Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Deliberate information diffusion?
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog contains an interesting post following on from the Lucy Adams article in The Herald which forms the subject of the immediately preceding entry on this blog. The post can be read here. The anonymous author apparently attended a lecture by me in The Edinburgh Law School in 2004 and -- which must be unique -- remembers it.
Monday, 1 June 2009
The psychological state of Abdelbaset Megrahi
Stricken by cancer, desperate to see his mother …
Little is known about the man who has already served 10 years in prison for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
Famous for being convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity on mainland Britain, which killed 270, the only things most people are aware of about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi are the bare facts of his trial and appeals .
But the psychological report commissioned by the Libyan consul earlier this year reveals details of a man dedicated to his family.
It explains that, among his seven siblings, he has always had a strong attachment to his 85-year-old mother. She cannot visit him because of arthritis.
The report states: "Of all the children he was, and remains, particularly close to his mother who is now 85; since being in prison he has phoned her every day and every day she says that she hopes to see him again before she dies."
It also talks about his dedication to prayer and says his daily routine revolves around going to sleep after his final prayers at 9pm, and rising to pray at 4.30am.
The reports states: "There is little doubt that Mr. Megrahi is suffering high levels of emotional and psychological distress.
"He is not only dealing with a progressive fatal illness and unpleasant side-effects from his treatment, but also the stressful uncertainty of his prognosis.
"Unlike most people with cancer he is unable to access any form of confiding support.
"There is a lack of culturally appropriate support to enable Mr. Megrahi to give vent to the very natural emotions he is feeling and, in the face of his mortality, to adjust to and make peace with his impending death.
"Although his religion is a source of great solace, he is highly frustrated by his inability to care for his family."
Fiercely private, Megrahi has tried to keep his personal details and family out of the media spotlight.
The diagnosis in September last year of terminal prostate cancer has changed this. In December, his family spoke out for the first time and his wife Aisha Megrahi publicly pleaded for his release to allow him to spend his remaining time with her and their five children.
"Please release him so he can spend what few days he has left at home with his family," she told The Herald.
Megrahi's conviction in 2001 was seen as a huge triumph for the Scottish legal establishment and a symbol of changing international relations. However, serious doubts about his guilt have grown ever since.
A successful appeal would prove highly embarrassing, not just for the Scottish judicial system. It is understood some members of the UK and American security agencies would prefer the case not to be reopened publicly.
Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005 but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consistently denied that such discussions bore any relevance to Megrahi.
Such denials look particularly flimsy now that Libya has in fact applied to transfer Megrahi. At this stage it is a government-to-government application. The decision on whether to allow the transfer will be down to Scottish ministers, but it cannot be signed off unless Megrahi himself agrees to drop the appeal.
Despite seemingly interminable delays, his new appeal began in April. But with hopes of clearing his name so close to realisation, he has to face up to the fact he may not live to see its conclusion.
Faced with deciding to pursue the appeal - expected to be one of the most complex in Scottish legal history - and have the prospect of dying thousands of miles from home in a Scots prison, or drop the legal proceedings and apply for a transfer to Libya, it is impossible to say what he should or will do, but officials are working behind the scenes to persuade him to opt for the latter option.
In the meantime he has been forced to choose between a slow and lengthy appeal during which he is isolated from his family and which he may not live to see the end of, or applying to return to his home country and seeing his family before he dies. Few would blame him for choosing to return.
The psychological report concludes: "In my view it is self-evident that Mr Megrahi would be considerably less stressed, and at lower risk of depression, if he were able to be with his family, to receive their care and to be able to plan for their future. The prison environment adds to what is already a highly stressful situation for him and I have no doubt that a home environment would be highly beneficial to his psychological health, if not his physical health. It would also mean that he would be able to receive culturally sensitive care and support from others.
"At the very least, while he remains in prison he should be offered regular emotional support from someone trained in doing so, and preferably from someone who understands Mr Megrahi's cultural background and needs."
[The above is an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. A much shorter version of the same story from the Daily Record website can be accessed here.
The reasons for the very long absence of posts on this blog are that (a) I had to make a short visit to Scotland and (b) since my return to South Africa the phone lines in my remote part of the Northern Cape have been out of order and so I have been unable to access the internet.]
Little is known about the man who has already served 10 years in prison for the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
Famous for being convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity on mainland Britain, which killed 270, the only things most people are aware of about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi are the bare facts of his trial and appeals .
But the psychological report commissioned by the Libyan consul earlier this year reveals details of a man dedicated to his family.
It explains that, among his seven siblings, he has always had a strong attachment to his 85-year-old mother. She cannot visit him because of arthritis.
The report states: "Of all the children he was, and remains, particularly close to his mother who is now 85; since being in prison he has phoned her every day and every day she says that she hopes to see him again before she dies."
It also talks about his dedication to prayer and says his daily routine revolves around going to sleep after his final prayers at 9pm, and rising to pray at 4.30am.
The reports states: "There is little doubt that Mr. Megrahi is suffering high levels of emotional and psychological distress.
"He is not only dealing with a progressive fatal illness and unpleasant side-effects from his treatment, but also the stressful uncertainty of his prognosis.
"Unlike most people with cancer he is unable to access any form of confiding support.
"There is a lack of culturally appropriate support to enable Mr. Megrahi to give vent to the very natural emotions he is feeling and, in the face of his mortality, to adjust to and make peace with his impending death.
"Although his religion is a source of great solace, he is highly frustrated by his inability to care for his family."
Fiercely private, Megrahi has tried to keep his personal details and family out of the media spotlight.
The diagnosis in September last year of terminal prostate cancer has changed this. In December, his family spoke out for the first time and his wife Aisha Megrahi publicly pleaded for his release to allow him to spend his remaining time with her and their five children.
"Please release him so he can spend what few days he has left at home with his family," she told The Herald.
Megrahi's conviction in 2001 was seen as a huge triumph for the Scottish legal establishment and a symbol of changing international relations. However, serious doubts about his guilt have grown ever since.
A successful appeal would prove highly embarrassing, not just for the Scottish judicial system. It is understood some members of the UK and American security agencies would prefer the case not to be reopened publicly.
Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005 but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consistently denied that such discussions bore any relevance to Megrahi.
Such denials look particularly flimsy now that Libya has in fact applied to transfer Megrahi. At this stage it is a government-to-government application. The decision on whether to allow the transfer will be down to Scottish ministers, but it cannot be signed off unless Megrahi himself agrees to drop the appeal.
Despite seemingly interminable delays, his new appeal began in April. But with hopes of clearing his name so close to realisation, he has to face up to the fact he may not live to see its conclusion.
Faced with deciding to pursue the appeal - expected to be one of the most complex in Scottish legal history - and have the prospect of dying thousands of miles from home in a Scots prison, or drop the legal proceedings and apply for a transfer to Libya, it is impossible to say what he should or will do, but officials are working behind the scenes to persuade him to opt for the latter option.
In the meantime he has been forced to choose between a slow and lengthy appeal during which he is isolated from his family and which he may not live to see the end of, or applying to return to his home country and seeing his family before he dies. Few would blame him for choosing to return.
The psychological report concludes: "In my view it is self-evident that Mr Megrahi would be considerably less stressed, and at lower risk of depression, if he were able to be with his family, to receive their care and to be able to plan for their future. The prison environment adds to what is already a highly stressful situation for him and I have no doubt that a home environment would be highly beneficial to his psychological health, if not his physical health. It would also mean that he would be able to receive culturally sensitive care and support from others.
