrahi's lawyers will claim that in nearly two dozen formal police interviews, Gauci gave contradictory dates of purchase, changed his account of the sale, and on one occasion appeared to identify the Palestinian terrorist leader Abu Talb as the purchaser. Gauci's evidence is made unreliable by "undisputed factors", the appeal court will hear. They include an "extraordinary" delay in Gauci recalling the events of December 1988 and naming Megrahi; the "extraordinary amount of post-event suggestion to which the witness was subjected"; and his exposure to photos of Megrahi.
The appeal, which Megrahi is expected to watch live on a video link from Greenock prison near Glasgow, is being contested by the Scottish prosecution service, and the British government.
[The following are excerpts from today's edition of The Scotsman. The complete article can be read here.]
Megrahi, 57, who was diagnosed with cancer last year, has just completed ten years in custody for the bombing and it could be nearer 11 years before the appeal is fully determined.
It is almost two years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there were grounds for believing Megrahi's conviction might be a miscarriage of justice.
Preliminary disputes, over such issues as public interest immunity and the scope of the appeal, have dogged attempts to arrange an early hearing for the case in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
The first hearing, which is scheduled to last four weeks, will concentrate on an area for which preparatory work has been completed – that the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi at his trial was not supported by the evidence – and, were the plea to succeed, it would be enough for the conviction to be overturned and for Megrahi to be freed.
However, some observers believe this part of the appeal is far from Megrahi's strongest argument, and that other areas will require to be pursued, explaining why work is continuing.
A source said: "Three judges at the trial decided there was enough evidence to convict Megrahi and five judges said the same thing at his first appeal. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome, and while there's nothing to be lost in having another go, you can't imagine five different judges this time being easily persuaded.
[Note by RB: The five judges in Megrahi's first appeal did not say that there was enough evidence to convict him. Megrahi's then lawyer, Bill Taylor QC, specifically stated to the court that that appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence in law; and the appeal judges made it clear in their written opinion that (a) the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to convict, as well as (b) the issue of whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on that evidence, were not issues which they had considered in reaching their decision to sustain the conviction.]
"So, in theory, Megrahi could win this first point and be on his way back to Libya by the end of the summer, but it seems much more likely that the other grounds of appeal will have to be heard, and that will take us months further down the line, to have them heard and for the judges to go away and think about them and then announce their decision."
Megrahi will not attend the hearing, but will follow the proceedings by a closed circuit television link between the court and Greenock Prison.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Sunday, 26 April 2009
New witness casts doubt on Lockerbie bomb conviction
[The following are excerpts from an article under this headline in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The full article can be read here.]
A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim. (...)
[Note by RB: In the first session of the appeal, which starts on Tuesday and runs until 22 May, there will be no new witnesses, just legal argument. Any new witnesses, if the Appeal Court allows them to be heard -- and the rules about fresh evidence in appeals are very restrictive -- will only feature in later sessions.]
Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.
"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."
Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.
Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.
The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".
All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.
Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.
"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."
A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim. (...)
[Note by RB: In the first session of the appeal, which starts on Tuesday and runs until 22 May, there will be no new witnesses, just legal argument. Any new witnesses, if the Appeal Court allows them to be heard -- and the rules about fresh evidence in appeals are very restrictive -- will only feature in later sessions.]
Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.
"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."
Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.
Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.
The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".
All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.
Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.
"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."
Friday, 24 April 2009
The Dutch TV documentary and reactions
[The Herald's report on the film shown last night in the Scottish Parliament can be read here. A letter from Dr Jim Swire in the same newspaper can be read here. The following are two accounts of the film from persons who attended the showing, and to whom I am extremely grateful.]
1. From Dr Swire
I saw the film last night in the Scottish Parliament. Lord Fraser, Stuart Henderson, Richard Marquise, Fred Whitehurst, Tom Thurman, Prof Hans Koechler and Robert Baer all made contributions in it.
The subject was the famous 'timer circuit board fragment', called PT35B in the court records.
There was evidence of widespread confusion over what was supposed to have been the way in which PT35B was handled, some claimed it had been to the USA others that it had not. The impression was that at least some of these were trying to contribute to a story the truth of which they did not want us to know.
Their stories could not all be true, for they differ widely.
'Oh what a complex web we weave when first we practice to deceive'
For me Robert Baer of the CIA was the most significant. His view was basically that of course it was a Iranian/Syrian job, but that even the USA (and therefore the UK) could not confront Iran militarily over it. That would, without question, have been to strangle the straits of Hormuz and therefore US oil supplies for a start. That sounds common sense to me.
The interviewer of these men was Gideon Levy himself [the film-maker], who showed great skill in extracting a maximum of information from them.
There was one criticism and that was that the film did show the famous picture of a tiny piece of circuit board on someone's finger tip. This is a picture of a shattered piece from a domestic cct board such as a tape recorder. It carried the codes of the former components printed in white on the fragment which appeared to have been of 'Paxolin' (mid brown) and bore no resemblance to a piece of fibre-glass board.
Use of this image will cause some confusion and allow the critics to get their knives in.
Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.
I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.
There is also said to be evidence that PT35B was never tested prior to the trial, for explosives residues, but that this has now been done and shown no trace of such residues.
Incredibly one contributor to the film claimed that the failure to do this was ' for reasons of economy'. Can you believe it? PT35B was only the most important forensic item in the entire 'evidence' armoury.
2. From an interested observer
Although the film obviously had the approval of all (or most?) of those present, my own feeling is that it required the audience to already know something – of course it did the usual intro.
Around 18:05, Christine Grahame (MSP) introduced one or two of the better known names. Then hands over to Gideon Levy who introduces his film – played, I think, from his laptop to a beamer (not the BMW variety). His preamble is simply to say we will see conflicting statement between CIA and Scottish authorities.
*Film starts
*Initially just various quotes for effect, giving cause to doubt the verdict. And then showing that he has been to a ceremony for the 20th anniversary at Arlington.
*In charge of the investigation were Marquise (FBI) and Stewart Henderson, Scottish Police.
*Interview with Hans Köchler and a review of his opinion; why one guilty verdict and one not guilty? Initial indictment based on conspiracy, so how could it change?
*Interview with Ian Ferguson [co-author of Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie] (who turns up at other times in film).
*Chopping of interviews with Bob Baer (ex CIA), Fred Whitehurst (FBI), and Marquise and Lord Fraser; he (Levy) required of all his interviewees a handshake on their saying that they’d tell him the truth. They all agreed (although one of them – possibly Marquise, can’t remember – did reserve the right not to answer a question).
*Fraser says his successors (4 or 5 of different parties) could have stopped the proceeding
*Marquise shown Bob Baer saying he had been a bomb maker for the CIA. He (BB) found it very unlikely that anyone would have a bomb transferred from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow and onwards.
*BB mentions PFLP-GC (on behalf of Iran) being responsible after the USS Vincennes/Iran Air
*Why was the agent Khreesat released back to Jordan by the German BKA; Fraser said K was double agent of PFLP and CIA; Marquise suggested double agent of PFLP and Jordan spying agency.
*Ferguson (on film) now says there was a change of focus in the investigation because the U.S. was somehow involved.
*A video is shown of Gaddafi (we have to rely on subtitles naturally) saying U.S. companies have had to pay to get back in to Libya – the same amount as Libya has paid out to relatives of victims.
*Marquise says no money paid to witnesses prior to the trial; does not answer regarding after the trial.
*Fraser says he gave instructions, there should be no money to be paid to witnesses; admits he was conscious of the effects if discovered afterwards.
