[The following are excerpts from a report under this headline in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It is of particular importance because of the reported comments of Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly, and because of the (belated) recognition by the Scottish Government Justice Department that compassionate release does not require an application to have been made by the prisoner concerned. The complete article can be read here.]
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has urged Gordon Brown to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and allow him to return home.
Col Gadaffi made the plea at a meeting with the Prime Minister on the fringes of the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.
Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, is terminally ill with prostrate cancer.
Earlier this week it was revealed there is a "very real risk" he will die before his ongoing appeal against his conviction ends because of his deteriorating condition and further delays to the legal proceedings.
But Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the latest postpontment changes nothing, and did not mean his client would automatically drop his case. (...)
Col Gaddafi used his first meeting with Mr Brown to call for Megrahi to be returned home but aides said the Prime Minister told him that the case was "a matter for the Scottish government".
The Libyan government made an application under a prisoner transfer agreement two months ago to move Megrahi from Greenock Prison to the North African country.
This is currently being considered by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, who has held discussions with Libyan and US government officials, as well as victims' families.
However, Megrahi, 57, would have to drop all legal proceedings for a decision to be made, thereby losing his last chance to clear his name.
A further delay has been announced as one of judges hearing the case at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery.
The case is not expected to resume until September, by which time Megrahi may have passed away.
However, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the delay "does not change anything really".
He added that Mr MacAskill could unilaterally release his client on compassionate grounds, without an application being made by Megrahi or a third party.
A Scottish Executive spokesman said this was technically possible, but it was normal procedure for an application to be made.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Megrahi to drop appeal if Libya transfer is agreed
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has signed a secret document agreeing to drop legal proceedings if Scottish ministers allow him to return home to Tripoli.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction, has given the document to the Libyan government on the instruction that they cannot hand it over until Scottish ministers agree to his transfer.
His decision has led to an international political impasse as Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal. Supporters are pushing for the "compassionate release" of Megrahi as a preferable alternative.
Legal experts say the minister could agree to such a move without an application from the Libyan, who is suffering terminal prostate cancer and whose condition has deteriorated.
There is confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers have to give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi urged Gordon Brown to allow the repatriation of Megrahi at the G8 summit in Italy. The UK and Libyan governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement earlier this year, and Mr MacAskill is consulting all of the parties concerned before making a decision.
[The above is the text of a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. This story has now been picked up by the Sunday Mail and the Sunday Express.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction, has given the document to the Libyan government on the instruction that they cannot hand it over until Scottish ministers agree to his transfer.
His decision has led to an international political impasse as Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal. Supporters are pushing for the "compassionate release" of Megrahi as a preferable alternative.
Legal experts say the minister could agree to such a move without an application from the Libyan, who is suffering terminal prostate cancer and whose condition has deteriorated.
There is confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers have to give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi urged Gordon Brown to allow the repatriation of Megrahi at the G8 summit in Italy. The UK and Libyan governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement earlier this year, and Mr MacAskill is consulting all of the parties concerned before making a decision.
[The above is the text of a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. This story has now been picked up by the Sunday Mail and the Sunday Express.]
Friday, 10 July 2009
Gaddafi demands return of Lockerbie bomber in first meeting with Brown
In his first face to face meeting with Gordon Brown, Muammar Gaddafi today demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. (...)
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
[From a report by Patrick Wintour on the website of The Guardian. There is a similar report on The Herald's website; and a shorter report on the BBC News website.]
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. (...)
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
[From a report by Patrick Wintour on the website of The Guardian. There is a similar report on The Herald's website; and a shorter report on the BBC News website.]
Obama shakes hands with Gaddafi
Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, who former president Ronald Reagan once denounced as a "mad dog," supped on pasta just two seats away from President Obama at the Group of Eight summit today and even secured a handshake with the U.S. president. (...)
As Obama was shaking hands with Gaddafi, families of Pan Am 103 victims were gathered at the British Embassy in Washington and the British consulate in New York, speaking via video conference with Kenneth MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, and pleading that the convicted Lockerbie bomber not be returned to Libya.
Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, whose husband, Michael, was killed in the Pan Am bombing, said the video conference was a "wrenching" experience, as victims' families made heartfelt pleas that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi not be returned to Libya even though he is said to be suffering from prostate cancer. She said that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has supported the families' position, but the reports of Obama's handshake was a blow.
"I was shocked, absolutely dumbfounded," she said tonight. "I think it sent the wrong signal. This has undermined our efforts to make sure Megrahi is never released." If he is returned to Libya, she said, families believe he will be quickly freed from jail, rather than finish serving a sentence of at least 27 years. He was convicted in 2001.
Under a 2007 deal struck between Libya and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is up to MacAskill and Scottish First Secretary Alex Salmond to decide whether Megrahi, 57, is returned to Libya to serve out his sentence. Salmond and MacAskill have insisted the decision will be made on "judicial" grounds, not political or economic concerns with the oil-rich country.
[From the website of The Washington Post. The complete report can be read here.
The New York Daily News also carries a report. The following are excerpts:]
President Obama and Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy shook hands Thursday, infuriating families of victims in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan intelligence agents. (...)
The encounter came as families who lost loved ones aboard the doomed plane met with officials in Washington and the British Consulate in Manhattan to protest the potential release of the lone terrorist convicted in the bombing.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is jailed in Scotland. But he has prostate cancer and could be turned over to Khadafy.
"This thing with Obama happened on the same day that we spilled our guts to his own administration that this killer should not be released! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Obama sent the wrong message," said Stephanie Bernstein, 58, of Bethesda, Md., who lost her husband, Michael, 36, a lawyer who hunted Nazis for the Justice Department.
"I just hope this was a superficial 'hello and goodbye,' and not a show of support for a bad man who should have been taken out years ago," said Jack Flynn, 71, of Montville, N.J., who lost his son John Patrick, a 21-year-old student at Colgate.
"It will be a real horror show now if they release Megrahi," added Flynn, who broke down in a conversation with the Daily News. Both Bernstein and Flynn voted for Obama. Although Libya is no longer on the State Department list of terrorist nations, Khadafy is still hated for protecting Megrahi.
Flight 103, a Boeing 747, was en route from London's Heathrow Airport to JFK when it blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist bombing killed all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground.
As Obama was shaking hands with Gaddafi, families of Pan Am 103 victims were gathered at the British Embassy in Washington and the British consulate in New York, speaking via video conference with Kenneth MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, and pleading that the convicted Lockerbie bomber not be returned to Libya.
Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, whose husband, Michael, was killed in the Pan Am bombing, said the video conference was a "wrenching" experience, as victims' families made heartfelt pleas that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi not be returned to Libya even though he is said to be suffering from prostate cancer. She said that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has supported the families' position, but the reports of Obama's handshake was a blow.
"I was shocked, absolutely dumbfounded," she said tonight. "I think it sent the wrong signal. This has undermined our efforts to make sure Megrahi is never released." If he is returned to Libya, she said, families believe he will be quickly freed from jail, rather than finish serving a sentence of at least 27 years. He was convicted in 2001.
Under a 2007 deal struck between Libya and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is up to MacAskill and Scottish First Secretary Alex Salmond to decide whether Megrahi, 57, is returned to Libya to serve out his sentence. Salmond and MacAskill have insisted the decision will be made on "judicial" grounds, not political or economic concerns with the oil-rich country.
[From the website of The Washington Post. The complete report can be read here.
The New York Daily News also carries a report. The following are excerpts:]
President Obama and Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy shook hands Thursday, infuriating families of victims in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan intelligence agents. (...)
The encounter came as families who lost loved ones aboard the doomed plane met with officials in Washington and the British Consulate in Manhattan to protest the potential release of the lone terrorist convicted in the bombing.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is jailed in Scotland. But he has prostate cancer and could be turned over to Khadafy.