"At the very least, while he remains in prison he should be offered regular emotional support from someone trained in doing so, and preferably from someone who understands Mr Megrahi's cultural background and needs."
[The above is an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. A much shorter version of the same story from the Daily Record website can be accessed here.
The reasons for the very long absence of posts on this blog are that (a) I had to make a short visit to Scotland and (b) since my return to South Africa the phone lines in my remote part of the Northern Cape have been out of order and so I have been unable to access the internet.]
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
End of first stage of appeal
The first stage of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal did in fact end yesterday. Here is what the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton) said at the conclusion of the proceedings:
'The court is much obliged to counsel on either hand for the careful and comprehensive submissions which have been made at this stage of the appeal. We will now, of course, require to give these submissions detailed and careful consideration. A question will arise as to whether it is appropriate to decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage or, alternatively, to defer that decision until we have heard argument on other grounds, which are or may be closely related to them.
'We appreciate that having regard to, among other things, the appellant's state of health there will be concern that we deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. But having regard to their importance to all concerned, we cannot and must not rush to judgment.
'Time has been set aside towards the end of this term for a procedural hearing in relation to further grounds of appeal. And in terms of the interlocutor of 18 March of this year, days were set aside in the week commencing 29 June for that purpose. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into, we intend to change that date or dates to dates in the week following that, that is the week commencing 6 July. We expect that by that time we will have reached a decision as to whether or not we should decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage and to be able to intimate which course of action, either deciding them at this stage or deferring them, we have decided upon.
'But by this time, we shall simply continue the appeal to the first of the dates which are now substituted for the procedural matters which we have referred to, that is to Tuesday 7 July of this year.'
Media accounts have been provided by BBC News and by The Scotsman.
'The court is much obliged to counsel on either hand for the careful and comprehensive submissions which have been made at this stage of the appeal. We will now, of course, require to give these submissions detailed and careful consideration. A question will arise as to whether it is appropriate to decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage or, alternatively, to defer that decision until we have heard argument on other grounds, which are or may be closely related to them.
'We appreciate that having regard to, among other things, the appellant's state of health there will be concern that we deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. But having regard to their importance to all concerned, we cannot and must not rush to judgment.
'Time has been set aside towards the end of this term for a procedural hearing in relation to further grounds of appeal. And in terms of the interlocutor of 18 March of this year, days were set aside in the week commencing 29 June for that purpose. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into, we intend to change that date or dates to dates in the week following that, that is the week commencing 6 July. We expect that by that time we will have reached a decision as to whether or not we should decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage and to be able to intimate which course of action, either deciding them at this stage or deferring them, we have decided upon.
'But by this time, we shall simply continue the appeal to the first of the dates which are now substituted for the procedural matters which we have referred to, that is to Tuesday 7 July of this year.'
Media accounts have been provided by BBC News and by The Scotsman.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Is the first stage of the appeal over?
The Crown was due to end its submissions at today’s session of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal. Whether it did, in fact, do so and whether the first stage of the appeal accordingly came to an end, I cannot say since no media organisation has seen fit as yet to enlighten us. Perhaps tomorrow’s newspapers will let us know. But, given the paucity of the coverage to date, I would not recommend holding your breath.
After the conclusion of the first stage, the court is due to recess for a month before starting the second stage which is expected to be largely devoted to challenging the evidence of Tony Gauci and the conclusions that the trial court reached on that evidence.
After the conclusion of the first stage, the court is due to recess for a month before starting the second stage which is expected to be largely devoted to challenging the evidence of Tony Gauci and the conclusions that the trial court reached on that evidence.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Malta could have done more to reject Lockerbie claims - UN monitor
[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of The Sunday Times, Malta. It reads as follows:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty as charged and there is no convincing argument for Malta's involvement in the terrorist act, according to the United Nations' appointed monitor of the trial in the Netherlands.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, told The Sunday Times: "I never really understood why the government of Malta did so little to reject these allegations and to defend the integrity of the country's civil aviation system."
Twenty years after the bombing, the government has gone no further than saying that it is monitoring proceedings of the second appeal. Air Malta did not comment.
Malta was implicated in the terrorist act because the prosecution had argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A.
The flight went to London Heathrow and was bound for New York's JFK airport before exploding over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands had led the Scottish judges to conclude in 2001 that Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty. He was jailed for life while the other defendant was released.
In his report after the verdict, Dr Koechler had concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Several years on, he stands by his conclusions: "The court did not come up with any convincing argument that Mr Al-Megrahi is the one who bought the clothes at the shop in Malta and that the 'bomb suitcase' was loaded at Luqa Airport."
Dr Koechler expressed doubt that Mr Al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal, which started on April 28, could be fair and impartial because of the "outright interference of the British government trying to withhold certain sensitive evidence from the defence".
He said political expediency had guided the original verdict, saying it reflected the political considerations related to the foreign policy interests of the involved states at that time.
One of Malta's leading lawyers, who had formed part of the legal team in the defence of the two Libyan suspects, also believes Mr Al-Megrahi is innocent.
Emmanuel Mallia told The Sunday Times: "I personally know the accused and have always firmly believed in his innocence."
Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation came to the conclusion that a "miscarriage of justice" may have occurred.
Dr Mallia would not enter into the merits of the case because it is still sub judice. But he said his personal view was that the verdict was flawed.
"Having examined the judgment of the court at Camp Zeist and being aware of the salient evidence produced in the case by the prosecution, I feel that the evidence could never have amounted to guilt of the accusation according to law," Dr Mallia said.
He said the prosecution lacked reliable evidence that could prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: "Although there were a lot of issues which could give rise to suspicion, anything argued on the basis of suspicion may lead to conjecture but not proof. Even if considering circumstantial evidence, we know that such evidence can mislead and, in order to rely upon it, it has to lead to one direction."
Some argue that at the early investigation stage Malta was perhaps too compliant.
"The government gave access to the Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary. Some have argued that things may have been done differently with the Malta police having more direct control of the investigation".
A former Scottish judge regarded as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, also told The Sunday Times last week that there was never any evidence that the bomb left from Malta.
On his blog this week, Prof. Black contested arguments made by the prosecution at the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent days that Mr Al-Megrahi's trip to Malta with a false passport the day the bomb was planted, and his departure the day after, was a link to the commission of the offence.
"As regards the coded - not false - passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal," Prof. Black said.
The hearing continues despite rumours that the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer may choose to drop his appeal and go home because of a recent prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from prostate cancer and can choose to die at home. But dropping his appeal will leave him a condemned man and mean that Malta will remain implicated in one of the worst terrorist acts in aviation history.
According to Dr Koechler, it is "absolutely essential" that the appeal goes ahead: "The Scottish authorities can reconcile the imperatives of the rule of law and of humanity and grant the appellant compassionate release while the appeal goes on... In a situation where there are serious doubts whether he is guilty as charged, and where the public is confronted with an increasing number of shocking revelations about the mishandling of the case by the judiciary, tampering with evidence, and so on, it is appropriate to make such a step."
Dr Koechler believes the British Parliament should mandate an independent public investigation into the Lockerbie case.
"The international public, including the people of Malta, deserve to know the truth - the full and uncensored truth - about the chain of events that led to the explosion of the American jetliner over Lockerbie."
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty as charged and there is no convincing argument for Malta's involvement in the terrorist act, according to the United Nations' appointed monitor of the trial in the Netherlands.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, told The Sunday Times: "I never really understood why the government of Malta did so little to reject these allegations and to defend the integrity of the country's civil aviation system."