*Tom Thurman explains his analysis of the circuit chip which he found – it is pointed out by Gideon Levy that T.T’s degree is in political science.
*Whitehurst says that Thurman altered his (W.’s) reports. W. also asks why the chip was given to the FBI when the Brits should have experts to look at it. (Fraser denies knowing chip was ever in USA). W. claims it is Thurman’s finger behind the chip fragment in the photo ‘going the rounds’ – later in film, TT seems to agree, or at least lets the comment of Levy go without any complaint. Marquise says it was brought to the U.S. – Fraser is seen raising his eyebrows!
*Ferguson asks why fragment not tested for explosive residue – talk of cost, but various people waffle (sorry can’t really explain what was going on here, except that people could not really believe cost was a factor).
*Fraser states that he was never satisfied with the investigation that went into the PFLP-GC – should have been pushed further to show that they were not involved.
*Thurman denies that he was thrown out of his job, he retired voluntarily; his opinion regarding the fragment was verified in England.
*Marquise acknowledges “People don’t trust government”
*Then Marquise at Arlington (in company of Henderson) says the fragment was never in the U.S., but the circuit board was in the U.S. (yes, I am confused – perhaps he was talking of an example of such a circuit board). Henderson confirms fragment never left the U.K. Henderson says loudly in walking away ‘culprit is in custody’.
*Film ends, but Levy now adds that he received a letter from Marquise after the shooting while the film was being completed to say that (effectively) to clarify the interview he had given, he agrees that the fragment did come to Washington but under the control of Faraday of the U.K.
After the film, the two MSPs Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald lead the ‘discussion’ – not much is actually discussed – mostly just points people want to draw attention to. Dr Swire speaks first on the film, and then to the question of the break-in at Heathrow the night before the crash. Asks why there were no restrictions on flights because of that breach of security. Also wanted to know why details of the break-in only became public knowledge (or at least available to defence) very late. Prof John Grant gives his opinion and is asked a couple of legal questions by one of the MSPs. Swire also asks Grant about the break-in and whether it can still be used in argument. Grant wants to know why Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have not published their reasons – says they do publish a couple of wishy-washy (my words) paragraphs, but no detail.
1. From Dr Swire
I saw the film last night in the Scottish Parliament. Lord Fraser, Stuart Henderson, Richard Marquise, Fred Whitehurst, Tom Thurman, Prof Hans Koechler and Robert Baer all made contributions in it.
The subject was the famous 'timer circuit board fragment', called PT35B in the court records.
There was evidence of widespread confusion over what was supposed to have been the way in which PT35B was handled, some claimed it had been to the USA others that it had not. The impression was that at least some of these were trying to contribute to a story the truth of which they did not want us to know.
Their stories could not all be true, for they differ widely.
'Oh what a complex web we weave when first we practice to deceive'
For me Robert Baer of the CIA was the most significant. His view was basically that of course it was a Iranian/Syrian job, but that even the USA (and therefore the UK) could not confront Iran militarily over it. That would, without question, have been to strangle the straits of Hormuz and therefore US oil supplies for a start. That sounds common sense to me.
The interviewer of these men was Gideon Levy himself [the film-maker], who showed great skill in extracting a maximum of information from them.
There was one criticism and that was that the film did show the famous picture of a tiny piece of circuit board on someone's finger tip. This is a picture of a shattered piece from a domestic cct board such as a tape recorder. It carried the codes of the former components printed in white on the fragment which appeared to have been of 'Paxolin' (mid brown) and bore no resemblance to a piece of fibre-glass board.
Use of this image will cause some confusion and allow the critics to get their knives in.
Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.
I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.
There is also said to be evidence that PT35B was never tested prior to the trial, for explosives residues, but that this has now been done and shown no trace of such residues.
Incredibly one contributor to the film claimed that the failure to do this was ' for reasons of economy'. Can you believe it? PT35B was only the most important forensic item in the entire 'evidence' armoury.
2. From an interested observer
Although the film obviously had the approval of all (or most?) of those present, my own feeling is that it required the audience to already know something – of course it did the usual intro.
Around 18:05, Christine Grahame (MSP) introduced one or two of the better known names. Then hands over to Gideon Levy who introduces his film – played, I think, from his laptop to a beamer (not the BMW variety). His preamble is simply to say we will see conflicting statement between CIA and Scottish authorities.
*Film starts
*Initially just various quotes for effect, giving cause to doubt the verdict. And then showing that he has been to a ceremony for the 20th anniversary at Arlington.
*In charge of the investigation were Marquise (FBI) and Stewart Henderson, Scottish Police.
*Interview with Hans Köchler and a review of his opinion; why one guilty verdict and one not guilty? Initial indictment based on conspiracy, so how could it change?
*Interview with Ian Ferguson [co-author of Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie] (who turns up at other times in film).
*Chopping of interviews with Bob Baer (ex CIA), Fred Whitehurst (FBI), and Marquise and Lord Fraser; he (Levy) required of all his interviewees a handshake on their saying that they’d tell him the truth. They all agreed (although one of them – possibly Marquise, can’t remember – did reserve the right not to answer a question).
*Fraser says his successors (4 or 5 of different parties) could have stopped the proceeding
*Marquise shown Bob Baer saying he had been a bomb maker for the CIA. He (BB) found it very unlikely that anyone would have a bomb transferred from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow and onwards.
*BB mentions PFLP-GC (on behalf of Iran) being responsible after the USS Vincennes/Iran Air
*Why was the agent Khreesat released back to Jordan by the German BKA; Fraser said K was double agent of PFLP and CIA; Marquise suggested double agent of PFLP and Jordan spying agency.
*Ferguson (on film) now says there was a change of focus in the investigation because the U.S. was somehow involved.
*A video is shown of Gaddafi (we have to rely on subtitles naturally) saying U.S. companies have had to pay to get back in to Libya – the same amount as Libya has paid out to relatives of victims.
*Marquise says no money paid to witnesses prior to the trial; does not answer regarding after the trial.
*Fraser says he gave instructions, there should be no money to be paid to witnesses; admits he was conscious of the effects if discovered afterwards.
*Tom Thurman explains his analysis of the circuit chip which he found – it is pointed out by Gideon Levy that T.T’s degree is in political science.
*Whitehurst says that Thurman altered his (W.’s) reports. W. also asks why the chip was given to the FBI when the Brits should have experts to look at it. (Fraser denies knowing chip was ever in USA). W. claims it is Thurman’s finger behind the chip fragment in the photo ‘going the rounds’ – later in film, TT seems to agree, or at least lets the comment of Levy go without any complaint. Marquise says it was brought to the U.S. – Fraser is seen raising his eyebrows!
*Ferguson asks why fragment not tested for explosive residue – talk of cost, but various people waffle (sorry can’t really explain what was going on here, except that people could not really believe cost was a factor).
*Fraser states that he was never satisfied with the investigation that went into the PFLP-GC – should have been pushed further to show that they were not involved.
*Thurman denies that he was thrown out of his job, he retired voluntarily; his opinion regarding the fragment was verified in England.
*Marquise acknowledges “People don’t trust government”
*Then Marquise at Arlington (in company of Henderson) says the fragment was never in the U.S., but the circuit board was in the U.S. (yes, I am confused – perhaps he was talking of an example of such a circuit board). Henderson confirms fragment never left the U.K. Henderson says loudly in walking away ‘culprit is in custody’.
*Film ends, but Levy now adds that he received a letter from Marquise after the shooting while the film was being completed to say that (effectively) to clarify the interview he had given, he agrees that the fragment did come to Washington but under the control of Faraday of the U.K.