"This thing with Obama happened on the same day that we spilled our guts to his own administration that this killer should not be released! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Obama sent the wrong message," said Stephanie Bernstein, 58, of Bethesda, Md., who lost her husband, Michael, 36, a lawyer who hunted Nazis for the Justice Department.
"I just hope this was a superficial 'hello and goodbye,' and not a show of support for a bad man who should have been taken out years ago," said Jack Flynn, 71, of Montville, N.J., who lost his son John Patrick, a 21-year-old student at Colgate.
"It will be a real horror show now if they release Megrahi," added Flynn, who broke down in a conversation with the Daily News. Both Bernstein and Flynn voted for Obama. Although Libya is no longer on the State Department list of terrorist nations, Khadafy is still hated for protecting Megrahi.
Flight 103, a Boeing 747, was en route from London's Heathrow Airport to JFK when it blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist bombing killed all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Final session of appeal scheduled for February 2010
The appeal by dying former Libyan agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi against his life sentence for the 1988 Lockerbie aircraft bombing, will not be decided until next year.
Lord Hamilton today told the Scottish Appeal Court at the end of a two-day procedural hearing that the final two substantive appeal sessions would run from November 2 to December 11, and January 12 to February 26, 2010.
A total of 270 people were killed when the Pan Am jumbo jet exploded over Lockerbie.
One of the five judges hearing the appeal is recovering from recent heart surgery and Lord Hamilton said this, combined with the pressure of other business on the court, meant it was not practical to hold earlier sessions.
The illness of Lord Wheatley has already meant a deferment in considering appeal arguments heard so far, and Megrahi's lawyer Maggie Scott expressed dismay at the delays.
Yesterday she said: "There is a very serious danger that my client will die before the case is determined."
She added his health "is deteriorating with a relentless onset of symptoms".
Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and is currently in Greenock prison.
After a trial in a special Scottish court meeting in The Netherlands in 2001, he was sentenced to 27 years' in prison.
An appeal the following year was rejected, but a review gave the go-ahead in 2007 for a second appeal on the grounds that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
In the first part of the appeal through May, his lawyers questioned whether the trial court had been correct in accepting evidence relating to his identification, the type of fuse in the bomb and how it was consigned to the Pan Am flight.
In the next hearings, legal sources said the appeal lawyers were expected to introduce fresh evidence and question the competence of his previous lawyers.
The Libyan and British governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement this year and Tripoli has sought Megrahi's return.
Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill is currently consulting all parties concerned, including the US and Libyan governments and families of the victims of the bombing before deciding whether to accede to Libya's request.
[The above is the text of The Herald's report on the two-day procedural hearing that ended on Wednesday. The Reuters news agency report, as reproduced on the STV website, can be read here.
While the illness of one of the judges would inevitably cause a measure of delay, the Appeal Court's clear failure to take effective steps to minimise that delay is nothing short of disgraceful. Their Lordships should be utterly ashamed of themselves.]
Lord Hamilton today told the Scottish Appeal Court at the end of a two-day procedural hearing that the final two substantive appeal sessions would run from November 2 to December 11, and January 12 to February 26, 2010.
A total of 270 people were killed when the Pan Am jumbo jet exploded over Lockerbie.
One of the five judges hearing the appeal is recovering from recent heart surgery and Lord Hamilton said this, combined with the pressure of other business on the court, meant it was not practical to hold earlier sessions.
The illness of Lord Wheatley has already meant a deferment in considering appeal arguments heard so far, and Megrahi's lawyer Maggie Scott expressed dismay at the delays.
Yesterday she said: "There is a very serious danger that my client will die before the case is determined."
She added his health "is deteriorating with a relentless onset of symptoms".
Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and is currently in Greenock prison.
After a trial in a special Scottish court meeting in The Netherlands in 2001, he was sentenced to 27 years' in prison.
An appeal the following year was rejected, but a review gave the go-ahead in 2007 for a second appeal on the grounds that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
In the first part of the appeal through May, his lawyers questioned whether the trial court had been correct in accepting evidence relating to his identification, the type of fuse in the bomb and how it was consigned to the Pan Am flight.