Twenty years after the bombing, the government has gone no further than saying that it is monitoring proceedings of the second appeal. Air Malta did not comment.
Malta was implicated in the terrorist act because the prosecution had argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A.
The flight went to London Heathrow and was bound for New York's JFK airport before exploding over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands had led the Scottish judges to conclude in 2001 that Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty. He was jailed for life while the other defendant was released.
In his report after the verdict, Dr Koechler had concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Several years on, he stands by his conclusions: "The court did not come up with any convincing argument that Mr Al-Megrahi is the one who bought the clothes at the shop in Malta and that the 'bomb suitcase' was loaded at Luqa Airport."
Dr Koechler expressed doubt that Mr Al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal, which started on April 28, could be fair and impartial because of the "outright interference of the British government trying to withhold certain sensitive evidence from the defence".
He said political expediency had guided the original verdict, saying it reflected the political considerations related to the foreign policy interests of the involved states at that time.
One of Malta's leading lawyers, who had formed part of the legal team in the defence of the two Libyan suspects, also believes Mr Al-Megrahi is innocent.
Emmanuel Mallia told The Sunday Times: "I personally know the accused and have always firmly believed in his innocence."
Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation came to the conclusion that a "miscarriage of justice" may have occurred.
Dr Mallia would not enter into the merits of the case because it is still sub judice. But he said his personal view was that the verdict was flawed.
"Having examined the judgment of the court at Camp Zeist and being aware of the salient evidence produced in the case by the prosecution, I feel that the evidence could never have amounted to guilt of the accusation according to law," Dr Mallia said.
He said the prosecution lacked reliable evidence that could prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: "Although there were a lot of issues which could give rise to suspicion, anything argued on the basis of suspicion may lead to conjecture but not proof. Even if considering circumstantial evidence, we know that such evidence can mislead and, in order to rely upon it, it has to lead to one direction."
Some argue that at the early investigation stage Malta was perhaps too compliant.
"The government gave access to the Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary. Some have argued that things may have been done differently with the Malta police having more direct control of the investigation".
A former Scottish judge regarded as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, also told The Sunday Times last week that there was never any evidence that the bomb left from Malta.
On his blog this week, Prof. Black contested arguments made by the prosecution at the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent days that Mr Al-Megrahi's trip to Malta with a false passport the day the bomb was planted, and his departure the day after, was a link to the commission of the offence.
"As regards the coded - not false - passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal," Prof. Black said.
The hearing continues despite rumours that the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer may choose to drop his appeal and go home because of a recent prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from prostate cancer and can choose to die at home. But dropping his appeal will leave him a condemned man and mean that Malta will remain implicated in one of the worst terrorist acts in aviation history.
According to Dr Koechler, it is "absolutely essential" that the appeal goes ahead: "The Scottish authorities can reconcile the imperatives of the rule of law and of humanity and grant the appellant compassionate release while the appeal goes on... In a situation where there are serious doubts whether he is guilty as charged, and where the public is confronted with an increasing number of shocking revelations about the mishandling of the case by the judiciary, tampering with evidence, and so on, it is appropriate to make such a step."
Dr Koechler believes the British Parliament should mandate an independent public investigation into the Lockerbie case.
"The international public, including the people of Malta, deserve to know the truth - the full and uncensored truth - about the chain of events that led to the explosion of the American jetliner over Lockerbie."
Lockerbie evidence needs public hearing
This is the heading over a letter by Roger Salvesen in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:
'Your editorial contains the words "Any decision to free the prisoner…" (Leader, 10 May). As I understand it the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the recently signed agreement between Libya and the UK allows a prisoner of Libyan nationality, convicted and imprisoned in the UK, to be transferred to Libya after a certain time spent in a UK jail to serve out the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison, and that is not the same as freeing the prisoner.
'Perhaps imprisonment for Megrahi in Libya would be different from, perhaps better than, the conditions he experiences in Greenock, but there have been precedents in the past where Britons found guilty and imprisoned abroad have been transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of their sentences in UK prisons.
'Your editorial talks about a question mark hanging over Scottish justice. I would agree that this must be avoided at all costs, but there seem to be many obstacles which might be in the way of achieving this. The jurisdiction of the Scottish Appeal Court requires Megrahi to be physically present in Scotland during the duration of the appeal, which might take a year to come to a conclusion.
'It seems to me to be absolutely vital that the new information which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board has provided for the current appeal must somehow be brought into the public domain. At the moment it seems that Megrahi must abandon his appeal if he is to obtain his wish to be transferred to Libya and so the information would not be revealed. What would happen if he decides to stay in Scotland but dies before the court can deliver a judgment? Would any new evidence which hadn't been presented by then be lost? We know now that new evidence is available and it seems to me that, to preserve the reputation of Scottish justice, means must be found to present and test this so that the Appeal Court can deliver a judgment on whether the original conviction was safe. This is too important to founder on a technicality.'
If Mr Megrahi were to die during the course of the appeal, it would be possible for any person with a legitimate interest (eg his wife or his children) to apply to the court to be allowed to continue the appeal. This issue is dealt with in an earlier post on this blog which can be read here.
The Sunday Express today runs a story featuring the views of Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of the all-party Libya group in the UK Parliament. He contends that there should be no question of Mr Megrahi's returning to Libya until that country resumes cooperation with the UK police investigating the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan People's Bureau in London on 17 April 1984. The article reads in part:
'Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been accused of abandoning the bid to nail the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot dead by a Libyan diplomat 25 years ago.
'Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said the Foreign Office was now afraid to “rock the boat” over the notorious murder, for fear of jeopardising lucrative trade deals with Colonel Gadaffi’s regime. (...)
'Mr Kawzcynski, who is in close contact with the Fletcher family, said the British government should withdraw a deal that could see the Lockerbie bomber returned to Libya until co-operation with the police is restored. (...)
'Under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement signed this month, cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie, could be returned to Tripoli.
'Mr Kawzcynski said: “If he is to be returned then the British government should be seeking the killer of Yvonne Fletcher in exchange.
'“The Libyans are not being given enough incentive to co-operate.”
'A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office last night insisted that securing full co-operation with Libya over the investigation remained “a key objective in our relations”.
'She added: “The Government is conscious that the investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher has not moved forward as quickly as we had hoped and remains unsolved.
'“We continue to make every effort to engage with the Libyan government on this issue and repeatedly raise the case during high-level bilateral visits. We are very aware of the terrible pain caused by Libya’s actions in the past, not least to the Fletcher family.”'
'Your editorial contains the words "Any decision to free the prisoner…" (Leader, 10 May). As I understand it the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the recently signed agreement between Libya and the UK allows a prisoner of Libyan nationality, convicted and imprisoned in the UK, to be transferred to Libya after a certain time spent in a UK jail to serve out the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison, and that is not the same as freeing the prisoner.
'Perhaps imprisonment for Megrahi in Libya would be different from, perhaps better than, the conditions he experiences in Greenock, but there have been precedents in the past where Britons found guilty and imprisoned abroad have been transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of their sentences in UK prisons.
'Your editorial talks about a question mark hanging over Scottish justice. I would agree that this must be avoided at all costs, but there seem to be many obstacles which might be in the way of achieving this. The jurisdiction of the Scottish Appeal Court requires Megrahi to be physically present in Scotland during the duration of the appeal, which might take a year to come to a conclusion.