After the film, the two MSPs Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald lead the ‘discussion’ – not much is actually discussed – mostly just points people want to draw attention to. Dr Swire speaks first on the film, and then to the question of the break-in at Heathrow the night before the crash. Asks why there were no restrictions on flights because of that breach of security. Also wanted to know why details of the break-in only became public knowledge (or at least available to defence) very late. Prof John Grant gives his opinion and is asked a couple of legal questions by one of the MSPs. Swire also asks Grant about the break-in and whether it can still be used in argument. Grant wants to know why Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have not published their reasons – says they do publish a couple of wishy-washy (my words) paragraphs, but no detail.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
TV documentary on aspects of Lockerbie
A private screening of a new Dutch television documentary, focusing particularly on the provenance of the fragment of circuit board alleged to have come from the timer attached to the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, was held earlier this evening in a committee room at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. The documentary will be broadcast soon in the Netherlands and Germany. The following is the text of the background note supplied to those invited to attend the Edinburgh screening:
'Dutch Public TV network VPRO, in conjunction with German TV, ZDF and Arte, commissioned a documentary investigation into aspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
'The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, following a three year investigation has stated there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that Mr Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of this atrocity should have a fresh appeal. This appeal is scheduled to start on April 28th 2009. If there has been, as many believe, a miscarriage of justice, the implications for the Scottish Judicial system will be immense and could result in charges of perverting the course of justice.
'The film focuses mainly on a crucial piece of circuit board fragment alleged to have been found at Lockerbie. Investigations carried out by Scottish police and the United Sates of America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that this fragment came from a timer mechanism sold only to Libya.
'Statements made on camera to the documentary film makers by some of the most senior personnel involved in the investigation in Scotland and the USA cast even more doubt specifically on this piece of circuit board. The FBI agent who headed the USA’s part of the investigation has stated that without this fragment of circuit board there would not have been an indictment let alone a trial. Clearly, from filmed interviews, it can be seen that the FBI and Scottish police tell completely different stories about this fragment. They cannot both be correct.
'The shocking new evidence gathered in this film will, it is believed, impact greatly on the forthcoming appeal and the producers intend to make this material available to the Crown Office and to Mr Megrahi’s defence team.
'The screening will be by invitation only and it is hoped that a wide ranging audience will attend from elected representatives to relatives of those died on Pan Am 103.'
'Dutch Public TV network VPRO, in conjunction with German TV, ZDF and Arte, commissioned a documentary investigation into aspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
'The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, following a three year investigation has stated there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that Mr Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of this atrocity should have a fresh appeal. This appeal is scheduled to start on April 28th 2009. If there has been, as many believe, a miscarriage of justice, the implications for the Scottish Judicial system will be immense and could result in charges of perverting the course of justice.
'The film focuses mainly on a crucial piece of circuit board fragment alleged to have been found at Lockerbie. Investigations carried out by Scottish police and the United Sates of America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that this fragment came from a timer mechanism sold only to Libya.
'Statements made on camera to the documentary film makers by some of the most senior personnel involved in the investigation in Scotland and the USA cast even more doubt specifically on this piece of circuit board. The FBI agent who headed the USA’s part of the investigation has stated that without this fragment of circuit board there would not have been an indictment let alone a trial. Clearly, from filmed interviews, it can be seen that the FBI and Scottish police tell completely different stories about this fragment. They cannot both be correct.
'The shocking new evidence gathered in this film will, it is believed, impact greatly on the forthcoming appeal and the producers intend to make this material available to the Crown Office and to Mr Megrahi’s defence team.
'The screening will be by invitation only and it is hoped that a wide ranging audience will attend from elected representatives to relatives of those died on Pan Am 103.'
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
UK relatives' reaction to alleged repatriation moves
Both of the "heavy" Scottish daily newspapers today run stories about the reaction of UK relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie to the recent press reports that transfer of Abdelbaset Megrahi back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence may be imminent. The Herald's long piece can be read here, and The Scotsman's shorter one here.
I would reiterate, however, that the only person who knows whether and, if so, when an application for transfer will be made is Mr Megrahi; and that the granting of any such application, if made, by the Scottish Ministers cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
I would reiterate, however, that the only person who knows whether and, if so, when an application for transfer will be made is Mr Megrahi; and that the granting of any such application, if made, by the Scottish Ministers cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Libya to seek repatriation of Megrahi?
Libya plans to seek the extradition of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi who is serving a life term in Scotland and suffering from terminal cancer, a Libyan source said on Monday.
"Libya and Britain are due to exchange ratified extradition documents at the end of April, and after that Libya will officially submit a request for Abdelbaset Megrahi's extradition," the source close to the case told AFP.
This would allow Megrahi "to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live," the source added on condition of anonymity.
In May 2007, Britain and Libya signed a protocol agreement on the transfer of prisoners which the Libyan source says has been ratified by the two countries. The documents are due to be exchanged later this month. (...)
[H]is wife Aisha told AFP in February that he "is in danger of dying" because of his worsening cancer and complained that he had been refused bail.
On Monday Aisha pleaded anew for her husband's release.
"I call on the entire entire world to take pity on my children and the Abdelbaset family," she told AFP by telephone.
"Our only wish is to spend a few days with him before he dies. We have suffered every day these past 10 years. How much longer are we to pay the price of injustice."
[From an Agence France Presse report, published online yesterday.]
"Libya and Britain are due to exchange ratified extradition documents at the end of April, and after that Libya will officially submit a request for Abdelbaset Megrahi's extradition," the source close to the case told AFP.
This would allow Megrahi "to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live," the source added on condition of anonymity.
In May 2007, Britain and Libya signed a protocol agreement on the transfer of prisoners which the Libyan source says has been ratified by the two countries. The documents are due to be exchanged later this month. (...)
[H]is wife Aisha told AFP in February that he "is in danger of dying" because of his worsening cancer and complained that he had been refused bail.
On Monday Aisha pleaded anew for her husband's release.
"I call on the entire entire world to take pity on my children and the Abdelbaset family," she told AFP by telephone.
"Our only wish is to spend a few days with him before he dies. We have suffered every day these past 10 years. How much longer are we to pay the price of injustice."
[From an Agence France Presse report, published online yesterday.]
Monday, 20 April 2009
Ministers deny that Lockerbie bomber will be moved to Libya
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Ministers [of the Scottish, not the United Kingdom, Government] moved quickly yesterday to dismiss suggestions that they were preparing to transfer the Lockerbie bomber to Libya to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
They were reacting to the decision of the Crown Office to write to the families of the victims informing them about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, which is due to come into force at the end of this month.
That sparked renewed speculation that ministers were preparing to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home because he has terminal cancer.
But a spokesman for the First Minister insisted yesterday that no decision would be taken on Megrahi's future until a formal application for his return to Libya had been received.
Megrahi's appeal is due to start shortly after the agreement comes into force on 27 April, meaning it is unlikely he will be able to submit an application for transfer for at least several months – no-one can apply while they are appealing.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: "It will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer."
Ministers [of the Scottish, not the United Kingdom, Government] moved quickly yesterday to dismiss suggestions that they were preparing to transfer the Lockerbie bomber to Libya to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
They were reacting to the decision of the Crown Office to write to the families of the victims informing them about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, which is due to come into force at the end of this month.
That sparked renewed speculation that ministers were preparing to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home because he has terminal cancer.
But a spokesman for the First Minister insisted yesterday that no decision would be taken on Megrahi's future until a formal application for his return to Libya had been received.
