Christine Grahame MSP (SNP) who is due to meet Mr Megrahi at Greenock Prison on Friday said:
“I am not surprised Mr Megrahi has made an application to be transferred back to Libya. Until that transfer takes place his appeal can still proceed, although I suspect his transfer application will not take a full 90 days to be considered. Even if it were it is likely his appeal will not now be heard given a year was set aside to consider it.
“Ideally it would have been better if the protocol which the British Government signed up to would have allowed for the appeal to continue whilst Mr Megrahi was transferred back to Libya. I firmly believe on the evidence I have seen that Mr Megrahi would win his appeal and clear his name. Unfortunately, because he is terminally ill, time is not on his side and it is understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health.
“If the prisoner transfer does proceed, as I expect it will, and Mr Megrahi drops his appeal then I think the case for a full public inquiry into this whole episode will be necessary. Such an inquiry should not only examine how the official investigation was carried out, but also re-examine the evidence both contemporary and newly presented that points to another source and motive for this appalling atrocity.
“It is imperative therefore that all evidence gathered and maintained by the relevant authorities, including the Crown Office and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and others is secured and not destroyed in the event Mr Megrahi does drop his appeal. That evidence will be vital should there be a public inquiry.”
[Press release from Christine Grahame's office.]
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Libya applies for transfer of Lockerbie bomb prisoner
The Libyan authorities have applied for the transfer of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the Scottish government said today.
The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.
"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."
[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:
'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.
'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."
'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.
'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."
'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.
'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.
'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.
'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.
'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.
'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.
'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.
'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."
'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.
'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.
'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.
"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.
'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.
'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."
'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'
The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]
The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.
"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."
[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:
'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.
'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."
'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.
'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."
'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.
'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.
'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.
'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.
'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.
'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.
'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.
'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."
'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.
'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.
'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.
"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.
'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.
'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."
'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'
The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]
Appeal update
As far as I can discover, there is no online press coverage of the first day of the second week of the appeal on Tuesday.
However, a source who was present in court informs me that Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her detailed examination of the evidence given by Tony Gauci at trial about the date of purchase of the clothing that accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. In the course of these submissions reference was made to transcripts of the evidence provided at trial and in particular the evidence in relation to the football games shown on Maltese television on 23rd November 1988 and 7th December 1988, the weather on these dates and the evidence led at trial in relation to the Christmas lights.
Ms Scott continued with an examination of case law where the Crown sought to corroborate the identification of an accused with circumstantial evidence. She then addressed the Court on whether the trial court was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought.
In the course of the afternoon Ms Scott began an examination of the evidence from which the trial court made the inference that the primary suitcase was ingested at Luqa airport in Malta. In order to examine this evidence she will ask the court to look at the evidence led at trial relating to Heathrow airport, Frankfurt airport and Luqa airport.
However, a source who was present in court informs me that Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her detailed examination of the evidence given by Tony Gauci at trial about the date of purchase of the clothing that accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. In the course of these submissions reference was made to transcripts of the evidence provided at trial and in particular the evidence in relation to the football games shown on Maltese television on 23rd November 1988 and 7th December 1988, the weather on these dates and the evidence led at trial in relation to the Christmas lights.
Ms Scott continued with an examination of case law where the Crown sought to corroborate the identification of an accused with circumstantial evidence. She then addressed the Court on whether the trial court was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought.
In the course of the afternoon Ms Scott began an examination of the evidence from which the trial court made the inference that the primary suitcase was ingested at Luqa airport in Malta. In order to examine this evidence she will ask the court to look at the evidence led at trial relating to Heathrow airport, Frankfurt airport and Luqa airport.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Bomber visit 'blocked' claims MSP
[The following is a press release issued today by SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, Christine Grahame. An article based on it appears on the BBC News website and can be read here.]
An MSP who is working with relatives of victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing has been refused a visit to the man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Christine Grahame MSP had been offered a private meeting with the terminally ill Mr Megrahi who is currently serving a 27 year sentence at Greenock Prison. Mr Megrahi is currently appealing his conviction and had agreed to meet Ms Grahame, but officials at the Scottish Prison Service blocked the move at the last moment, refusing to give an explanation. Ms Grahame said:
“I believe, as many campaigners and relatives of Lockerbie victims believe, that the conviction against Mr Megrahi is unsafe and, like the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, I think there is evidence that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. If that is the case it is not only an injustice for Mr Megrahi but also for the 270 victims of Pan Am 103.