'It seems to me to be absolutely vital that the new information which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board has provided for the current appeal must somehow be brought into the public domain. At the moment it seems that Megrahi must abandon his appeal if he is to obtain his wish to be transferred to Libya and so the information would not be revealed. What would happen if he decides to stay in Scotland but dies before the court can deliver a judgment? Would any new evidence which hadn't been presented by then be lost? We know now that new evidence is available and it seems to me that, to preserve the reputation of Scottish justice, means must be found to present and test this so that the Appeal Court can deliver a judgment on whether the original conviction was safe. This is too important to founder on a technicality.'
If Mr Megrahi were to die during the course of the appeal, it would be possible for any person with a legitimate interest (eg his wife or his children) to apply to the court to be allowed to continue the appeal. This issue is dealt with in an earlier post on this blog which can be read here.
The Sunday Express today runs a story featuring the views of Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of the all-party Libya group in the UK Parliament. He contends that there should be no question of Mr Megrahi's returning to Libya until that country resumes cooperation with the UK police investigating the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan People's Bureau in London on 17 April 1984. The article reads in part:
'Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been accused of abandoning the bid to nail the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot dead by a Libyan diplomat 25 years ago.
'Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said the Foreign Office was now afraid to “rock the boat” over the notorious murder, for fear of jeopardising lucrative trade deals with Colonel Gadaffi’s regime. (...)
'Mr Kawzcynski, who is in close contact with the Fletcher family, said the British government should withdraw a deal that could see the Lockerbie bomber returned to Libya until co-operation with the police is restored. (...)
'Under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement signed this month, cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie, could be returned to Tripoli.
'Mr Kawzcynski said: “If he is to be returned then the British government should be seeking the killer of Yvonne Fletcher in exchange.
'“The Libyans are not being given enough incentive to co-operate.”
'A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office last night insisted that securing full co-operation with Libya over the investigation remained “a key objective in our relations”.
'She added: “The Government is conscious that the investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher has not moved forward as quickly as we had hoped and remains unsolved.
'“We continue to make every effort to engage with the Libyan government on this issue and repeatedly raise the case during high-level bilateral visits. We are very aware of the terrible pain caused by Libya’s actions in the past, not least to the Fletcher family.”'
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Pan Am Flight 103: Flimsy justice
[What follows is an editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune.]
Libya is taking steps to welcome home one of its own -- the only person ever convicted of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. His transfer would seal the mockery of justice for 270 victims, including four Western Pennsylvanians.
"Justice" is why Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, has appealed for the second time his 2001 conviction. But he'll forgo that formality, and supposedly drop his appeal, if Britain allows his transfer from Scotland to Libya -- where he would "serve" the remainder of his 27-year sentence. Reportedly he's dying of cancer.
Even as his appeal goes forward, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has raised new questions about evidence in the 1988 jetliner bombing. Which might explain why Britain signed a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya. The transfer application could take 90 days.
"(Mr. Megrahi) told me he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," says Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi, leader of a Libyan delegation to London. That's a far more humane fate than the jetliner's victims received.
Could Megrahi's return be, as some Libyan commentators suggest, a quid pro quo to Western companies for Libya's oil and gas reserves? Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi already has paid $2.7 billion to the victims' families to make the Lockerbie bombing go away.
Flimsy justice is a pathetic response to despicable terrorism. And that only emboldens tomorrow's terrorists.
Libya is taking steps to welcome home one of its own -- the only person ever convicted of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. His transfer would seal the mockery of justice for 270 victims, including four Western Pennsylvanians.
"Justice" is why Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, has appealed for the second time his 2001 conviction. But he'll forgo that formality, and supposedly drop his appeal, if Britain allows his transfer from Scotland to Libya -- where he would "serve" the remainder of his 27-year sentence. Reportedly he's dying of cancer.
Even as his appeal goes forward, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has raised new questions about evidence in the 1988 jetliner bombing. Which might explain why Britain signed a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya. The transfer application could take 90 days.
"(Mr. Megrahi) told me he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," says Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi, leader of a Libyan delegation to London. That's a far more humane fate than the jetliner's victims received.
Could Megrahi's return be, as some Libyan commentators suggest, a quid pro quo to Western companies for Libya's oil and gas reserves? Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi already has paid $2.7 billion to the victims' families to make the Lockerbie bombing go away.
Flimsy justice is a pathetic response to despicable terrorism. And that only emboldens tomorrow's terrorists.
Friday, 15 May 2009
The views of the UK's first ambassador to Tripoli after restoration of diplomatic relations
In 1999, Libya delivered the Lockerbie suspects to stand trial before a Scottish court convened in the Netherlands, which acquitted Mr Fhimah but sentenced Megrahi to life in prison with a minimum of 27 years. Meanwhile, Libya began secret talks with the United States and repaired ties with Britain.
“Relations developed quite quickly,” said Sir Richard Dalton, posted to Libya in 1999 as Britain’s first ambassador in 15 years and currently an analyst with Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London. “The Libyans were acting responsibly and had fulfilled their obligations in the case of the Lockerbie incident.”
Rapprochement has seen Libya pay US$2.7 billion (Dh9.9bn) to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and renounce attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. UN and US sanctions have been lifted, and a US Embassy reopened in Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
“The Libyans have maintained that Megrahi is innocent, and on humanitarian grounds they’d like to see him restored to his family in Libya,” Sir Richard said.
The move is likely to win applause for their government from ordinary Libyans, said Ronald Bruce St John, a Libya expert and analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank that is part of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
“There’s considerable support in Libya for the argument that the government was not involved in Lockerbie.”
However, Tripoli’s request leaves Megrahi in a bind. If he goes home, he will have to drop his current attempt to appeal his conviction. If he stays to fight his case, he may die before its conclusion.
The affair has caused a stir in Britain, where Scottish politicians have voiced dismay at the prospect of Megrahi being turned loose. Some families of Lockerbie victims believe he may be innocent, but others want him to stay in Scottish custody.
“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,” said Barrie Berkley, an Englishman whose son Alistair was killed in the bombing, quoted by the BBC.
A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, said Sir Richard. “But there would be consequences.”
Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects, Sir Richard said.
A spokesman for the US Embassy in London said Washington wanted Megrahi to remain in Scottish hands, while Britain’s foreign office declined to comment on the affair. (...)
His case is currently being examined by the Scottish authorities, said Fiona Wilson, a spokeswoman for Scotland’s devolved government.
“You have to look at Lockerbie as the last remaining unpleasantness between Britain and Libya,” Dr St John said. “They’d like to get it off the table.”
[From an article by John Thorne, foreign correspendent of The National newspaper, Abu Dhabi.]
“Relations developed quite quickly,” said Sir Richard Dalton, posted to Libya in 1999 as Britain’s first ambassador in 15 years and currently an analyst with Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London. “The Libyans were acting responsibly and had fulfilled their obligations in the case of the Lockerbie incident.”
Rapprochement has seen Libya pay US$2.7 billion (Dh9.9bn) to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and renounce attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. UN and US sanctions have been lifted, and a US Embassy reopened in Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
“The Libyans have maintained that Megrahi is innocent, and on humanitarian grounds they’d like to see him restored to his family in Libya,” Sir Richard said.
The move is likely to win applause for their government from ordinary Libyans, said Ronald Bruce St John, a Libya expert and analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank that is part of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
“There’s considerable support in Libya for the argument that the government was not involved in Lockerbie.”
However, Tripoli’s request leaves Megrahi in a bind. If he goes home, he will have to drop his current attempt to appeal his conviction. If he stays to fight his case, he may die before its conclusion.
The affair has caused a stir in Britain, where Scottish politicians have voiced dismay at the prospect of Megrahi being turned loose. Some families of Lockerbie victims believe he may be innocent, but others want him to stay in Scottish custody.