Megrahi's appeal is due to start shortly after the agreement comes into force on 27 April, meaning it is unlikely he will be able to submit an application for transfer for at least several months – no-one can apply while they are appealing.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: "It will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer."
Sunday, 19 April 2009
More on the prisoner transfer agreement
I have found two follow-up stories on yesterday's revelations in The Herald.
The Reuters news agency website carries an article by Kate Kelland. The following are excerpts:
'The British government is discussing the ratification of an agreement with Tripoli which could allow a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be sent home to the oil-exporting North African country. (...)
'[A UK] government source declined to confirm or deny a report in a Scottish newspaper that the PTA is to be ratified on April 27 and said any transfer of Megrahi would require an individual application to be made.
'"The PTA doesn't actually provide for the transfer of any individual prisoner. It is a framework under which such transfers, if they were to be considered, would happen," the source said. (...)
'A Scottish government spokeswoman said the PTA was "a matter for the UK and Libyan governments" but it would be for Scottish ministers "to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland."
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision," she said.'
The article by David Leask in Scotland on Sunday contains the following:
'The Crown Office yesterday confirmed it had written to the families of all 270 victims of the 1989 bombing to spell out how any transfer would take place. (...)
'A spokeswoman for the Crown Office declined to reveal the details of the letter but stressed that prosecutors had been keeping families up to date with the case.
'She said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement in 2007 we have communicated with the families about it because of their long-standing interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."
'Some reports have suggested that officials in both England and Scotland have encouraged Libya to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is set in stone. (...)
'First Minister Alex Salmond has previously said he feels Megrahi should serve his entire term in Scotland. The initial prisoner transfer agreement, dubbed "the deal in the desert", sparked fury north of the border.
'Even after the deal is finalised, it will be up to MacAskill to decide whether to release Megrahi to the Libyans. The UK Government has no power over prisoners in the Scottish system.'
It is important to stress that, once the PTA comes into force, an application would have to be made by Megrahi to be considered for repatriation. Journalistic speculation notwithstanding, no-one but Abdelbaset Megrahi (and perhaps his lawyers) knows what his intention in this regard is. Furthermore, whether any such application would be granted is a matter for the Scottish Ministers (effectively the Justice Minister and -- perhaps -- the First Minister). Given the published statements of SNP politicians on the matter when the PTA was being negotiated by the UK Government, and given the possible political (and international public relations) consequences of a decision to permit repatriation, the success of any application can hardly be regarded as a foregone conclusion. But, of course, the pressure to grant it from Justice Department and Crown Office sources (who, I confidently believe, would like nothing better than to avoid the appeal that is due to start on 28 April) would be immense.
The Reuters news agency website carries an article by Kate Kelland. The following are excerpts:
'The British government is discussing the ratification of an agreement with Tripoli which could allow a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be sent home to the oil-exporting North African country. (...)
'[A UK] government source declined to confirm or deny a report in a Scottish newspaper that the PTA is to be ratified on April 27 and said any transfer of Megrahi would require an individual application to be made.
'"The PTA doesn't actually provide for the transfer of any individual prisoner. It is a framework under which such transfers, if they were to be considered, would happen," the source said. (...)
'A Scottish government spokeswoman said the PTA was "a matter for the UK and Libyan governments" but it would be for Scottish ministers "to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland."
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision," she said.'
The article by David Leask in Scotland on Sunday contains the following:
'The Crown Office yesterday confirmed it had written to the families of all 270 victims of the 1989 bombing to spell out how any transfer would take place. (...)
'A spokeswoman for the Crown Office declined to reveal the details of the letter but stressed that prosecutors had been keeping families up to date with the case.
'She said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement in 2007 we have communicated with the families about it because of their long-standing interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."
'Some reports have suggested that officials in both England and Scotland have encouraged Libya to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is set in stone. (...)
'First Minister Alex Salmond has previously said he feels Megrahi should serve his entire term in Scotland. The initial prisoner transfer agreement, dubbed "the deal in the desert", sparked fury north of the border.
'Even after the deal is finalised, it will be up to MacAskill to decide whether to release Megrahi to the Libyans. The UK Government has no power over prisoners in the Scottish system.'
It is important to stress that, once the PTA comes into force, an application would have to be made by Megrahi to be considered for repatriation. Journalistic speculation notwithstanding, no-one but Abdelbaset Megrahi (and perhaps his lawyers) knows what his intention in this regard is. Furthermore, whether any such application would be granted is a matter for the Scottish Ministers (effectively the Justice Minister and -- perhaps -- the First Minister). Given the published statements of SNP politicians on the matter when the PTA was being negotiated by the UK Government, and given the possible political (and international public relations) consequences of a decision to permit repatriation, the success of any application can hardly be regarded as a foregone conclusion. But, of course, the pressure to grant it from Justice Department and Crown Office sources (who, I confidently believe, would like nothing better than to avoid the appeal that is due to start on 28 April) would be immense.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Megrahi may return to Libya, Lockerbie families told
This is the heading over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:
'Senior legal officials, in a tacit acknowledgement that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be allowed to return home, have written to all relatives of the victims explaining the transfer process.
'After years of denial by ministers and officials, the Crown Office e-mail suggests that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison for the bombing that killed 270 people, will be allowed to return to Libya under a transfer agreement to be ratified before the end of this month.
'The e-mail also suggests that ratification may take place on April 27, the day before Megrahi's long-awaited appeal begins in Edinburgh.
'Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified. (...)
'Yesterday's revelation coincided with the publication of a critical report on the transfer agreement by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster.
'The report makes apparent the committee's disdain of Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, for failing to delay ratification to allow for proper scrutiny.
'Mr Straw wrote to the committee in March to say he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude this and three other judicial co-operation agreements".'
The full article can be read here.
An accompanying piece headlined ‘The relatives of the victims also have human rights’, also by Lucy Adams, contains the following:
'Little has been allowed to get in the way of plans to return the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to his home country since the global political axis turned. (...)
'Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005, but the Foreign Office has consistently denied that such discussions bear any relevance to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
'The agreement, signed by Westminster and due to be ratified by the end of the month, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.
'But the wheels are turning in spite of concerns and opposition. While the appeal itself has taken years to begin, the machinery behind the transfer agreement is moving with haste.
'Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights publicly stated last month that the treaty raises concerns and requested that ratification be delayed until the end of April so that it could publish a substantive report.
'However, Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, said he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya".
'The committee report states: "In our view, when a select committee states that it intends to scrutinise a treaty, ratification should be delayed until the committee's inquiry has concluded."
'Despite the pleas of relatives of the victims of the tragedy and Scottish ministers demanding that Megrahi be exempt from the agreement, it appears from both the Crown Office e-mail and official sources that he may be the first prisoner to be dealt with.
'First Minister Alex Salmond made clear in April 2008 that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland and that he would "defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system". However, officials have privately made clear to the Libyans that they are prepared to go back on such claims, which were allegedly "made more in relation to the murky politics of the deal in the desert than Megrahi". (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the tragedy, said: "Jack Straw has overridden the wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and refused to delay ratification in order to ensure it can be active by April 27 - the day before the appeal starts.
"For those who think the Scottish legal process is nothing more than a political pantomime, here's the confirmation. The whole thing has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with convenience and financial gain.
'"The relatives also have human rights, including the right to know what happened to a loved one and why they were not better protected."
'A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: "The PTA was negotiated and signed by the UK and Libyan Governments and so is it is a matter for those governments. Once ratified, it will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland.