“I was offered a private visit last week to speak to Mr Megrahi directly and I intended to meet with him on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening however the prison Governor contacted my office to advise that the meeting would not be able to proceed due to unspecified reasons. Despite several attempts to seek clarification from the Scottish Prison Service no satisfactory explanation has been offered.”
Ms Grahame, a former lawyer, has been working closely with the Justice for Megrahi campaign which includes Professor Robert Black QC, the well respected legal expert and Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing. She added:
“From the evidence I have seen I think there is an indication that very senior officials and British Ministers do not want the truth about this case to enter the public arena.
“I believe that is why the British Government has rushed through the Prisoner Transfer Protocol with Libya, in the hope Mr Megrahi will drop his appeal, as he must do under the terms of the protocol arrangement to be eligible to be transferred back to his homeland. That would ensure that the details about the unsafe nature of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was carried out by both Scottish and US investigators will be covered up.”
Mr Megrahi is understood to be disappointed that the visit is being blocked, despite his entitlement to such visits. Ms Grahame intends to pursue the matter with the relevant officials.
An MSP who is working with relatives of victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing has been refused a visit to the man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Christine Grahame MSP had been offered a private meeting with the terminally ill Mr Megrahi who is currently serving a 27 year sentence at Greenock Prison. Mr Megrahi is currently appealing his conviction and had agreed to meet Ms Grahame, but officials at the Scottish Prison Service blocked the move at the last moment, refusing to give an explanation. Ms Grahame said:
“I believe, as many campaigners and relatives of Lockerbie victims believe, that the conviction against Mr Megrahi is unsafe and, like the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, I think there is evidence that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. If that is the case it is not only an injustice for Mr Megrahi but also for the 270 victims of Pan Am 103.
“I was offered a private visit last week to speak to Mr Megrahi directly and I intended to meet with him on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening however the prison Governor contacted my office to advise that the meeting would not be able to proceed due to unspecified reasons. Despite several attempts to seek clarification from the Scottish Prison Service no satisfactory explanation has been offered.”
Ms Grahame, a former lawyer, has been working closely with the Justice for Megrahi campaign which includes Professor Robert Black QC, the well respected legal expert and Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing. She added:
“From the evidence I have seen I think there is an indication that very senior officials and British Ministers do not want the truth about this case to enter the public arena.
“I believe that is why the British Government has rushed through the Prisoner Transfer Protocol with Libya, in the hope Mr Megrahi will drop his appeal, as he must do under the terms of the protocol arrangement to be eligible to be transferred back to his homeland. That would ensure that the details about the unsafe nature of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was carried out by both Scottish and US investigators will be covered up.”
Mr Megrahi is understood to be disappointed that the visit is being blocked, despite his entitlement to such visits. Ms Grahame intends to pursue the matter with the relevant officials.
Monday, 4 May 2009
More from Malta
In the dock: Lockerbie witness Gauci
The defence of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi wants to attack the central plank of his prosecution – Malta shopkeeper Tony Gauci. MATTHEW VELLA looks at the mounting evidence.
[This is the heading over an article in the Sunday edition of Malta Today. The full text can be read here.]
The defence of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi wants to attack the central plank of his prosecution – Malta shopkeeper Tony Gauci. MATTHEW VELLA looks at the mounting evidence.
[This is the heading over an article in the Sunday edition of Malta Today. The full text can be read here.]
Sunday, 3 May 2009
There is never enough evidence
We are not looking for anyone else. That is the traditional response of the police when faced with the acquittal of men they are convinced were guilty all along. They were at it again this week when three men accused of assisting the 7 July suicide bombers were found not guilty. Andy Hayman, former commissioner of Special Operations at Scotland Yard, wrote of "a sense of bitter disappointment" at the acquittal of the men. And this he said was probably "the last throw of the dice". The police had done a very thorough investigation but the evidence was "not convincing enough".
The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.
The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.
Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams in Saturday's edition of The Independent.]
The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.
The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.
Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams in Saturday's edition of The Independent.]
Malta may be cleared of Lockerbie connection
"I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta" - victim's father
The Maltese connection to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie will be called into question with fresh evidence presented in the second appeal of the convicted bomber.