“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,” said Barrie Berkley, an Englishman whose son Alistair was killed in the bombing, quoted by the BBC.
A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, said Sir Richard. “But there would be consequences.”
Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects, Sir Richard said.
A spokesman for the US Embassy in London said Washington wanted Megrahi to remain in Scottish hands, while Britain’s foreign office declined to comment on the affair. (...)
His case is currently being examined by the Scottish authorities, said Fiona Wilson, a spokeswoman for Scotland’s devolved government.
“You have to look at Lockerbie as the last remaining unpleasantness between Britain and Libya,” Dr St John said. “They’d like to get it off the table.”
[From an article by John Thorne, foreign correspendent of The National newspaper, Abu Dhabi.]
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Al-Megrahi has alternative to non-choice over appeal
If it really is true that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is not guilty, it must be very difficult for him to agree to take advantage of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (your report, 7 May).
Why would he trust a deal under which he would have to renounce his appeal in the hope that ministers of the state, which he would see as having wrongly convicted him, would later agree to his transfer?
He has an alternative. When he applied previously for bail on compassionate grounds because of his illness, this was rejected but he was told that his lawyers could apply again if his circumstances changed.
On 8 May, we heard in court that he was in too much discomfort from his illness, and in too great a need for further treatment urgently this week, to be able even to listen to the court proceedings over the line arranged for him between the court and Greenock prison.
This surely is a grave change of circumstances.
If he applied again, maybe bail would be approved, he has little to lose by doing so, the decision by their lordships could be quickly reached, and if positive, the bail conditions would require him to remain in Scotland, but he could be with his family at the house which is already available for them.
Separation from his family is known to be a great stress for him. Reducing his stress level would be likely to prolong his life. Guilty or innocent, it also seems the humane, Christian and merciful thing to do.
Were he to die in prison during the appeal, he will surely be seen as a martyr, Scots law would take further criticism, and there would be at least further delay in examining the totality of the evidence now available.
Those who, like us, seek the truth in this terrible case should be greatly relieved were bail granted, since he would not be required to withdraw his appeal, and we are desperately keen to see all the evidence examined again in the appeal court under Scots law as soon as possible.
There also appears to be no obvious alternative to the appeal for the Scottish legal system to redress the grave damage which its reputation has sustained, particularly abroad, through the verdict reached on the basis of the evidence at Zeist.
[This is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman. There is, of course, the further alternative of an application to the Scottish Government for compassionate release on licence; this is dealt with here.]
Why would he trust a deal under which he would have to renounce his appeal in the hope that ministers of the state, which he would see as having wrongly convicted him, would later agree to his transfer?
He has an alternative. When he applied previously for bail on compassionate grounds because of his illness, this was rejected but he was told that his lawyers could apply again if his circumstances changed.
On 8 May, we heard in court that he was in too much discomfort from his illness, and in too great a need for further treatment urgently this week, to be able even to listen to the court proceedings over the line arranged for him between the court and Greenock prison.
This surely is a grave change of circumstances.
If he applied again, maybe bail would be approved, he has little to lose by doing so, the decision by their lordships could be quickly reached, and if positive, the bail conditions would require him to remain in Scotland, but he could be with his family at the house which is already available for them.
Separation from his family is known to be a great stress for him. Reducing his stress level would be likely to prolong his life. Guilty or innocent, it also seems the humane, Christian and merciful thing to do.
Were he to die in prison during the appeal, he will surely be seen as a martyr, Scots law would take further criticism, and there would be at least further delay in examining the totality of the evidence now available.
Those who, like us, seek the truth in this terrible case should be greatly relieved were bail granted, since he would not be required to withdraw his appeal, and we are desperately keen to see all the evidence examined again in the appeal court under Scots law as soon as possible.
There also appears to be no obvious alternative to the appeal for the Scottish legal system to redress the grave damage which its reputation has sustained, particularly abroad, through the verdict reached on the basis of the evidence at Zeist.
[This is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman. There is, of course, the further alternative of an application to the Scottish Government for compassionate release on licence; this is dealt with here.]
The appeal: week three
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrah's appeal has been continuing in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh though, until today, there has been no media coverage that I have been able to trace on the internet. However, a report has now appeared on The Herald's website. It reads in part:
'The Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the Lockerbie bombing made an unexplained trip to Malta using a false passport and an assumed name, appeal judges were told yesterday.
'He arrived the day the bomb that killed 270 people was planted at the island's Luqa Airport and left the following morning, said Ronnie Clancy QC.
'"At no stage was any significant evidence offered as to the issue or use of the passport in any innocent connection.
'"The only evidence about that was a false denial of the possession of the passport."
'Despite rumours that have been circulating for days that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will drop his appeal in exchange for a return to Libya, the hearing continued at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
'Defence QC Maggie Scott has been arguing that no reasonable jury would have found al Megrahi guilty and that there was not sufficient evidence, in law, to convict him.
'Mr Clancy, for the Crown, has now begun the task of trying to demolish the defence claims by reminding the five appeal judges of the reasons why their colleagues found al Megrahi guilty in 2001.
'"No explanation for the visit to Malta the evening before the device was on the plane and departed for Tripoli the following morning," said Mr Clancy.
'"It is clear beyond doubt that the court is linking the use of the passport with the commission of the offence," he said.
'If the Libyan wins this round of his long-running appeal he could go home a free man. If the court, led by Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, rules against him, al Megrahi still has other challenges to his conviction that are yet to be argued.'
[As regards the coded -- not false -- passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding that the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal; and they have pointed out that although Megrahi travelled under a coded passport, he stayed in a hotel in Malta under his own name.]
'The Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the Lockerbie bombing made an unexplained trip to Malta using a false passport and an assumed name, appeal judges were told yesterday.
'He arrived the day the bomb that killed 270 people was planted at the island's Luqa Airport and left the following morning, said Ronnie Clancy QC.
'"At no stage was any significant evidence offered as to the issue or use of the passport in any innocent connection.
'"The only evidence about that was a false denial of the possession of the passport."
'Despite rumours that have been circulating for days that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will drop his appeal in exchange for a return to Libya, the hearing continued at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
'Defence QC Maggie Scott has been arguing that no reasonable jury would have found al Megrahi guilty and that there was not sufficient evidence, in law, to convict him.
'Mr Clancy, for the Crown, has now begun the task of trying to demolish the defence claims by reminding the five appeal judges of the reasons why their colleagues found al Megrahi guilty in 2001.
'"No explanation for the visit to Malta the evening before the device was on the plane and departed for Tripoli the following morning," said Mr Clancy.
'"It is clear beyond doubt that the court is linking the use of the passport with the commission of the offence," he said.
'If the Libyan wins this round of his long-running appeal he could go home a free man. If the court, led by Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, rules against him, al Megrahi still has other challenges to his conviction that are yet to be argued.'
[As regards the coded -- not false -- passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding that the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal; and they have pointed out that although Megrahi travelled under a coded passport, he stayed in a hotel in Malta under his own name.]
Monday, 11 May 2009
Marquise and Swire on the Malta connection
The website of Malta Today publishes opinion pieces by FBI Lockerbie investigator Richard Marquise and by Dr Jim Swire, father of Flora who died aboard Pan Am 103. Mr Marquise's article on the credibility of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci can be read here; and Dr Swire's on his belief that the bomb did not leave from Malta here.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home
Scottish ministers consider releasing Libyan convicted of atrocity on compassionate grounds
Jason Allardyce and Mark Macaskill
The Scottish government is considering whether the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be set free.
