[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full text can be read here. The following are excerpts.]
The Lockerbie appeal continued yesterday despite the Libyan Government's request to transfer the man convicted of the bombing back to Tripoli.
Legal experts warned that the deal has not yet been agreed and that, although the Libyan Government has made the application, it cannot go ahead without the agreement of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Maggie Scott, QC, told the court that Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, would be undergoing tests today and next week and that he will not be able to watch but "he wants the matter to proceed".
In order for the transfer to take place, there can be no proceedings active, so Megrahi would have to drop the appeal.
The Crown Office appeal against the length of the 27-year sentence imposed on the Libyan would also have to be dropped. It, too, is currently still live.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "The application is a government-to-government application. The only indication of what Mr Megrahi's attitude towards it is from the mouths of other people. For the transfer to go through, it is Megrahi who would have to agree to drop the appeal."
Megrahi, 57, whose condition is said to have deteriorated considerably, could also re-apply for bail on the basis of his health.
Last year, when three appeal court judges turned down his request for interim liberation, they left it open for him to apply again.
"He is in considerable discomfort," Ms Scott told the court yesterday. "It is anticipated he will be undergoing tests tomorrow and in the course of next week, so it is not anticipated he will be able to witness proceedings over the next series of days. He does, however, want matters to proceed. It is appropriate I point that out to the court."
Friday, 8 May 2009
MSP visits Megrahi in Greenock Prison
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Salmond assures MSPs on Lockerbie transfer decision
First Minister Alex Salmond told Holyrood a decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone"
A decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone", the First Minister said. (...)
The second appeal against conviction by Megrahi began in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Alex Salmond, speaking during First Minister's Questions on Thursday, said it would have been "greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland" were allowed to take their course.
But Mr Salmond insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer - which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - would be based solely on judicial grounds.
Mr Salmond stressed: "What I have said throughout this process is that everything we do as a government will uphold the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.
"Let me repeat that today and also say the decision made by the Justice Secretary will not be made on economic grounds or on political grounds; it will be made on judicial grounds and judicial grounds alone."
The issue had been raised by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott, who said that he believed that "al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland".
And the Lib Dem recalled a statement Mr Salmond had made to Holyrood in June 2007, when he said that Scottish law officers and others, including the Secretary General of the UN, had given assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland.
Mr Scott then asked Mr Salmond: "Does he stand by that statement he made as First Minister?" (...)
Labour MSP Elaine Murray, member for Dumfries, asked what consideration had been given to the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
Ms Murray said comments had already been made by the First Minister that anyone connected to the bombing should be excluded from prisoner transfer.
"Do these statements indicate that Scottish ministers have actually predetermined their response to the Libyan Government, and if so does this enable the Libyans to seek judicial review if the request is turned down?" she asked.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision has been made and added: "I think we were absolutely right - demonstrably right - to warn of the possible consequences of the sequence of events set in place in June 2007, just as we are absolutely duty bound to consider a prisoner transfer agreement on its merits.
"Given the relevant legislation, there can be no prejudging of that agreement before such a PTA came into place."
[From the STV (Scottish Television) website. The full report can be read here.]
A decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone", the First Minister said. (...)
The second appeal against conviction by Megrahi began in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Alex Salmond, speaking during First Minister's Questions on Thursday, said it would have been "greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland" were allowed to take their course.
But Mr Salmond insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer - which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - would be based solely on judicial grounds.
Mr Salmond stressed: "What I have said throughout this process is that everything we do as a government will uphold the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.
"Let me repeat that today and also say the decision made by the Justice Secretary will not be made on economic grounds or on political grounds; it will be made on judicial grounds and judicial grounds alone."
The issue had been raised by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott, who said that he believed that "al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland".
And the Lib Dem recalled a statement Mr Salmond had made to Holyrood in June 2007, when he said that Scottish law officers and others, including the Secretary General of the UN, had given assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland.
Mr Scott then asked Mr Salmond: "Does he stand by that statement he made as First Minister?" (...)