In the next hearings, legal sources said the appeal lawyers were expected to introduce fresh evidence and question the competence of his previous lawyers.
The Libyan and British governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement this year and Tripoli has sought Megrahi's return.
Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill is currently consulting all parties concerned, including the US and Libyan governments and families of the victims of the bombing before deciding whether to accede to Libya's request.
[The above is the text of The Herald's report on the two-day procedural hearing that ended on Wednesday. The Reuters news agency report, as reproduced on the STV website, can be read here.
While the illness of one of the judges would inevitably cause a measure of delay, the Appeal Court's clear failure to take effective steps to minimise that delay is nothing short of disgraceful. Their Lordships should be utterly ashamed of themselves.]
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Lockerbie bomber could die before appeal outcome
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Scotsman's website. It reads as follows:]
The cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber could die before a decision is made on his appeal after new delays in the case, his lawyer warned today.
It was revealed that one of the judges hearing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's long-running appeal against conviction has had heart surgery.
Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Lord Wheatley's recuperation may be "protracted" and it is thought he will not be fit to resume judicial duties until mid-September.
Lord Hamilton said the situation "complicates matters".
The court has already heard full submissions on two grounds of appeal, but the court will not now be able to give its decision on those grounds until the autumn.
Al Megrahi's QC, Margaret Scott, expressed dismay at the situation, but acknowledged it arose out of "unforeseen and unexpected" circumstances.
She told the court the defence wished to see a decision reached as soon as possible.
"My Lord will appreciate in this court justice delayed is justice denied," she said. "There is a very real risk my client will die before this appeal is adjudicated."
She added that it was difficult to conceive of "more pressing circumstances".
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
Ms Scott told the court that her client's health was deteriorating and he was experiencing a "relentless onset of symptoms".
[A somewhat more informative report has just been posted on the BBC News website. It can be read here.]
The cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber could die before a decision is made on his appeal after new delays in the case, his lawyer warned today.
It was revealed that one of the judges hearing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's long-running appeal against conviction has had heart surgery.
Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Lord Wheatley's recuperation may be "protracted" and it is thought he will not be fit to resume judicial duties until mid-September.
Lord Hamilton said the situation "complicates matters".
The court has already heard full submissions on two grounds of appeal, but the court will not now be able to give its decision on those grounds until the autumn.
Al Megrahi's QC, Margaret Scott, expressed dismay at the situation, but acknowledged it arose out of "unforeseen and unexpected" circumstances.
She told the court the defence wished to see a decision reached as soon as possible.
"My Lord will appreciate in this court justice delayed is justice denied," she said. "There is a very real risk my client will die before this appeal is adjudicated."
She added that it was difficult to conceive of "more pressing circumstances".
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
Ms Scott told the court that her client's health was deteriorating and he was experiencing a "relentless onset of symptoms".
[A somewhat more informative report has just been posted on the BBC News website. It can be read here.]
Monday, 6 July 2009
Lockerbie bomber move discussed
[This is the headline over a story on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has met Libyan government officials to discuss their bid to have the Lockerbie bomber transferred from Scotland.
He has already met some UK relatives of those who died in the bombing and spoken to the US attorney general.
Libyan authorities applied two months ago to move Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from Greenock Prison to a Libyan jail.
The Scottish Government said the talks were part of the "ongoing process" of considering that application.
A spokesman also revealed that Mr MacAskill will listen to representations from US victims' families later this week.
Last month Mr MacAskill stressed that he wanted to have all the relevant information before making a decision on the application. (...)
The prisoner transfer application was received early in May, and a decision would normally be made within 90 days - although this could take longer if further information is required.
[The full text can be read here. Further relevant reports are to be found in The Scotsman and The Times. The report in The Times contains, with regard to the possibility of compassionate release, rather than prisoner transfer, the following sentence:
"A Scottish government spokeswoman said that al-Megrahi's legal team had not submitted a request for his release on compassionate grounds."