Ministers are examining the possibility of giving Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi early release on compassionate grounds instead of a prisoner transfer requested by the Libyan government last week.
Under the transfer deal, brokered by London and Tripoli, prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. (...)
According to senior government sources, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, believes an alternative would be to allow him to leave on humanitarian grounds while allowing his appeal to continue, if necessary by his family after he dies. (...)
Alex Salmond is believed to harbour doubts about the strength of the case against Megrahi. Last week the first minister said he wanted to see the prisoner face “due process” through the Scottish courts.
A source close to Salmond said that could involve releasing him “on licence” under the supervision of the Libyan authorities.
The proposal was welcomed by Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash and who has since pursued a tireless quest for information about the bombing.
“This is a genuine alternative for him. The dropping of an appeal would be a disaster for those who seek the truth. We want to see evidence old and new exposed in court,” he said. (...)
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who helped to broker Megrahi’s original trial, said: “In my view, that’s the ideal solution.
“The problem up until now is that compassionate release is not granted unless the individual has three months or less to live and cancer specialists are very wary of getting it wrong. I understand that his condition has rapidly deteriorated, so a specialist may well now be of the opinion that he is ill enough to be released.”
However, Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, warned against giving Megrahi special treatment.
“There has to be a presumption that Megrahi will finish his sentence in Scotland unless it can be proved that there are compelling reasons why not,” he said. “His case must not be handled any differently from anyone else in similar circumstances and there would be great resentment if this was to be the case.
“While there is a very voluble, eloquent and no doubt sincere minority of people who want him released, many of the relatives of the deceased wish him to spend the rest of his life in jail and they are not receiving the same attention.”
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said releasing Megrahi would be an “act of betrayal” by the Scottish government.
“The deal that the Scottish and US authorities agreed was that he would serve out his term in Scotland. He is right where he belongs.
“If they release him back to Libya, that’s a bad joke. The families would feel immensely betrayed. There will be a lot of anger.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times (UK). The full text can be read here.
A further long article in the same newspaper entitled "Focus: To free or not to free Megrahi" can be read here.
The relevant statutory provisions relating to compassionate release (as distinct from prisoner transfer) are to be found in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3 of which provides as follows:
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.'
There is a practice guideline -- not a rule of law -- that prisoners who are terminally ill may be released when they have three months or less to live.]
Jason Allardyce and Mark Macaskill
The Scottish government is considering whether the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be set free.
Ministers are examining the possibility of giving Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi early release on compassionate grounds instead of a prisoner transfer requested by the Libyan government last week.
Under the transfer deal, brokered by London and Tripoli, prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. (...)
According to senior government sources, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, believes an alternative would be to allow him to leave on humanitarian grounds while allowing his appeal to continue, if necessary by his family after he dies. (...)
Alex Salmond is believed to harbour doubts about the strength of the case against Megrahi. Last week the first minister said he wanted to see the prisoner face “due process” through the Scottish courts.
A source close to Salmond said that could involve releasing him “on licence” under the supervision of the Libyan authorities.
The proposal was welcomed by Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash and who has since pursued a tireless quest for information about the bombing.
“This is a genuine alternative for him. The dropping of an appeal would be a disaster for those who seek the truth. We want to see evidence old and new exposed in court,” he said. (...)
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who helped to broker Megrahi’s original trial, said: “In my view, that’s the ideal solution.
“The problem up until now is that compassionate release is not granted unless the individual has three months or less to live and cancer specialists are very wary of getting it wrong. I understand that his condition has rapidly deteriorated, so a specialist may well now be of the opinion that he is ill enough to be released.”
However, Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, warned against giving Megrahi special treatment.
“There has to be a presumption that Megrahi will finish his sentence in Scotland unless it can be proved that there are compelling reasons why not,” he said. “His case must not be handled any differently from anyone else in similar circumstances and there would be great resentment if this was to be the case.
“While there is a very voluble, eloquent and no doubt sincere minority of people who want him released, many of the relatives of the deceased wish him to spend the rest of his life in jail and they are not receiving the same attention.”
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said releasing Megrahi would be an “act of betrayal” by the Scottish government.
“The deal that the Scottish and US authorities agreed was that he would serve out his term in Scotland. He is right where he belongs.
“If they release him back to Libya, that’s a bad joke. The families would feel immensely betrayed. There will be a lot of anger.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times (UK). The full text can be read here.
A further long article in the same newspaper entitled "Focus: To free or not to free Megrahi" can be read here.
The relevant statutory provisions relating to compassionate release (as distinct from prisoner transfer) are to be found in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3 of which provides as follows:
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.'
There is a practice guideline -- not a rule of law -- that prisoners who are terminally ill may be released when they have three months or less to live.]
From The Sunday Times, Malta
The judges got it wrong
Ian Ferguson
In an article for The Sunday Times, British journalist and author Ian Ferguson, who has covered the Lockerbie case extensively internationally for TV, radio and newspapers, casts doubt over the Malta-link to Lockerbie.
A German expert has raised fresh controversy on a crucial piece of evidence in the conviction of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber.
The verdict relied heavily on the judges' acceptance of a brief computer printout of the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport. The prosecution had argued it proved an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb was transferred from Air Malta flight KM180 to the Pan Am flight 103 to London on December 21, 1988.
The expert who helped design the baggage system in place at Frankfurt airport in 1988 and familiar with the operating software has now said: "The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong."
In the original trial, the Crown could offer no evidence of how the bag got aboard the Air Malta flight in the first place. Malta had presented records showing that no unaccompanied baggage was on the Air Malta flight in question.
The baggage reconciliation system at Malta's airport did not only rely on computer lists. Personnel also counted all pieces of baggage, manually checking them off against passenger records. Maltese baggage loaders had been prepared to testify, yet they were never called as witnesses.
In spite of a lack of evidence that the baggage containing the bomb actually left Malta, the judges concluded that it must have been the case, based on an interpretation of the computer print out from Frankfurt.
The hotly disputed computer printout was saved by Bogomira Erac, a technician at Frankfurt airport. She testified at the original trial under the pseudonym Madame X. One of the reasons this computer printout was so controversial was that although Ms Erac thought it important to save, she then tossed it in her locker and went on holiday.
Only on her return did she hand it to her supervisor who gave it to the Bundeskiminalmt (BKA), the German Federal Police. The BKA did not disclose this printout to Scottish and American investigators for several months.
The German expert has now examined all of the evidence that related to the Frankfurt baggage system placed before the court in the original trial. The expert, who agreed to review this evidence on condition of anonymity, spent six months examining the data.
Although he demanded anonymity, he agreed that if a formal approach was made by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers or the Scottish Criminal Cases review commission, he would meet them.
He was puzzled when he saw how short the printout out was and explained that there was no need to print a very small extract from the baggage system traffic, as a full back-up tape was made. This would have shown all the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport that day.
When it was explained that the court heard that the system was purged every few days and that no back-up tape existed, he said: "This is not true."
"Of course it is possible no back-up tape was made for that particular day but that day would have been the first and only day in the history of Frankfurt Airport when not one piece of baggage or cargo was lost, rerouted or misplaced," he added.
He went on to say that FAG, the company that operated Frankfurt Airport, needed these tapes to defend against insurance claims for lost or damaged cargo.
The expert maintains that even with his expert knowledge of the system he could not draw the conclusion reached by the Lockerbie trial judges in 2001.
"They would have needed much more information of the baggage movements, not this very narrow time frame," he said.