Labour MSP Elaine Murray, member for Dumfries, asked what consideration had been given to the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
Ms Murray said comments had already been made by the First Minister that anyone connected to the bombing should be excluded from prisoner transfer.
"Do these statements indicate that Scottish ministers have actually predetermined their response to the Libyan Government, and if so does this enable the Libyans to seek judicial review if the request is turned down?" she asked.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision has been made and added: "I think we were absolutely right - demonstrably right - to warn of the possible consequences of the sequence of events set in place in June 2007, just as we are absolutely duty bound to consider a prisoner transfer agreement on its merits.
"Given the relevant legislation, there can be no prejudging of that agreement before such a PTA came into place."
[From the STV (Scottish Television) website. The full report can be read here.]
The on-going appeal
The appeal hearing continued on Wednesday, notwithstanding the prisoner transfer application submitted by the Libyan Government.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her review of the evidence regarding ingestion of the fatal suitcase at Luqa Airport in Malta, and argued that the trial court's conclusion that the bomb started its fatal progress there was one that they were not entitled to reach on the evidence presented at the trial. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to entitle the trial court to reach the conclusion that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was a "Libyan plot".
Ms Scott indicated to the court that she was likely to conclude her submissions on Thursday morning. It will then be for Ronnie Clancy QC to respond on behalf of the Crown.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her review of the evidence regarding ingestion of the fatal suitcase at Luqa Airport in Malta, and argued that the trial court's conclusion that the bomb started its fatal progress there was one that they were not entitled to reach on the evidence presented at the trial. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to entitle the trial court to reach the conclusion that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was a "Libyan plot".
Ms Scott indicated to the court that she was likely to conclude her submissions on Thursday morning. It will then be for Ronnie Clancy QC to respond on behalf of the Crown.
Reaction to the transfer application
Alex Salmond [the First Minister in the Scottish Government] was preparing his legal team last night for the most difficult decision of his time in office – whether to allow Britain's biggest mass-murderer to be released from jail and serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya. (…)
Megrahi, 57, a former Libyan secret agent, is terminally ill with prostate cancer and has only just begun his appeal, a process expected to last a year.
However, if he opts to drop the appeal then it will be up to the First Minister, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and Scottish Government officials to decide whether to send him home. (…)
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: "A Scottish court convicted Megrahi of a truly heinous crime – 270 people lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.
"The justice secretary needs to respect the judgment of the Scottish courts. Megrahi should serve his time in a Scottish prison. This application should be refused." (…)
A senior Scottish Government source said there was no way ministers could agree to transfer Megrahi to Libya if legal proceedings were still ongoing. The appeal would have to be concluded – one way or the other – before any decision was taken, he said.
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, but if he drops his appeal and relies on the transfer agreement to get him home, he will leave as a convicted murderer. If he decides to pursue his appeal, he could die before the legal process concludes.
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "When this issue (Megrahi's transfer] first arose as a possibility, we said we would normally expect someone convicted of such an atrocity over Scotland to serve their full sentence in Scotland. That view still prevails today."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman. The article also contains the varying reactions of relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 to the possibility that Mr Megrahi may be repatriated. The Herald’s coverage of the story can be read here.]
Megrahi, 57, a former Libyan secret agent, is terminally ill with prostate cancer and has only just begun his appeal, a process expected to last a year.
However, if he opts to drop the appeal then it will be up to the First Minister, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and Scottish Government officials to decide whether to send him home. (…)
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: "A Scottish court convicted Megrahi of a truly heinous crime – 270 people lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.
"The justice secretary needs to respect the judgment of the Scottish courts. Megrahi should serve his time in a Scottish prison. This application should be refused." (…)
A senior Scottish Government source said there was no way ministers could agree to transfer Megrahi to Libya if legal proceedings were still ongoing. The appeal would have to be concluded – one way or the other – before any decision was taken, he said.
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, but if he drops his appeal and relies on the transfer agreement to get him home, he will leave as a convicted murderer. If he decides to pursue his appeal, he could die before the legal process concludes.