If the Scottish Government Justice Department believes that the Justice Secretary cannot consider or grant compassionate release without an application by the prisoner (and a recent letter to me from an official of the Department adopts the same stance) it is seriously in error in law. The relevant statutory provision contains no such requirement. It provides (Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3):
'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.']
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has met Libyan government officials to discuss their bid to have the Lockerbie bomber transferred from Scotland.
He has already met some UK relatives of those who died in the bombing and spoken to the US attorney general.
Libyan authorities applied two months ago to move Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from Greenock Prison to a Libyan jail.
The Scottish Government said the talks were part of the "ongoing process" of considering that application.
A spokesman also revealed that Mr MacAskill will listen to representations from US victims' families later this week.
Last month Mr MacAskill stressed that he wanted to have all the relevant information before making a decision on the application. (...)
The prisoner transfer application was received early in May, and a decision would normally be made within 90 days - although this could take longer if further information is required.
[The full text can be read here. Further relevant reports are to be found in The Scotsman and The Times. The report in The Times contains, with regard to the possibility of compassionate release, rather than prisoner transfer, the following sentence:
"A Scottish government spokeswoman said that al-Megrahi's legal team had not submitted a request for his release on compassionate grounds."
If the Scottish Government Justice Department believes that the Justice Secretary cannot consider or grant compassionate release without an application by the prisoner (and a recent letter to me from an official of the Department adopts the same stance) it is seriously in error in law. The relevant statutory provision contains no such requirement. It provides (Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3):
'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.']
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Thirteenth procedural hearing
A procedural hearing in the current appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi has been scheduled for the four days commencing Tuesday, 7 July. Here is what the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, said at the close of the first tranche of the appeal on 19 May:
'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 [insufficient evidence in law; unreasonableness of the verdict on that evidence] 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 [at] 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.'
'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 [insufficient evidence in law; unreasonableness of the verdict on that evidence] 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 [at] 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.'
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Lockerbie relatives to demand Megrahi stays in Scots jail
Kenny MacAskill is to be put under intense pressure to keep the Lockerbie bomber behind bars in Scotland this week when he takes part in discussions with the families of the American victims.
The justice secretary will hear a heartfelt plea from Americans who lost loved ones in the atrocity and who firmly believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison.
MacAskill will hear that American families are "shocked and horrified" that Scottish ministers are considering whether Megrahi should be sent back home to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck by Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddaffi.
MacAskill will speak with the relatives during a video conference that will link Edinburgh with the British Embassy in Washington.
MacAskill has already been in touch with the US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is understood to have informed the justice secretary that Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, should stay in HMP Greenock.
That message will be rammed home on Thursday by the American families, who firmly believe Megrahi was responsible for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
Last night Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: "The American relatives have never had the opportunity to make victim impact statements. It will be very emotional. They will talk about what their loss means to them – 20 years of missed grandchildren, missed weddings, all of the things that go on in life. It is especially distressing for those who lost young people – so many of them would have made a difference.
"He should stay in prison in Scotland. That was the agreement. The position of the US government is that he should serve his sentence in Scotland and that will be the overwhelming message to MacAskill."
A letter to MacAskill written by Kathleen Flynn, a mother who lost her son John Patrick Flynn on the night that the aircraft exploded, sums up the families' attitude.
"We are shocked and horrified that the convicted bomber of this horrific crime is being considered for a prisoner-transfer agreement to his native country, Libya," she said.
"I would hope that you would include the (views] of the majority of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing – the 189 Americans lost on the flight."
MacAskill and Alex Salmond face one of the most taxing dilemmas of the SNP's reign as they decide what to do with the former Libyan intelligence agent who was convicted of the atrocity in the Scottish courts.
There is a vocal body of opinion who believe that Megrahi has been the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing against his conviction.
Among those convinced of his innocence is Jim Swire, a retired British GP who lost his daughter in the bombing.
Swire said: "Of course the Americans are saying that he is guilty. Their administration has told them that he is guilty. But I don't think they have questioned the quality of the evidence."
[The above is the text of an article in the Scotland on Sunday edition of 5 July.]