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge any decision."
'A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement, we have communicated with the families because of their interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."'
The full text of the article can be read here, and a short piece entitled Dialogue and denial on the way to a deal, which contains a catalogue of governmental prevarication and obfuscation on the prisoner transfer issue, can be read here.
'Senior legal officials, in a tacit acknowledgement that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be allowed to return home, have written to all relatives of the victims explaining the transfer process.
'After years of denial by ministers and officials, the Crown Office e-mail suggests that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison for the bombing that killed 270 people, will be allowed to return to Libya under a transfer agreement to be ratified before the end of this month.
'The e-mail also suggests that ratification may take place on April 27, the day before Megrahi's long-awaited appeal begins in Edinburgh.
'Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified. (...)
'Yesterday's revelation coincided with the publication of a critical report on the transfer agreement by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster.
'The report makes apparent the committee's disdain of Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, for failing to delay ratification to allow for proper scrutiny.
'Mr Straw wrote to the committee in March to say he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude this and three other judicial co-operation agreements".'
The full article can be read here.
An accompanying piece headlined ‘The relatives of the victims also have human rights’, also by Lucy Adams, contains the following:
'Little has been allowed to get in the way of plans to return the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to his home country since the global political axis turned. (...)
'Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005, but the Foreign Office has consistently denied that such discussions bear any relevance to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
'The agreement, signed by Westminster and due to be ratified by the end of the month, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.
'But the wheels are turning in spite of concerns and opposition. While the appeal itself has taken years to begin, the machinery behind the transfer agreement is moving with haste.
'Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights publicly stated last month that the treaty raises concerns and requested that ratification be delayed until the end of April so that it could publish a substantive report.
'However, Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, said he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya".
'The committee report states: "In our view, when a select committee states that it intends to scrutinise a treaty, ratification should be delayed until the committee's inquiry has concluded."
'Despite the pleas of relatives of the victims of the tragedy and Scottish ministers demanding that Megrahi be exempt from the agreement, it appears from both the Crown Office e-mail and official sources that he may be the first prisoner to be dealt with.
'First Minister Alex Salmond made clear in April 2008 that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland and that he would "defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system". However, officials have privately made clear to the Libyans that they are prepared to go back on such claims, which were allegedly "made more in relation to the murky politics of the deal in the desert than Megrahi". (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the tragedy, said: "Jack Straw has overridden the wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and refused to delay ratification in order to ensure it can be active by April 27 - the day before the appeal starts.
"For those who think the Scottish legal process is nothing more than a political pantomime, here's the confirmation. The whole thing has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with convenience and financial gain.
'"The relatives also have human rights, including the right to know what happened to a loved one and why they were not better protected."
'A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: "The PTA was negotiated and signed by the UK and Libyan Governments and so is it is a matter for those governments. Once ratified, it will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland.
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge any decision."
'A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement, we have communicated with the families because of their interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."'
The full text of the article can be read here, and a short piece entitled Dialogue and denial on the way to a deal, which contains a catalogue of governmental prevarication and obfuscation on the prisoner transfer issue, can be read here.
Lockerbie mystery will remain
[This is the title of an article published on 2 April 2009 in Lockerbie's local weekly newspaper, The Annandale Herald. Because the article is not available online, the full text is reproduced below.]
“I THINK Megrahi’s name will be cleared. Beyond that I doubt if we will ever now find out who or what actually caused the destruction of Pan Am 103.”
These are the words of Lockerbie-born retired law Professor Robert Black who has spoken exclusively to DNG Media’s CAROL HOGARTH in the lead up to the start of the Lockerbie bomber’s second appeal hearing later this month.
Mr Black, who now splits his time between homes in Edinburgh and South Africa, is credited as one of the architects of the original Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. He is a founder member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, set up after the terminally ill Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was refused bail last year.
Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of planting the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people, including eleven Lockerbie residents.
Q. Can you explain your family connection with Lockerbie?
A. I was born at Peatford, on the outskirts of the town (near the Queen’s Hotel) in June 1947. My father, Jim, was a plumber, working then for Drummond’s and later for Carruthers & Green. When I was five we moved to Hillview Street, where my parents lived until they died in the 1990s. I attended Lockerbie Academy from 1952 to 1961 (then Dumfries Academy from 1961 to 1964). For a number of years my mother, Jean, ran the small grocer’s shop (now closed) in Hillview Street. My father’s brother was the local molecatcher (as their father had been) and his son, my cousin, still carries on the business.
Q. How do you remember the town from your youth?
A. The town was a good place to grow up in. It was quiet and safe. Children could play unsupervised in the streets, in the parks, in the woods and on the golf course. I remember swimming in the Annan and the Dryfe. I remember the people all knowing each other and being friendly and open. I suppose there must have been some conflict and crime, but that never impinged on my consciousness as a child.
Q. Where were you and what were you doing when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the town in December 1988?
A. The first news of the Lockerbie disaster came to me through BBC radio. I was at my home in Edinburgh (I had become Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University in January 1981) preparing my evening meal with, as usual, my wireless tuned to Radio Four. I immediately tried to telephone my mother, but all the lines were down and I could not get through. Shortly after 8pm a university colleague phoned me. She said television programmes had been interrupted to announce that a plane had crashed on Lockerbie. Knowing I did not have a television set (and twenty years later I still don’t) she assumed I would not have received the news. As the gravity of the incident became clearer, so my concern for the safety of my mother and father increased. However, at around 8.15, I received a phone call from my niece, at that time a nurse in a hospital in Glasgow. It transpired she had actually been on the phone to my mother when the plane came down and, because the line was not cut until a few minutes thereafter, was able to confirm that her grandmother and grandfather had not been killed or injured. At the actual moment of impact, my father had been outside the house, posting a letter in the pillar box just across the road. He rushed to the alleyway between the houses and sheltered there while small items of debris rained down on the street.
Q. You are credited with being one of the “architects” of the first trial at Camp Zeist. What was your involvement at that time?
A. My personal involvement in the aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 began in early 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions that had been imposed on Libya in an attempt to compel the surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States of America of their two accused citizens. They asked if I would be prepared to provide independent advice to Libya with a view (it was hoped) to persuading them their citizens would obtain a fair trial if they were to surrender to the Scottish authorities. I submitted material setting out the essentials of Scottish solemn criminal procedure and the various protections embodied in it for accused persons. It was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but, since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision would have to be one taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves.
For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers appointed to represent the accused. I am able personally to testify to how much of a surprise and embarrassment it was to the Libyan government when the outcome of the meeting of the defence team was an announcement that the accused were not prepared to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland. At a private meeting I had in Tripoli a day later it was explained to me the primary reason for the unwillingness of the accused to stand trial in Scotland was their belief that, because of unprecedented pre-trial publicity over the years, a Scottish jury could not possibly bring to their consideration of the evidence the impartiality and open-mindedness accused persons are entitled to expect and that a fair trial demands.
I returned to Tripoli and in 1994 and presented a detailed proposal that a trial be held outside Scotland, ideally in the Netherlands, in which the governing law and procedure would be that followed in Scottish criminal trials on indictment but with the jury of 15 persons replaced by a panel of judges. In a letter to me it was stated the suspects would voluntarily surrender themselves for trial before a tribunal so constituted. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya stated his government approved of the proposal. I submitted the relevant documents to the Foreign Office in London and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Their immediate response was that this scheme was impossible, impracticable and inherently undesirable, with the clear implication that I had taken leave of what few senses nature had endowed me with. However, from about late July 1998, following interventions supporting my “neutral venue” scheme from, amongst others, President Nelson Mandela, there began to be leaks from UK government sources to the effect that a policy change over Lockerbie was imminent; and on 24 August 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced they had reversed their stance on the matter of a “neutral venue” trial. And after a number pitfalls were avoided, the suspects surrendered themselves for trial.