Questions are now raised about why Mr Al-Megrahi's legal team at the trial in the Netherlands decided to accept and rely upon a report on the baggage system compiled by a BKA officer and not find an expert on the system. The Scottish police also did not seek to interview those people who designed and installed the system.
Jim Swire, whose daughter lost her life in the bombing and who has been campaigning relentlessly for the truth to emerge, explained there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, early on December 21, 1988, in the relevant area of Terminal 3. This was followed by the sighting (before the flight from Frankfurt had even landed) of an unauthorised bag within the very container where the explosion later occurred.
"What we need now is an equally clear explanation as to why the information about the Heathrow break-in was concealed for 13 years," he said.
Dr Swire added: "At last, the time has come to turn away from Malta and Frankfurt and look a lot closer to home at Heathrow airport for the truth, for that is what we still seek.
Scottish legal expert says Lockerbie verdict was flawed
'No evidence the bomb left from Malta'
Caroline Muscat, Mark Micallef
A former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial has told The Sunday Times there was never any evidence that the bomb which claimed the lives of 270 people actually left from Malta.
The trial held in the Netherlands under Scottish law led to the conviction in 2001 of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the bomber who placed the explosive on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. It was said that the suitcase containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103A which then headed for London before continuing to the US.
"There is no acceptable evidence that the bomb left Malta. There never was. There was never an explanation given by the judges to contradict the clear evidence from Malta," Prof. Robert Black said.
Malta presented records at the original trial showing there had been no unaccompanied bags on the flight.
Prof. Black echoed comments made last week by a representative of the families of the British victims, Jim Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The legal team representing Mr Al-Megrahi, who is eight years into a 27-year sentence for his part in the bombing, began appeal proceedings in Edinburgh on April 28. They are arguing that the evidence against him in the original trial was "wholly circumstantial".
Mr Al-Megrahi was told last year he is dying. Doctors discovered he has advanced and aggressive prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. He has a few months left to live, a diagnosis confirmed by two cancer specialists.
The Maltese government yesterday told The Sunday Times it was monitoring the situation, while Air Malta said it had no comment to make.
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
According to Prof. Black the appeal took so long to reach the court because the prosecutors and the British Foreign Office used delaying tactics.
"They refused the defence access to documents they were entitled to see and that were an important part of the conclusions reached."
Documentation sought by the defence team includes a fax they say questions the original testimony of key Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who said he sold clothes to Mr Al-Megrahi from his shop in Sliema. It was said the suitcase containing the bomb on the Pan Am flight included those clothes.
The evidence the defence team is seeking relates to contact between police and other investigators with another potential Maltese witness, David Wright. They believe Mr Wright may have material evidence that calls into question Mr Gauci's statement.
At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".
Prof. Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."
He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".
"The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."
Libyan authorities recently applied for Mr Al-Megrahi's transfer to Libya. It came after a prisoner transfer agreement was ratified by the UK and Libyan governments two weeks ago.
A few weeks earlier, the Westminister Joint Select Committee on Human Rights had called for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. But Jack Straw, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, insisted the treaty must go ahead.
This prompted the campaign group UK Families Flight 103 to issue a statement accusing Mr Straw of hypocrisy, saying the agreement cleared the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home before the truth emerged. But Kathleen Flynn, from New Jersey, US, who also lost her son John Patrick to the bombing, said she would be horrified if Mr Al-Megrahi is released to the Libyan government.
"This man is not a political prisoner, he is a murderer and there is a big difference... to me it is inconceivable how this idea could be entertained," she told The Sunday Times.
"He is likely to be received as a national hero in Libya," she added.
Unlike Dr Swire, she has full confidence in the guilty verdict: "The person responsible for a crime of this nature should serve his entire sentence, while given all the medical attention he needs."
Asked what would happen if the transfer is given the go ahead, she said: "I can assure you we will not just say au revoir... we have been successful in the past 20 years at making sure justice is done."
According to Scottish law, the application for transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, meaning Mr Al-Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can go home.
Although Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer, his lawyers did not confirm whether he would choose to go home. If he does, he will remain a condemned man and Malta will remain implicated in a terrorist act that killed 270 people.
[The first of these articles can be accessed here; and the second here.]
Ian Ferguson
In an article for The Sunday Times, British journalist and author Ian Ferguson, who has covered the Lockerbie case extensively internationally for TV, radio and newspapers, casts doubt over the Malta-link to Lockerbie.
A German expert has raised fresh controversy on a crucial piece of evidence in the conviction of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber.
The verdict relied heavily on the judges' acceptance of a brief computer printout of the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport. The prosecution had argued it proved an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb was transferred from Air Malta flight KM180 to the Pan Am flight 103 to London on December 21, 1988.
The expert who helped design the baggage system in place at Frankfurt airport in 1988 and familiar with the operating software has now said: "The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong."
In the original trial, the Crown could offer no evidence of how the bag got aboard the Air Malta flight in the first place. Malta had presented records showing that no unaccompanied baggage was on the Air Malta flight in question.
The baggage reconciliation system at Malta's airport did not only rely on computer lists. Personnel also counted all pieces of baggage, manually checking them off against passenger records. Maltese baggage loaders had been prepared to testify, yet they were never called as witnesses.
In spite of a lack of evidence that the baggage containing the bomb actually left Malta, the judges concluded that it must have been the case, based on an interpretation of the computer print out from Frankfurt.
The hotly disputed computer printout was saved by Bogomira Erac, a technician at Frankfurt airport. She testified at the original trial under the pseudonym Madame X. One of the reasons this computer printout was so controversial was that although Ms Erac thought it important to save, she then tossed it in her locker and went on holiday.
Only on her return did she hand it to her supervisor who gave it to the Bundeskiminalmt (BKA), the German Federal Police. The BKA did not disclose this printout to Scottish and American investigators for several months.
The German expert has now examined all of the evidence that related to the Frankfurt baggage system placed before the court in the original trial. The expert, who agreed to review this evidence on condition of anonymity, spent six months examining the data.
Although he demanded anonymity, he agreed that if a formal approach was made by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers or the Scottish Criminal Cases review commission, he would meet them.
He was puzzled when he saw how short the printout out was and explained that there was no need to print a very small extract from the baggage system traffic, as a full back-up tape was made. This would have shown all the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport that day.
When it was explained that the court heard that the system was purged every few days and that no back-up tape existed, he said: "This is not true."
"Of course it is possible no back-up tape was made for that particular day but that day would have been the first and only day in the history of Frankfurt Airport when not one piece of baggage or cargo was lost, rerouted or misplaced," he added.
He went on to say that FAG, the company that operated Frankfurt Airport, needed these tapes to defend against insurance claims for lost or damaged cargo.
The expert maintains that even with his expert knowledge of the system he could not draw the conclusion reached by the Lockerbie trial judges in 2001.
"They would have needed much more information of the baggage movements, not this very narrow time frame," he said.
Questions are now raised about why Mr Al-Megrahi's legal team at the trial in the Netherlands decided to accept and rely upon a report on the baggage system compiled by a BKA officer and not find an expert on the system. The Scottish police also did not seek to interview those people who designed and installed the system.
Jim Swire, whose daughter lost her life in the bombing and who has been campaigning relentlessly for the truth to emerge, explained there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, early on December 21, 1988, in the relevant area of Terminal 3. This was followed by the sighting (before the flight from Frankfurt had even landed) of an unauthorised bag within the very container where the explosion later occurred.
"What we need now is an equally clear explanation as to why the information about the Heathrow break-in was concealed for 13 years," he said.