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "When this issue (Megrahi's transfer] first arose as a possibility, we said we would normally expect someone convicted of such an atrocity over Scotland to serve their full sentence in Scotland. That view still prevails today."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman. The article also contains the varying reactions of relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 to the possibility that Mr Megrahi may be repatriated. The Herald’s coverage of the story can be read here.]
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
What happens now?
[The most detailed report of today's events that I have been able to find comes from The Associated Press news agency. Excerpts appear below. The full report can be read here.]
The only person jailed over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing said he would drop his appeal against conviction — provided Britain allows him to serve the rest of sentence in Libya, a visiting Libyan official said Wednesday.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill with cancer, (...) has been fighting his conviction in a Scottish court, but a Libyan Foreign Ministry official said al-Megrahi would be willing to drop the case.
"He is sick. He has cancer. There is no cure for his case. He told me that he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," said Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi [more normally transliterated as Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, the Deputy Foreign Minister for European Affairs], who is leading a Libyan delegation to London. "Al-Megrahi said that he is ready to drop the appeal if he is guaranteed that he will be transferred to Libya." (...)
Al-Megrahi's lawyers have said British and U.S. authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame. (...)
Al-Megrahi's appeal, which has been under review since April 28 at Edinburgh's High Court, points to an exhaustive 2007 legal review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board raised questions about evidence used to convict al-Megrahi.
Relatives of the victims expressed dismay Wednesday at the news that al-Megrahi might be sent to Libya.
Scottish lawmaker Christine Grahame said she believed al-Megrahi would succeed in clearing his name if he can complete the appeal process, but she said it was "understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health."
She called for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, even if al-Megrahi were no longer in the country.
Robert Monetti, from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose son Rick died in the blast, said "the American families are incredibly opposed to letting al-Megrahi out of Scotland."
"As a group we are generally convinced that he is guilty and ought to serve his sentence" in Britain, Monetti said.
El-Ubaidi, the Libyan official, said he made a request to Scottish officials Tuesday to drop the appeal. Scotland's government confirmed receiving the request, and said a decision could take three months or longer. Scotland had said it would not repatriate him while his appeal was being heard.
Meanwhile, appeals proceedings were held Wednesday at the court in Edinburgh. Al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly declined comment, prosecution spokesman Kevin Bell said the appeal was expected to continue.
The only person jailed over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing said he would drop his appeal against conviction — provided Britain allows him to serve the rest of sentence in Libya, a visiting Libyan official said Wednesday.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill with cancer, (...) has been fighting his conviction in a Scottish court, but a Libyan Foreign Ministry official said al-Megrahi would be willing to drop the case.
"He is sick. He has cancer. There is no cure for his case. He told me that he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," said Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi [more normally transliterated as Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, the Deputy Foreign Minister for European Affairs], who is leading a Libyan delegation to London. "Al-Megrahi said that he is ready to drop the appeal if he is guaranteed that he will be transferred to Libya." (...)
Al-Megrahi's lawyers have said British and U.S. authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame. (...)
Al-Megrahi's appeal, which has been under review since April 28 at Edinburgh's High Court, points to an exhaustive 2007 legal review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board raised questions about evidence used to convict al-Megrahi.
Relatives of the victims expressed dismay Wednesday at the news that al-Megrahi might be sent to Libya.
Scottish lawmaker Christine Grahame said she believed al-Megrahi would succeed in clearing his name if he can complete the appeal process, but she said it was "understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health."
She called for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, even if al-Megrahi were no longer in the country.
Robert Monetti, from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose son Rick died in the blast, said "the American families are incredibly opposed to letting al-Megrahi out of Scotland."
"As a group we are generally convinced that he is guilty and ought to serve his sentence" in Britain, Monetti said.
El-Ubaidi, the Libyan official, said he made a request to Scottish officials Tuesday to drop the appeal. Scotland's government confirmed receiving the request, and said a decision could take three months or longer. Scotland had said it would not repatriate him while his appeal was being heard.
Meanwhile, appeals proceedings were held Wednesday at the court in Edinburgh. Al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly declined comment, prosecution spokesman Kevin Bell said the appeal was expected to continue.
A MSP's response to the transfer application
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.]
“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.]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)