A representative of the British victims' families told The Sunday Times yesterday: "I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta."
The appeal, launched last Tuesday, challenged the testimony of key witness Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had identified Abdel Basset al-Megrahi as having bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
The prosecution's line in the initial trial was that Mr al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, placed the bomb and clothes in a suitcase checked in at Luqa airport and transferred on to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
Ever since Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Malta has been implicated in the terrorist act that killed 270 people.
But Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer, Margaret Scott, tore into Mr Gauci's evidence during last Friday's appeal hearing, saying the witness had initially given descriptions of the man in his shop as being taller and more than 10 years older.
"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," she told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, according to The Scotsman.
Investigating officers had shown the shopkeeper several photos but he rejected them, because the people were too young. He had even rejected the page showing the photo of Mr al-Megrahi.
But the lawyer told the court last Friday that "unlike before", Mr Gauci was told to look at the photos again. "It was a clear message that there is something there to be found," Dr Scott said.
In fact, Mr Gauci never identified Mr al-Megrahi. He simply stated: "He resembles him a lot."
The trial judges had accepted this identification as a "highly important element" of the case.
Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact Mr Gauci proved futile. During a visit to his Sliema shop yesterday, a man who claimed to be his brother said he had not seen the key witness for a month and insisted he had no comment to make.
Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer will call into question four crucial pieces of evidence that secured his conviction. These are that the accused bought the clothing found with the bomb; that the purchase happened on December 7, 1988; that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought; and that the suitcase containing the bomb left from Malta. An element absent from the original trial provides a compelling alternative to the idea that the bomb left from Malta.
Just over 12 years after the bombing, the courts heard retired Heathrow security guard Ray Manly testify that a door leading to the baggage build-up area at Terminal 3 was forced open on the night of December 20, 1988.
The intruder, he had told court, could have easily introduced and tagged a suitcase as Pan Am baggage.
Dr Jim Swire, father of 24-year-old victim Flora, told The Sunday Times yesterday he believed the Malta connection was false: "Security at Luqa conformed to the requirement to check the amount of bags getting on to an aircraft and making sure it agreed with the number that had gone off at the other end."
In the case of the Air Malta flight, which allegedly carried the suitcase with the explosive, "the records show unequivocally that the bags loaded belonged to the passengers and that there were no other bags... and that in Frankfurt the same amount of bags were accounted for."
Dr Swire believed the possibility that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow was suppressed: "Despite this security breach, the airport was not shut down until the breach was explained. Had this been done, I believe my daughter would still be alive." He hoped this second trial would prove to be the watershed he and other sceptical relatives had been waiting for.
However, the appeal may not be concluded if Mr al-Megrahi chooses to return home through a prisoner exchange programme between the UK and Libya, which was ratified by Britain last week.
Mr Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. A decision to drop the appeal would leave him condemned as guilty.
A Scottish journalist following the case told The Sunday Times he suspected that Mr al-Megrahi could be biding his time until this first round of the appeal was over.
"If the judges return with an early verdict in favour of al-Megrahi, he goes back home a free man. If not, he'll likely take the exchange."
Dr Swire was sympathetic to Mr al-Megrahi's position. Although it could mean he would never know the truth about his daughter's death, he said: "Put yourself in his shoes, what else would you do?"
"I would go, and could not blame him if he does. He has told me before that he would rather clear his name before he goes home," Dr Swire added.
But if the appeal did not go through, Dr Swire would be "clamouring" for a full inquiry, which would also be in Malta's interest.
"I think Malta has nothing but substance to gain from this."
[This is an article by Mark Micallef and Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. As far as I can discover, none of the Scottish or UK Sundays covers the first week of the appeal hearing.]
The Maltese connection to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie will be called into question with fresh evidence presented in the second appeal of the convicted bomber.
A representative of the British victims' families told The Sunday Times yesterday: "I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta."
The appeal, launched last Tuesday, challenged the testimony of key witness Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had identified Abdel Basset al-Megrahi as having bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
The prosecution's line in the initial trial was that Mr al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, placed the bomb and clothes in a suitcase checked in at Luqa airport and transferred on to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
Ever since Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Malta has been implicated in the terrorist act that killed 270 people.
But Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer, Margaret Scott, tore into Mr Gauci's evidence during last Friday's appeal hearing, saying the witness had initially given descriptions of the man in his shop as being taller and more than 10 years older.
"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," she told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, according to The Scotsman.
Investigating officers had shown the shopkeeper several photos but he rejected them, because the people were too young. He had even rejected the page showing the photo of Mr al-Megrahi.
But the lawyer told the court last Friday that "unlike before", Mr Gauci was told to look at the photos again. "It was a clear message that there is something there to be found," Dr Scott said.
In fact, Mr Gauci never identified Mr al-Megrahi. He simply stated: "He resembles him a lot."
The trial judges had accepted this identification as a "highly important element" of the case.
Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact Mr Gauci proved futile. During a visit to his Sliema shop yesterday, a man who claimed to be his brother said he had not seen the key witness for a month and insisted he had no comment to make.
Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer will call into question four crucial pieces of evidence that secured his conviction. These are that the accused bought the clothing found with the bomb; that the purchase happened on December 7, 1988; that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought; and that the suitcase containing the bomb left from Malta. An element absent from the original trial provides a compelling alternative to the idea that the bomb left from Malta.
Just over 12 years after the bombing, the courts heard retired Heathrow security guard Ray Manly testify that a door leading to the baggage build-up area at Terminal 3 was forced open on the night of December 20, 1988.
The intruder, he had told court, could have easily introduced and tagged a suitcase as Pan Am baggage.
Dr Jim Swire, father of 24-year-old victim Flora, told The Sunday Times yesterday he believed the Malta connection was false: "Security at Luqa conformed to the requirement to check the amount of bags getting on to an aircraft and making sure it agreed with the number that had gone off at the other end."
In the case of the Air Malta flight, which allegedly carried the suitcase with the explosive, "the records show unequivocally that the bags loaded belonged to the passengers and that there were no other bags... and that in Frankfurt the same amount of bags were accounted for."
Dr Swire believed the possibility that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow was suppressed: "Despite this security breach, the airport was not shut down until the breach was explained. Had this been done, I believe my daughter would still be alive." He hoped this second trial would prove to be the watershed he and other sceptical relatives had been waiting for.
However, the appeal may not be concluded if Mr al-Megrahi chooses to return home through a prisoner exchange programme between the UK and Libya, which was ratified by Britain last week.
Mr Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. A decision to drop the appeal would leave him condemned as guilty.
A Scottish journalist following the case told The Sunday Times he suspected that Mr al-Megrahi could be biding his time until this first round of the appeal was over.
"If the judges return with an early verdict in favour of al-Megrahi, he goes back home a free man. If not, he'll likely take the exchange."
Dr Swire was sympathetic to Mr al-Megrahi's position. Although it could mean he would never know the truth about his daughter's death, he said: "Put yourself in his shoes, what else would you do?"
"I would go, and could not blame him if he does. He has told me before that he would rather clear his name before he goes home," Dr Swire added.
But if the appeal did not go through, Dr Swire would be "clamouring" for a full inquiry, which would also be in Malta's interest.
"I think Malta has nothing but substance to gain from this."
[This is an article by Mark Micallef and Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. As far as I can discover, none of the Scottish or UK Sundays covers the first week of the appeal hearing.]
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Media silence broken
The two Scottish "serious" daily newspapers have now broken the media silence on the Lockerbie appeal.
The Herald's report on day four of the proceedings can be read here. It reads in part:
'Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.
'A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
'Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.
'She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."
'The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001. (...)
'His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.
'"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.
'She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.
'Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.
'She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.
'The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."
'Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".
'She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.
'"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.
'Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.
'She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.
'Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.
'The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."'
The Scotsman's report can be read here. It is similar to, but shorter than, The Herald's. The following is an excerpt:
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been identified as resembling a man who bought clothing which was packed into a suitcase with the bomb. But the witness who picked him out, a Maltese shopkeeper, had earlier given descriptions of the purchaser as being taller and ten years older.
'"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," said Maggie Scott, QC, at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
'She complained that the judges who convicted Megrahi at his trial in 2001 had failed to explain in their verdict how they overcame the difficulty. "There is a discrepancy, and while it is acknowledged, there is no reasoning as to how it was resolved... it remains," she added. (...)
'At the trial, Mr Gauci was asked if he could see the man who bought the clothing and he pointed to Megrahi, and said: "He resembles him a lot."