Dr Swire added: "At last, the time has come to turn away from Malta and Frankfurt and look a lot closer to home at Heathrow airport for the truth, for that is what we still seek.
Scottish legal expert says Lockerbie verdict was flawed
'No evidence the bomb left from Malta'
Caroline Muscat, Mark Micallef
A former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial has told The Sunday Times there was never any evidence that the bomb which claimed the lives of 270 people actually left from Malta.
The trial held in the Netherlands under Scottish law led to the conviction in 2001 of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the bomber who placed the explosive on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. It was said that the suitcase containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103A which then headed for London before continuing to the US.
"There is no acceptable evidence that the bomb left Malta. There never was. There was never an explanation given by the judges to contradict the clear evidence from Malta," Prof. Robert Black said.
Malta presented records at the original trial showing there had been no unaccompanied bags on the flight.
Prof. Black echoed comments made last week by a representative of the families of the British victims, Jim Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The legal team representing Mr Al-Megrahi, who is eight years into a 27-year sentence for his part in the bombing, began appeal proceedings in Edinburgh on April 28. They are arguing that the evidence against him in the original trial was "wholly circumstantial".
Mr Al-Megrahi was told last year he is dying. Doctors discovered he has advanced and aggressive prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. He has a few months left to live, a diagnosis confirmed by two cancer specialists.
The Maltese government yesterday told The Sunday Times it was monitoring the situation, while Air Malta said it had no comment to make.
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
According to Prof. Black the appeal took so long to reach the court because the prosecutors and the British Foreign Office used delaying tactics.
"They refused the defence access to documents they were entitled to see and that were an important part of the conclusions reached."
Documentation sought by the defence team includes a fax they say questions the original testimony of key Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who said he sold clothes to Mr Al-Megrahi from his shop in Sliema. It was said the suitcase containing the bomb on the Pan Am flight included those clothes.
The evidence the defence team is seeking relates to contact between police and other investigators with another potential Maltese witness, David Wright. They believe Mr Wright may have material evidence that calls into question Mr Gauci's statement.
At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".
Prof. Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."
He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".
"The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."
Libyan authorities recently applied for Mr Al-Megrahi's transfer to Libya. It came after a prisoner transfer agreement was ratified by the UK and Libyan governments two weeks ago.
A few weeks earlier, the Westminister Joint Select Committee on Human Rights had called for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. But Jack Straw, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, insisted the treaty must go ahead.
This prompted the campaign group UK Families Flight 103 to issue a statement accusing Mr Straw of hypocrisy, saying the agreement cleared the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home before the truth emerged. But Kathleen Flynn, from New Jersey, US, who also lost her son John Patrick to the bombing, said she would be horrified if Mr Al-Megrahi is released to the Libyan government.
"This man is not a political prisoner, he is a murderer and there is a big difference... to me it is inconceivable how this idea could be entertained," she told The Sunday Times.
"He is likely to be received as a national hero in Libya," she added.
Unlike Dr Swire, she has full confidence in the guilty verdict: "The person responsible for a crime of this nature should serve his entire sentence, while given all the medical attention he needs."
Asked what would happen if the transfer is given the go ahead, she said: "I can assure you we will not just say au revoir... we have been successful in the past 20 years at making sure justice is done."
According to Scottish law, the application for transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, meaning Mr Al-Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can go home.
Although Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer, his lawyers did not confirm whether he would choose to go home. If he does, he will remain a condemned man and Malta will remain implicated in a terrorist act that killed 270 people.
[The first of these articles can be accessed here; and the second here.]
Reaction to the transfer application
Today's edition of Scotland on Sunday carries three articles on the Lockerbie case: a news report, a lengthy opinion piece by the Scottish Political Editor and a leader.
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Megrahi transfer row puts Salmond under pressure
[What follows are excerpts from a report in the Daily Express. The full text can be read here.]
Alex Salmond yesterday came under mounting pressure not to send the Lockerbie bomber home to die as he insisted politics would play no part in any transfer.
The First Minister said the request to allow terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya would be considered on “judicial grounds alone”.
His comments came as American relatives of those who died in the 1988 atrocity revealed they had made a direct plea to Scottish ministers, who have the final say on whether the deal is done, to block Tripoli’s request.
It is also thought the United States government, which has long maintained Megrahi should complete his sentence in Scotland, is preparing to make diplomatic representations about the case. (...)
His second appeal against the 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.
Mr Salmond said it would have been “greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland” were allowed to take their course.
But he insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer – which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – would be based solely on judicial grounds. (...)
Ministers have up to 90 days to reach a decision on the case under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi two years ago. American Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was among those killed, last night said she had already e-mailed the Nationalist administration pleading for the request to be refused.
Ms Cohen said: “It would be a horrible slap in the face to the Scottish justice system if this man, who is a convicted mass murderer lest we forget, is allowed home. There are many conspiracy theories but not a single shred of evidence has come out saying anything other than the truth of Libyan involvement. He would be feted as a hero back in Libya.”
A spokesman for the US Embassy said his government’s long-held position was that “Megrahi should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison”. Asked if the US State Department would be making any representation he said: “We can’t discuss diplomatic exchanges.”
Until now, Megrahi, who is serving a minimum of 27 years in HMP Gateside, Greenock, has insisted he wants to clear his name.
His appeal continued yesterday. Five judges in Edinburgh have spent eight days listening to criticisms of the Camp Zeist trial in the Netherlands which found him guilty.
His QC, Maggie Scott, yesterday made no mention of the transfer request. But she told the court Megrahi had given up watching proceedings over a live CCTV link with his prison cell.
She said: “He is in considerable discomfort. He does, however, want matters to proceed.
“It is appropriate I point that out to the court.”
Alex Salmond yesterday came under mounting pressure not to send the Lockerbie bomber home to die as he insisted politics would play no part in any transfer.
The First Minister said the request to allow terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya would be considered on “judicial grounds alone”.
His comments came as American relatives of those who died in the 1988 atrocity revealed they had made a direct plea to Scottish ministers, who have the final say on whether the deal is done, to block Tripoli’s request.
It is also thought the United States government, which has long maintained Megrahi should complete his sentence in Scotland, is preparing to make diplomatic representations about the case. (...)
His second appeal against the 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.
Mr Salmond said it would have been “greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland” were allowed to take their course.
But he insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer – which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – would be based solely on judicial grounds. (...)
Ministers have up to 90 days to reach a decision on the case under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi two years ago. American Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was among those killed, last night said she had already e-mailed the Nationalist administration pleading for the request to be refused.
Ms Cohen said: “It would be a horrible slap in the face to the Scottish justice system if this man, who is a convicted mass murderer lest we forget, is allowed home. There are many conspiracy theories but not a single shred of evidence has come out saying anything other than the truth of Libyan involvement. He would be feted as a hero back in Libya.”
A spokesman for the US Embassy said his government’s long-held position was that “Megrahi should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison”. Asked if the US State Department would be making any representation he said: “We can’t discuss diplomatic exchanges.”
Until now, Megrahi, who is serving a minimum of 27 years in HMP Gateside, Greenock, has insisted he wants to clear his name.
His appeal continued yesterday. Five judges in Edinburgh have spent eight days listening to criticisms of the Camp Zeist trial in the Netherlands which found him guilty.
His QC, Maggie Scott, yesterday made no mention of the transfer request. But she told the court Megrahi had given up watching proceedings over a live CCTV link with his prison cell.
She said: “He is in considerable discomfort. He does, however, want matters to proceed.
“It is appropriate I point that out to the court.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)