Q. What is your view of the legal process involving the case since then?
A. The outcome of the trial was a real shock. Since the day of the verdict I have consistently maintained the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that the finding of guilt against him was a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could have reached on that evidence. I am glad to say my view appears to be shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, for this is one of the grounds on which it referred Megrahi’s case back to the High Court for a further appeal. As someone who has practised, taught and (as a part-time judge) administered the criminal law of Scotland for 35 years, I can confidently say that, in my opinion, the conviction of Megrahi is the worst and most blatant miscarriage of justice to have occurred in Scotland for a hundred years.
Q. What led to the formation of the Justice for Megrahi campaign?
A. What precipitated the establishment of the campaign was the refusal by the High Court to release Megrahi on bail pending his appeal, even though advanced and incurable prostate cancer had been diagnosed. The campaign is intended to create a climate of opinion in which his release on bail by the court, or his compassionate release by the Scottish Government, can be achieved so he can spend what time remains to him with his family at their house in Newton Mearns.
Q. What is your experience of meeting and working with victims’ families?
A. One of the great privileges accorded to me through my involvement in the Lockerbie case has been meeting, and forming friendships with, relatives of individuals killed aboard Pan Am 103: delightful people like Jim and Jane Swire, John and Lisa Mosey and Marina Larracoechea. My contacts with other relatives, particularly some American ones, have been less pleasurable. For some of them, anyone who expresses anything less than absolutely uncritical acceptance of the trial verdict and of Libyan culpability is a rogue and a scoundrel. How they will cope with the quashing of Megrahi’s conviction (which I believe to be inevitable if the current appeal goes the full distance) I hesitate to think.
Q. Do you have contact with Megrahi and can you give us an idea of the current state of his health?
A. I have had no direct contact with Megrahi since I visited him in Greenock Prison some considerable time before his prostate cancer was diagnosed. From recent interviews that his wife, Aisha, has given, it seems his condition is deteriorating.
Q. The second appeal hearing is due to start at the end of April. What are your expectations of that?
A. If the appeal goes the full distance, I have no doubt whatsoever that Megrahi’s conviction will be quashed. But if his medical condition deteriorates dramatically, he may decide to apply for transfer back to Libya to die there in the bosom of his family. It is a condition of applying for prisoner transfer that there be no live legal proceedings in that prisoner’s case. This means in order to qualify, Megrahi would have to abandon his present appeal. I am cynical enough about Crown Office and Scottish Government Justice Department motives to believe this is the outcome these bodies devoutly wish to achieve. There are those — civil servants and others — whose careers and reputations have been built upon the Lockerbie conviction. For them, the ideal outcome is for the current appeal to be abandoned. If it proceeds the full distance, embarrassment (and perhaps worse) are inevitable.
Q. What is it about the Lockerbie case in general that has kept you so involved over the years?
A. The injustice of it. Abdelbaset Megrahi should never have been convicted. This is so obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence and at the trial court’s judgment that there must be something wrong with a system that has already taken more than eight years to reach a point where it might just be about to be rectified.
Q. Do you think there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion to the Lockerbie case?
A. I think Megrahi’s name will be cleared. I only hope he is alive to see it. Beyond that, I doubt if we will ever now find out who or what actually caused the destruction of Pan Am 103. The political (and indeed journalistic) will to investigate what truly happened seems to me to be lacking. And people like me and like those relatives who have never been convinced by the officially-approved explanation are growing old and tired. Clearing Megrahi is the best that we can hope to achieve, I’m afraid.
“I THINK Megrahi’s name will be cleared. Beyond that I doubt if we will ever now find out who or what actually caused the destruction of Pan Am 103.”
These are the words of Lockerbie-born retired law Professor Robert Black who has spoken exclusively to DNG Media’s CAROL HOGARTH in the lead up to the start of the Lockerbie bomber’s second appeal hearing later this month.
Mr Black, who now splits his time between homes in Edinburgh and South Africa, is credited as one of the architects of the original Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. He is a founder member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, set up after the terminally ill Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was refused bail last year.
Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of planting the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people, including eleven Lockerbie residents.
Q. Can you explain your family connection with Lockerbie?
A. I was born at Peatford, on the outskirts of the town (near the Queen’s Hotel) in June 1947. My father, Jim, was a plumber, working then for Drummond’s and later for Carruthers & Green. When I was five we moved to Hillview Street, where my parents lived until they died in the 1990s. I attended Lockerbie Academy from 1952 to 1961 (then Dumfries Academy from 1961 to 1964). For a number of years my mother, Jean, ran the small grocer’s shop (now closed) in Hillview Street. My father’s brother was the local molecatcher (as their father had been) and his son, my cousin, still carries on the business.
Q. How do you remember the town from your youth?
A. The town was a good place to grow up in. It was quiet and safe. Children could play unsupervised in the streets, in the parks, in the woods and on the golf course. I remember swimming in the Annan and the Dryfe. I remember the people all knowing each other and being friendly and open. I suppose there must have been some conflict and crime, but that never impinged on my consciousness as a child.
Q. Where were you and what were you doing when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the town in December 1988?
A. The first news of the Lockerbie disaster came to me through BBC radio. I was at my home in Edinburgh (I had become Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University in January 1981) preparing my evening meal with, as usual, my wireless tuned to Radio Four. I immediately tried to telephone my mother, but all the lines were down and I could not get through. Shortly after 8pm a university colleague phoned me. She said television programmes had been interrupted to announce that a plane had crashed on Lockerbie. Knowing I did not have a television set (and twenty years later I still don’t) she assumed I would not have received the news. As the gravity of the incident became clearer, so my concern for the safety of my mother and father increased. However, at around 8.15, I received a phone call from my niece, at that time a nurse in a hospital in Glasgow. It transpired she had actually been on the phone to my mother when the plane came down and, because the line was not cut until a few minutes thereafter, was able to confirm that her grandmother and grandfather had not been killed or injured. At the actual moment of impact, my father had been outside the house, posting a letter in the pillar box just across the road. He rushed to the alleyway between the houses and sheltered there while small items of debris rained down on the street.
Q. You are credited with being one of the “architects” of the first trial at Camp Zeist. What was your involvement at that time?
A. My personal involvement in the aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 began in early 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions that had been imposed on Libya in an attempt to compel the surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States of America of their two accused citizens. They asked if I would be prepared to provide independent advice to Libya with a view (it was hoped) to persuading them their citizens would obtain a fair trial if they were to surrender to the Scottish authorities. I submitted material setting out the essentials of Scottish solemn criminal procedure and the various protections embodied in it for accused persons. It was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but, since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision would have to be one taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves.
For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers appointed to represent the accused. I am able personally to testify to how much of a surprise and embarrassment it was to the Libyan government when the outcome of the meeting of the defence team was an announcement that the accused were not prepared to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland. At a private meeting I had in Tripoli a day later it was explained to me the primary reason for the unwillingness of the accused to stand trial in Scotland was their belief that, because of unprecedented pre-trial publicity over the years, a Scottish jury could not possibly bring to their consideration of the evidence the impartiality and open-mindedness accused persons are entitled to expect and that a fair trial demands.