'The trial judges said his identification should be treated as "a highly important element".'
The Herald's report on day four of the proceedings can be read here. It reads in part:
'Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.
'A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
'Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.
'She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."
'The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001. (...)
'His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.
'"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.
'She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.
'Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.
'She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.
'The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."
'Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".
'She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.
'"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.
'Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.
'She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.
'Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.
'The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."'
The Scotsman's report can be read here. It is similar to, but shorter than, The Herald's. The following is an excerpt:
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been identified as resembling a man who bought clothing which was packed into a suitcase with the bomb. But the witness who picked him out, a Maltese shopkeeper, had earlier given descriptions of the purchaser as being taller and ten years older.
'"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," said Maggie Scott, QC, at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
'She complained that the judges who convicted Megrahi at his trial in 2001 had failed to explain in their verdict how they overcame the difficulty. "There is a discrepancy, and while it is acknowledged, there is no reasoning as to how it was resolved... it remains," she added. (...)
'At the trial, Mr Gauci was asked if he could see the man who bought the clothing and he pointed to Megrahi, and said: "He resembles him a lot."
'The trial judges said his identification should be treated as "a highly important element".'
Friday, 1 May 2009
Another day of silence
I can find nothing at all in the online media about day three of the appeal. I suspect that this will be the pattern until the first day of the Crown's response, when there will once again be a one-day flurry of press interest. All very frustrating. It almost makes me wish that I had returned to Edinburgh from the fastnesses of the Roggeveld Karoo in order to be present in court. Almost.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Press silence on day two of appeal
An internet trawl of the UK, Scottish and foreign press discloses not a single report on the proceedings at the second day of the Lockerbie appeal. This is disappointing but not really a surprise, given the experience at the original trial at Camp Zeist. Then, the press turned up in droves for the opening day, for "star" witnesses, like Edwin Bollier, Tony Gauci and Majid Giaka, and for the announcement of the verdict, but otherwise were conspicuous by their absence. The coverage, particularly in the Scottish media, was shockingly poor. The same was true of the first appeal in 2002, but there at least there was live television coverage through the BBC News website.
What media reports there are today relate to the ratification of the prisoner transfer agreement. Lucy Adams's article in The Herald can be read here.
The report in The Times does, however, include one paragraph on day two's proceedings. It reads:
'Yesterday the appeal court was told that there was “a massive gap” in the case against al-Megrahi concerning the means by which the suitcase containing the explosive device was put on board the New York-bound Pan Am Boeing 747 aircraft at Luqa airport, in Malta. Ms Scott told the court: “There was no evidence of where any of the putting together of the device occurred and there is a massive gap in respect of the ingestion of the suitcase.”'
The following are further excerpts from this report:
'The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must decide whether to apply to serve the rest of his sentence at home in Libya, surrounded by his family, or remaining in a Scottish jail and attempt to clear his name.
'The choice comes after Britain ratified a long-awaited prisoner transfer agreement with Libya yesterday. In order to pursue a move to a Libyan jail, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has continually protested his innocence and is dying of cancer, would have to abandon his appeal, which began on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal, in Edinburgh. (...)
'Last night al-Megrahi's legal team refused to be drawn on whether or not he will apply for a transfer. Should he do so, the decision will ultimately be made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary.
'Although the transfer deal, negotiated between Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in 2007, caused a furious cross-border row when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted that Scotland should have been consulted, the fate of prisoners in Scottish jails remains a devolved matter. A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said: “It would be for Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prison transfer in relation to any prisoners in Scotland.
'“We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision. Scottish ministers judge each application on its own merits,” she added.
'Despite declining to comment on the case, there has been speculation that the Scottish government would look favourably on a transfer application from al-Megrahi's legal team.
'According to a recent newspaper report, Robert Gordon, director general of the SNP Administration's justice department, who held discussions recently with Libyan officials about the prisoner deal, encouraged them to seek a transfer.'
What media reports there are today relate to the ratification of the prisoner transfer agreement. Lucy Adams's article in The Herald can be read here.
The report in The Times does, however, include one paragraph on day two's proceedings. It reads:
'Yesterday the appeal court was told that there was “a massive gap” in the case against al-Megrahi concerning the means by which the suitcase containing the explosive device was put on board the New York-bound Pan Am Boeing 747 aircraft at Luqa airport, in Malta. Ms Scott told the court: “There was no evidence of where any of the putting together of the device occurred and there is a massive gap in respect of the ingestion of the suitcase.”'