The justice secretary will hear a heartfelt plea from Americans who lost loved ones in the atrocity and who firmly believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison.
MacAskill will hear that American families are "shocked and horrified" that Scottish ministers are considering whether Megrahi should be sent back home to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck by Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddaffi.
MacAskill will speak with the relatives during a video conference that will link Edinburgh with the British Embassy in Washington.
MacAskill has already been in touch with the US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is understood to have informed the justice secretary that Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, should stay in HMP Greenock.
That message will be rammed home on Thursday by the American families, who firmly believe Megrahi was responsible for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
Last night Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: "The American relatives have never had the opportunity to make victim impact statements. It will be very emotional. They will talk about what their loss means to them – 20 years of missed grandchildren, missed weddings, all of the things that go on in life. It is especially distressing for those who lost young people – so many of them would have made a difference.
"He should stay in prison in Scotland. That was the agreement. The position of the US government is that he should serve his sentence in Scotland and that will be the overwhelming message to MacAskill."
A letter to MacAskill written by Kathleen Flynn, a mother who lost her son John Patrick Flynn on the night that the aircraft exploded, sums up the families' attitude.
"We are shocked and horrified that the convicted bomber of this horrific crime is being considered for a prisoner-transfer agreement to his native country, Libya," she said.
"I would hope that you would include the (views] of the majority of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing – the 189 Americans lost on the flight."
MacAskill and Alex Salmond face one of the most taxing dilemmas of the SNP's reign as they decide what to do with the former Libyan intelligence agent who was convicted of the atrocity in the Scottish courts.
There is a vocal body of opinion who believe that Megrahi has been the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing against his conviction.
Among those convinced of his innocence is Jim Swire, a retired British GP who lost his daughter in the bombing.
Swire said: "Of course the Americans are saying that he is guilty. Their administration has told them that he is guilty. But I don't think they have questioned the quality of the evidence."
[The above is the text of an article in the Scotland on Sunday edition of 5 July.]
Friday, 3 July 2009
Poll of Scottish lawyers finds 86% back inquiry into Lockerbie
[The following is the text of a press release issued by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The magazine's website can be accessed here.]
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Dr Swire's submission to Kenny MacAskill
[A group of UK relatives of victims of Pan Am 103 had a meeting on 1 July with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, in the context of Mr MacAskill's duties in respect of prisoner transfer and/or compassionate release in the case of Abdelbaset Megrahi. What follows is Dr Jim Swire's personal submission to the minister, reproduced with the consent of Dr Swire and Mr MacAskill. The Herald's edition of 3 July contains an article on the subject. It can be read here.]
Secretary,
The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.
We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.
You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.
You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.
I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.
On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.
Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.
I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.
But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.
We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.
The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.
The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-
1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.
2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.
3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.
It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.
My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.
In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.
You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.
I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.
To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.
It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.
You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.
I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.
But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.
Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.
Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.
We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.
I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.
Secretary,
The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.
We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.
You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.
You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.
I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.
On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.
Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.
I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.
But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.
We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.
The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.
The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-
1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.
2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.
3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.
It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.
My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.
In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.
You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.
I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.
To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.
It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.
You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.
I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.
But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.
Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.
Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.
We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.
I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.
Monday, 29 June 2009
From a former student
I was reading about Lockerbie today - one of the earliest news events that I remember - it was 21st december 1988, and I was only five. I think the same year there had been the Piper Alpha disaster, when a North Sea rig explosion killed more than a hundred people. Megrahi is appealing again. The most memorable law lecture I ever had was Robert Black telling us that he thought the Libyan ex head of security was innocent. The crucial evidence, from a Maltese shopkeeper, was simply not reliable. And Black was better positioned than most to judge. What seems sure is this: the action was not that of one man, acting off his own bat. A state - Libya? - was at work. But why did the US not go crazy then - given 180 of their citizens died. How is it that Colonel Gaddafi has managed to re-paint his international image in a credible light, when by implication - if Megrahi was guilty, the big man must have known? And if Black is right and it wasn't Megrahi - could it have been another group entirely? What is clear is that it couldn't possibly achieve anything - not like hostage taking which at least can have a purpose of dealmaking - this was just an act of brutality - and no one ever said they were responsible for it. Isn't Megrahi just a convenient scapegoat? Will the whole truth ever come out?