I returned to Tripoli and in 1994 and presented a detailed proposal that a trial be held outside Scotland, ideally in the Netherlands, in which the governing law and procedure would be that followed in Scottish criminal trials on indictment but with the jury of 15 persons replaced by a panel of judges. In a letter to me it was stated the suspects would voluntarily surrender themselves for trial before a tribunal so constituted. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya stated his government approved of the proposal. I submitted the relevant documents to the Foreign Office in London and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Their immediate response was that this scheme was impossible, impracticable and inherently undesirable, with the clear implication that I had taken leave of what few senses nature had endowed me with. However, from about late July 1998, following interventions supporting my “neutral venue” scheme from, amongst others, President Nelson Mandela, there began to be leaks from UK government sources to the effect that a policy change over Lockerbie was imminent; and on 24 August 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced they had reversed their stance on the matter of a “neutral venue” trial. And after a number pitfalls were avoided, the suspects surrendered themselves for trial.
Q. What is your view of the legal process involving the case since then?
A. The outcome of the trial was a real shock. Since the day of the verdict I have consistently maintained the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that the finding of guilt against him was a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could have reached on that evidence. I am glad to say my view appears to be shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, for this is one of the grounds on which it referred Megrahi’s case back to the High Court for a further appeal. As someone who has practised, taught and (as a part-time judge) administered the criminal law of Scotland for 35 years, I can confidently say that, in my opinion, the conviction of Megrahi is the worst and most blatant miscarriage of justice to have occurred in Scotland for a hundred years.
Q. What led to the formation of the Justice for Megrahi campaign?
A. What precipitated the establishment of the campaign was the refusal by the High Court to release Megrahi on bail pending his appeal, even though advanced and incurable prostate cancer had been diagnosed. The campaign is intended to create a climate of opinion in which his release on bail by the court, or his compassionate release by the Scottish Government, can be achieved so he can spend what time remains to him with his family at their house in Newton Mearns.
Q. What is your experience of meeting and working with victims’ families?
A. One of the great privileges accorded to me through my involvement in the Lockerbie case has been meeting, and forming friendships with, relatives of individuals killed aboard Pan Am 103: delightful people like Jim and Jane Swire, John and Lisa Mosey and Marina Larracoechea. My contacts with other relatives, particularly some American ones, have been less pleasurable. For some of them, anyone who expresses anything less than absolutely uncritical acceptance of the trial verdict and of Libyan culpability is a rogue and a scoundrel. How they will cope with the quashing of Megrahi’s conviction (which I believe to be inevitable if the current appeal goes the full distance) I hesitate to think.
Q. Do you have contact with Megrahi and can you give us an idea of the current state of his health?
A. I have had no direct contact with Megrahi since I visited him in Greenock Prison some considerable time before his prostate cancer was diagnosed. From recent interviews that his wife, Aisha, has given, it seems his condition is deteriorating.
Q. The second appeal hearing is due to start at the end of April. What are your expectations of that?
A. If the appeal goes the full distance, I have no doubt whatsoever that Megrahi’s conviction will be quashed. But if his medical condition deteriorates dramatically, he may decide to apply for transfer back to Libya to die there in the bosom of his family. It is a condition of applying for prisoner transfer that there be no live legal proceedings in that prisoner’s case. This means in order to qualify, Megrahi would have to abandon his present appeal. I am cynical enough about Crown Office and Scottish Government Justice Department motives to believe this is the outcome these bodies devoutly wish to achieve. There are those — civil servants and others — whose careers and reputations have been built upon the Lockerbie conviction. For them, the ideal outcome is for the current appeal to be abandoned. If it proceeds the full distance, embarrassment (and perhaps worse) are inevitable.
Q. What is it about the Lockerbie case in general that has kept you so involved over the years?
A. The injustice of it. Abdelbaset Megrahi should never have been convicted. This is so obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence and at the trial court’s judgment that there must be something wrong with a system that has already taken more than eight years to reach a point where it might just be about to be rectified.
Q. Do you think there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion to the Lockerbie case?
A. I think Megrahi’s name will be cleared. I only hope he is alive to see it. Beyond that, I doubt if we will ever now find out who or what actually caused the destruction of Pan Am 103. The political (and indeed journalistic) will to investigate what truly happened seems to me to be lacking. And people like me and like those relatives who have never been convinced by the officially-approved explanation are growing old and tired. Clearing Megrahi is the best that we can hope to achieve, I’m afraid.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Prisoner transfer agreement
A source within the Scottish Government informs me that the prisoner transfer agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and Libya on 17 November 2008 will be ratified on a date between 27 and 30 April 2009. At any time thereafter an application could be made by Abdelbaset Megrahi for repatriation to Libya. I have no information on whether it is likely that an application will be made and, if so, when. The decision on whether to grant any such application rests with the Scottish (not the UK) Government; and the Scottish First Minister is on record as saying that repatriation should not be granted to anyone convicted in respect of the Lockerbie atrocity. A cynic might, however, regard it as interesting that the prisoner transfer agreement will become operative just at the time that Mr Megrahi's current appeal is due to start; and that an application for transfer would require Mr Megrahi to abandon the appeal.
Monday, 13 April 2009
The lull before the storm
Over the Easter period, I have been on duty at Gannaga Lodge, where there is no internet or cell phone connection (one of the place’s great attractions for most of our guests). But as far as I can discern from an internet trawl, there has been no public activity on the Lockerbie front. The lull before the storm, perhaps? The first substantive session of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s appeal starts on Tuesday, 28 April.
Tomorrow I am off on a four or five day trip to Namibia. I shall try to keep up to date on developments whenever I have access to the internet, though internet cafes are not thick on the ground there.
Tomorrow I am off on a four or five day trip to Namibia. I shall try to keep up to date on developments whenever I have access to the internet, though internet cafes are not thick on the ground there.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Ten long years
It was on this date in 1999 that Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah flew from Tripoli to The Netherlands and were then handed over to the Scottish authorities for trial at Camp Zeist. Since that date Megrahi has been in Scottish custody, first as an untried prisoner and, since 31 January 2001, as a convicted prisoner. (Lamin Fhimah was acquitted and returned to Libya on that date.) Megrahi’s appeal was dismissed on 14 March 2002 and since then he has been imprisoned in Scotland (rather than in the prison attached to the Scottish Court at Zeist), first in Barlinnie and later in HMP Greenock. On 28 June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi’s case back to the High Court of Justiciary on the basis that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The first substantive session of this second appeal is due to start on 28 April 2009, after what has seemed to many observers, including myself, to be a quite extraordinary campaign of delay and obstruction on the part of the Scottish prosecution authorities and the United Kingdom Government.
Monday, 30 March 2009
SNP in secret bid to send bomber home
[I am grateful to a kind reader for the information that the Scottish edition of yesterday's Mail on Sunday did in fact contain a story about Lockerbie and for sending me the text of the article, which appears below. Notwithstanding an assiduous search of the newspaper's website, I am still unable to find the article online (but it has been picked up in today's editions of both The Times and The Scotsman). Apart from the information that US senators' representatives have been involved in the prisoner transfer discussions, the article does not seem to add much to what was published by The Herald on 15 January 2009.]
The SNP has been engaged in secret talks that would allow the Lockerbie bomber to be freed and sent home to Libya.
A series of high-level meetings has taken place between senior SNP advisers and Libya as the Scottish Executive prepares to sign a crucial international pact on prison transfers this week.
The flurry of diplomatic activity, including at least one meeting this month, also comes as the medical condition of the man serving life for the Lockerbie bombing continues to deteriorate.