The following are further excerpts from this report:
'The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must decide whether to apply to serve the rest of his sentence at home in Libya, surrounded by his family, or remaining in a Scottish jail and attempt to clear his name.
'The choice comes after Britain ratified a long-awaited prisoner transfer agreement with Libya yesterday. In order to pursue a move to a Libyan jail, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has continually protested his innocence and is dying of cancer, would have to abandon his appeal, which began on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal, in Edinburgh. (...)
'Last night al-Megrahi's legal team refused to be drawn on whether or not he will apply for a transfer. Should he do so, the decision will ultimately be made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary.
'Although the transfer deal, negotiated between Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in 2007, caused a furious cross-border row when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted that Scotland should have been consulted, the fate of prisoners in Scottish jails remains a devolved matter. A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said: “It would be for Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prison transfer in relation to any prisoners in Scotland.
'“We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision. Scottish ministers judge each application on its own merits,” she added.
'Despite declining to comment on the case, there has been speculation that the Scottish government would look favourably on a transfer application from al-Megrahi's legal team.
'According to a recent newspaper report, Robert Gordon, director general of the SNP Administration's justice department, who held discussions recently with Libyan officials about the prisoner deal, encouraged them to seek a transfer.'
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Prisoner transfer: the relevant legal provisions
The relevant provisions of the prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya which was ratified today are as follows:
“Art 2(2): A person who has received a liberty depriving sentence in the territory of one Party may be transferred to the territory of the other Party, in order to complete the sentence imposed upon him. To that end he may express his interest to the transferring State or to the receiving State in being transferred under this Treaty.
Art 2(3): Transfer may be requested either by the transferring State or the receiving State.
Art 3: A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)
(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)
(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer.”
The relevant UK legislation, which the Scottish Government would have to apply in the case of Mr Megrahi, used to be the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c 47), section 1 of which provided:
“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where—
(a) the United Kingdom is a party to international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country of territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (7) below applies, and
(b) the relevant Minister [defined, in the case of prisoners in Scotland as "the Scottish Ministers"] and the appropriate authority of that country or territory have each agreed to the transfer under those arrangements of a particular person (in this Act referred to as “the prisoner”), and
(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements
the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.”
This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.
“Art 2(2): A person who has received a liberty depriving sentence in the territory of one Party may be transferred to the territory of the other Party, in order to complete the sentence imposed upon him. To that end he may express his interest to the transferring State or to the receiving State in being transferred under this Treaty.
Art 2(3): Transfer may be requested either by the transferring State or the receiving State.
Art 3: A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)
(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)
(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer.”
The relevant UK legislation, which the Scottish Government would have to apply in the case of Mr Megrahi, used to be the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c 47), section 1 of which provided:
“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where—
(a) the United Kingdom is a party to international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country of territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (7) below applies, and
(b) the relevant Minister [defined, in the case of prisoners in Scotland as "the Scottish Ministers"] and the appropriate authority of that country or territory have each agreed to the transfer under those arrangements of a particular person (in this Act referred to as “the prisoner”), and
(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements
the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.”
This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.
UK and Libya make prisoner deal
[The following is from the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.]
The UK has signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, the Foreign Office has confirmed. [Note by RB: More accurately, the agreement, which was signed some time ago, has now been formally ratified by both countries and is now in force.]
The agreement will allow the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to apply to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail.
Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, is currently being held in Greenock prison in Scotland.
He has begun a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 attack on Pan AM Flight 103. (...)
Any possible transfer to a Libyan prison would depend on Megrahi dropping his current appeal, which is expected to last a year.
And any transfer agreement would have to be ratified by Scottish ministers, who would have the final say before the Foreign Office. [Note by RB: I am not sure precisely what this means. The correct position is that, if an application for transfer is made, it is the Scottish Government that has to decide whether or not to grant it.]
There has been no comment from Megrahi's legal team about whether they are to apply for him to be transferred to a Libyan jail.
Megrahi's second appeal is being heard by five judges in Edinburgh, headed by Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton.
He has already lost one appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died.
Since then he has been in prison in Scotland, and must remain in jail until at least 2026.