[The above is a post dated 28 June 2009 on the tinoscandle blog.]
[The above is a post dated 28 June 2009 on the tinoscandle blog.]
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Opinion split over Lockerbie bomber’s fate
Survey shows that 51% of Scots believe man jailed for atrocity should be allowed to die in Libya
More Scots believe the man jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing should be allowed to die in Libya than serve the rest of his sentence in a Scottish jail.
The survey by Cello MRUK for The Sunday Times found that while 49% of those who expressed an opinion want Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 51% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya or be freed.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, is currently considering a request from the Libyan authorities for Megrahi to be released into their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli.
MacAskill is expected to announce his decision within days amid growing concern about the health of Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer and wants to spend his final days in Libya with his family.
The poll of 1,040 adults across Scotland found that 40% of those with a view believe Megrahi should be transferred to Libyan custody while a further 11% think he should be freed on compassionate grounds, another option MacAskill is considering. Just under a quarter of those polled were undecided.
Under the treaty agreed by the British and Libyan authorities no prisoner can be transferred while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Last week the Sunday Times revealed that Megrahi, who is in Greenock prison, has told how he does not believe he will live to clear his name and may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family.
MacAskill intends to talk to British and American relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988 before announcing his decision.
MacAskill said any decision on whether or not to transfer Megrahi from his Greenock jail to Libya would be taken on judicial grounds alone.
While Scottish opinion is evenly divided between those who believe Megrahi should be transferred or freed and those who say he should be forced to remain in Scotland, the Tories claim Megrahi should not be treated differently from any other prisoner with a terminal illness.
It emerged last week that Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged Megrahi, was unaware that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with.
It will be for the Appeal Court to determine the significance of the alleged movement of the fragment in 1990, which may form part of Megrahi’s appeal.
[This is the text of an article published today (and not on 28 March as the website displays) by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.]
More Scots believe the man jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing should be allowed to die in Libya than serve the rest of his sentence in a Scottish jail.
The survey by Cello MRUK for The Sunday Times found that while 49% of those who expressed an opinion want Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 51% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya or be freed.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, is currently considering a request from the Libyan authorities for Megrahi to be released into their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli.
MacAskill is expected to announce his decision within days amid growing concern about the health of Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer and wants to spend his final days in Libya with his family.
The poll of 1,040 adults across Scotland found that 40% of those with a view believe Megrahi should be transferred to Libyan custody while a further 11% think he should be freed on compassionate grounds, another option MacAskill is considering. Just under a quarter of those polled were undecided.
Under the treaty agreed by the British and Libyan authorities no prisoner can be transferred while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Last week the Sunday Times revealed that Megrahi, who is in Greenock prison, has told how he does not believe he will live to clear his name and may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family.
MacAskill intends to talk to British and American relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988 before announcing his decision.
MacAskill said any decision on whether or not to transfer Megrahi from his Greenock jail to Libya would be taken on judicial grounds alone.
While Scottish opinion is evenly divided between those who believe Megrahi should be transferred or freed and those who say he should be forced to remain in Scotland, the Tories claim Megrahi should not be treated differently from any other prisoner with a terminal illness.
It emerged last week that Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged Megrahi, was unaware that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with.
It will be for the Appeal Court to determine the significance of the alleged movement of the fragment in 1990, which may form part of Megrahi’s appeal.
[This is the text of an article published today (and not on 28 March as the website displays) by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.]
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Dr Swire's letter to the Lord Advocate
[What follows is the text of Dr Jim Swire's letter to the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, mentioned in the Private Eye article posted on this blog yesterday.]
As I write, the second appeal is in progress in the High Court. Whilst not wishing to interfere with that process in any way, I would like to bring an associated, and to my mind very serious, issue to your attention.