The cancer that has struck down Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has spread to his spine and pelvis.
Officially, the meetings are taking place between the UK Foreign Office and Libyan officials, as Scotland is not a sovereign state.
But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has instructed his top official, Robert Gordon, director general of the Executive's justice department, to play a key role in the negotiations. Meetings between Mr Gordon and a Libyan delegation began last October and continued in November, January and earlier this month. The talks, in London and Edinburgh, have included dialogue with US senators.
Mr MacAskill and British officials are keen to ease US fears that Megrahi could be released to spend his last few months as a free man. Instead, the Libyan's legal team are being encouraged to apply for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya. The talks have accelerated in advance of a second appeal by Megrahi against his conviction for the murder of 270 people in 1988, due to start at the end of next month.
The complex appeal is expected to take up to a year but Megrahi's health has deteriorated so much there is speculation he may be forced to abandon the fight to clear his name. Megrahi is keen to do so in court, but as his condition worsens he is facing a dilemma over whether to continue with his appeal and face dying in prison in Scotland or abandoning the case and applying for the transfer likely to represent his only chance to spend time with his family.
Last night, officials confirmed the PTA signed between the UK and Libya in November is expected to be ratified 'in early April' and responsibility for Megrahi, should he seek a transfer, will pass to Mr MacAskill.
A spokesman for the Justice Secretary confirmed the dialogue with the Libyans and Americans. She said: 'At the request of the Libyan government, there have been meetings between Executive officials and officials of the Libyan government. 'These have been concerned with factual matters of the Scottish judicial system and how these relate to prisoner transfer agreements and other matters.
'A meeting has also taken place with US senators' representatives. This was also concerning factual matters related to the Scottish judicial system. We understand there have been similar meetings with UK Government officials.'
Mr Gordon has played a vital role in the talks, attended by top Libyan officials and Foreign Office personnel. Sources close to the Libyan delegation, which included deputy foreign minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, said Mr Gordon had given them every encouragement to push for a transfer. One said: 'He told them in fairly plain language that if an application came in it would be granted.'
The ratification of the PTA involves the document being laid before Parliament for 21 days to give MPs the chance to raise any issues.
The UK Ministry of Justice said it expected the UK and Libya to complete the 'relevant constitutional arrangements' by the start of April. A spokesman confirmed that any bid to transfer a prisoner would be for Scottish ministers to decide.
Professor Robert Black, QC, the architect of the trial under Scots Law in a neutral country, said: 'It has been my view for some months that every effort was being made to push Megrahi down the prisoner transfer route to avoid the embarrassment that would follow for our justice system and our governments if the appeal went ahead.'
Megrahi's legal team sought bail pending his appeal in the wake of the cancer revelation, but this was refused by the Court of Appeal. Now the Scottish authorities are expected to jump at the chance to return Megrahi to Libya, as a condition of the deal is that the prisoner must drop any legal proceedings.
The planned appeal has the potential to humiliate the Crown Office and to expose conspiracy and dirty tricks involving UK and US intelligence agents and the Scottish police. Dr Jim Swire has campaigned for 20 years for the truth since the murder of his daughter Flora. He said: 'If Megrahi agrees to seek a transfer and drop the appeal, his family will be labelled for life as the family of the Lockerbie bomber.
'I have been certain for some time the authorities were intent on pushing him down that road. The timing of the ratification of the agreement, a few weeks before the appeal, doesn't feel like a coincidence.'
The SNP has been engaged in secret talks that would allow the Lockerbie bomber to be freed and sent home to Libya.
A series of high-level meetings has taken place between senior SNP advisers and Libya as the Scottish Executive prepares to sign a crucial international pact on prison transfers this week.
The flurry of diplomatic activity, including at least one meeting this month, also comes as the medical condition of the man serving life for the Lockerbie bombing continues to deteriorate.
The cancer that has struck down Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has spread to his spine and pelvis.
Officially, the meetings are taking place between the UK Foreign Office and Libyan officials, as Scotland is not a sovereign state.
But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has instructed his top official, Robert Gordon, director general of the Executive's justice department, to play a key role in the negotiations. Meetings between Mr Gordon and a Libyan delegation began last October and continued in November, January and earlier this month. The talks, in London and Edinburgh, have included dialogue with US senators.
Mr MacAskill and British officials are keen to ease US fears that Megrahi could be released to spend his last few months as a free man. Instead, the Libyan's legal team are being encouraged to apply for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya. The talks have accelerated in advance of a second appeal by Megrahi against his conviction for the murder of 270 people in 1988, due to start at the end of next month.
The complex appeal is expected to take up to a year but Megrahi's health has deteriorated so much there is speculation he may be forced to abandon the fight to clear his name. Megrahi is keen to do so in court, but as his condition worsens he is facing a dilemma over whether to continue with his appeal and face dying in prison in Scotland or abandoning the case and applying for the transfer likely to represent his only chance to spend time with his family.
Last night, officials confirmed the PTA signed between the UK and Libya in November is expected to be ratified 'in early April' and responsibility for Megrahi, should he seek a transfer, will pass to Mr MacAskill.
A spokesman for the Justice Secretary confirmed the dialogue with the Libyans and Americans. She said: 'At the request of the Libyan government, there have been meetings between Executive officials and officials of the Libyan government. 'These have been concerned with factual matters of the Scottish judicial system and how these relate to prisoner transfer agreements and other matters.
'A meeting has also taken place with US senators' representatives. This was also concerning factual matters related to the Scottish judicial system. We understand there have been similar meetings with UK Government officials.'
Mr Gordon has played a vital role in the talks, attended by top Libyan officials and Foreign Office personnel. Sources close to the Libyan delegation, which included deputy foreign minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, said Mr Gordon had given them every encouragement to push for a transfer. One said: 'He told them in fairly plain language that if an application came in it would be granted.'
The ratification of the PTA involves the document being laid before Parliament for 21 days to give MPs the chance to raise any issues.
The UK Ministry of Justice said it expected the UK and Libya to complete the 'relevant constitutional arrangements' by the start of April. A spokesman confirmed that any bid to transfer a prisoner would be for Scottish ministers to decide.
Professor Robert Black, QC, the architect of the trial under Scots Law in a neutral country, said: 'It has been my view for some months that every effort was being made to push Megrahi down the prisoner transfer route to avoid the embarrassment that would follow for our justice system and our governments if the appeal went ahead.'
Megrahi's legal team sought bail pending his appeal in the wake of the cancer revelation, but this was refused by the Court of Appeal. Now the Scottish authorities are expected to jump at the chance to return Megrahi to Libya, as a condition of the deal is that the prisoner must drop any legal proceedings.
The planned appeal has the potential to humiliate the Crown Office and to expose conspiracy and dirty tricks involving UK and US intelligence agents and the Scottish police. Dr Jim Swire has campaigned for 20 years for the truth since the murder of his daughter Flora. He said: 'If Megrahi agrees to seek a transfer and drop the appeal, his family will be labelled for life as the family of the Lockerbie bomber.
'I have been certain for some time the authorities were intent on pushing him down that road. The timing of the ratification of the agreement, a few weeks before the appeal, doesn't feel like a coincidence.'
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Clinton, Salmond and Lockerbie
This is the heading over an item posted today on the aangirfan blog. It is a commentary on the meeting held on 23 February 2009 between Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, and US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and on an article described as having been published on 19 February 2009 in the Mail on Sunday (but since 19 February was a Thursday, this must be wrong). The blog post can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)