The UK has signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, the Foreign Office has confirmed. [Note by RB: More accurately, the agreement, which was signed some time ago, has now been formally ratified by both countries and is now in force.]
The agreement will allow the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to apply to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail.
Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, is currently being held in Greenock prison in Scotland.
He has begun a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 attack on Pan AM Flight 103. (...)
Any possible transfer to a Libyan prison would depend on Megrahi dropping his current appeal, which is expected to last a year.
And any transfer agreement would have to be ratified by Scottish ministers, who would have the final say before the Foreign Office. [Note by RB: I am not sure precisely what this means. The correct position is that, if an application for transfer is made, it is the Scottish Government that has to decide whether or not to grant it.]
There has been no comment from Megrahi's legal team about whether they are to apply for him to be transferred to a Libyan jail.
Megrahi's second appeal is being heard by five judges in Edinburgh, headed by Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton.
He has already lost one appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died.
Since then he has been in prison in Scotland, and must remain in jail until at least 2026.
Further reports on, and reactions to, day one of the appeal
The Scotsman's report on the first day's proceedings, and on the differing views expressed by relatives of those killed in the disaster, can be read here. The report in The Times can be accessed here. Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's account on OhMyNews International can be seen here.
The Dutch television film that had a private showing in the Scottish Parliament on 23 April has now been broadcast in The Netherlands. It can be viewed by accessing this website (click on "video" at the top right corner of the screen). Most of the film is in English.
The Dutch television film that had a private showing in the Scottish Parliament on 23 April has now been broadcast in The Netherlands. It can be viewed by accessing this website (click on "video" at the top right corner of the screen). Most of the film is in English.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
The appeal: day one
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal started today in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh before the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton), Lords Wheatley, Eassie and Kingarth and Lady Paton. A member of the public who attended the first part of today's proceedings -- not a lawyer -- was far from impressed with the process or with the level of interest generated. As someone remarked of proceedings at the first appeal in 2002: "It was as exciting as watching paint dry."
Numerous accounts of the day's proceedings have appeared (almost all of them based on the same news agency reports). The report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on The Guardian website here; that on the CNN website here; that on The New York Times website here; and the Reuters news agency report here.
The report on The Herald's website contains the following account of the opening submissions by Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi:
'Beginning legal submissions on Al Megrahi's behalf, Margaret Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
'She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Al Megrahi was involved in the crime.
'"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said.
'She told the panel of five judges - led by Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton - that Al Megrahi's condition has "deteriorated".
'As a consequence, Al Megrahi, who is able to listen to proceedings via a live link-up, would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings and would need to take breaks, she said.
'Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".
'These were that Al Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing the bomb, that the purchase happened on December 7 1988, that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought, and that the suitcase containing the bomb entered the system at Luqa airport in Malta.
'But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.
'"The appellant challenges the drawing of each of these critical inferences and consequently the conclusion that he was involved in the crime," she said.
'She argued the inferences were not "sufficiently supported" by the accepted evidence and that the inferences relied on "defective reasoning".
'Ms Scott went on: "No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty."
'She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.'
Numerous accounts of the day's proceedings have appeared (almost all of them based on the same news agency reports). The report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on The Guardian website here; that on the CNN website here; that on The New York Times website here; and the Reuters news agency report here.
The report on The Herald's website contains the following account of the opening submissions by Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi:
'Beginning legal submissions on Al Megrahi's behalf, Margaret Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
'She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Al Megrahi was involved in the crime.
'"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said.
'She told the panel of five judges - led by Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton - that Al Megrahi's condition has "deteriorated".
'As a consequence, Al Megrahi, who is able to listen to proceedings via a live link-up, would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings and would need to take breaks, she said.
'Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".
'These were that Al Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing the bomb, that the purchase happened on December 7 1988, that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought, and that the suitcase containing the bomb entered the system at Luqa airport in Malta.
'But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.
'"The appellant challenges the drawing of each of these critical inferences and consequently the conclusion that he was involved in the crime," she said.
'She argued the inferences were not "sufficiently supported" by the accepted evidence and that the inferences relied on "defective reasoning".
'Ms Scott went on: "No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty."
'She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.'
The appeal begins
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal commences today. There is a preview report on the BBC News website. It can be read here. There is also a long article by Lucy Adams in The Herald, which can be read here. The following are excerpts:
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)