In the early morning of 21 December 1988, there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, as discussed in the first appeal at Zeist. This break-in gave access to an unknown individual to ‘airside’, through a breech in the night security cordon in terminal 3. The first appeal court accepted that that was the case.
As I understand it the break-in point was close to the facility given over to Iran Air and to that of the baggage assembly shed, where baggage container AV4041 was part loaded on the evening of 21 December.
The evidence about this break-in had ‘disappeared’ for 12 years before Manly caused it to be raised.
This had the bizarre effect of meaning that during the trial, Luqa airport Malta was alone put forward as the airport of origin for the ingestion of the IED, though there was total absence of evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security there. A lacuna which their Lordships described as a serious difficulty for the Crown case.
Yet during the trial Heathrow airport lacked sufficient supporting evidence to be considered as the point of ingestion in the main trial, since the break-in was unknown to their Lordships.
By the time the evidence about Heathrow did surface, the verdict had been reached, and the defence had long abandoned their ‘incrimination’.
Once the appellant in the current appeal had been found guilty, it became immediately justifiable to deny him the ‘presumption of innocence’, to which accused but untried people are entitled. Indeed, ever since the verdict he has been described of course either as ‘the Lockerbie bomber’ or ‘the man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing’. From this different world of presumed guilt, it is difficult to imagine a scenario suggesting that his proven movements and his use of false passports etc bore no relation to the Lockerbie disaster.
Now the information about this break-in was simply not available to the trial court nor the defence in the main trial at Zeist, only becoming known in time for the first appeal, where it was examined against the background of ‘proven guilt’ and did not of course cause the verdict to be overturned.
It seems quite extraordinary that this information was not available sooner to the trial nor to our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990.
If the defence in the main trial had known of it, they might well have pursued their defence of ‘incrimination’ with a great deal more determination than they did in fact show.
The reason for that speculation is that they were to have promoted the use of a (Syrian based) PFLP-GC IED. These devices were specifically designed for introduction into an airport well in advance of their use, being stable indefinitely at ground level. On the other hand if placed within the fuselage of an airliner they were designed to explode around 40 minutes after take-off without any intervention being required at any point, other than their placement within the aircraft. As I’m sure you know, the Lockerbie flight lasted for 38 minutes
Thus the break-in situation at Heathrow with a plane exploding 38 minutes after taking off from there, was a textbook description of how the PFLP-GC devices were designed to work, as had been explained to the main trial court by Herr Gobel of the West German forensic service. Hence it would have been a huge encouragement to the defence incrimination hypothesis.
Evidence was led in the first appeal that the Heathrow guard (the late Mr Manly) who gave this information to the defence after the verdict had been passed had been interviewed by both the Met’s anti-terrorism branch and the police, and had entered the details of his discovery in the Heathrow night security log immediately.
It is therefore very difficult to see how the Crown Office could have been in ignorance of it.
In his remarks to the first appeal court, concerning the break-in evidence, Mr Taylor (for Megrahi’s defence) said:
(from transcripts Pages 11085/6)
'No production or statement was made available
to or discovered by the Defence in the course of the
preparation for this trial gave any notice of the
existence of Mr. Manly or the evidence which it turns
out he is able to give. There was no reasonable basis,
in my submission, for the Defence anticipating that it
would turn out that there had been a breach of security
at the baggage build-up area at Heathrow Airport.
'The circumstances of this case are rather
special. The Defence was informed by the Crown that
14,000 witness statements had been taken in the course
of its inquiry. Defence preparations began more than
10 years after the event. The police had fully
investigated matters at Heathrow in the immediate
aftermath of the disaster. The Crown had prepared for
and conducted a Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990. The
Defence were heavily dependent on the assistance from
the Crown in preparing for trial.
'The Crown had indicated at an early stage
that it would approach the issue of disclosure in
accordance with the principles laid down by Your
Lordships' court in the case of McLeod and that if
possible it would go further than McLeod to assist the
Defence.
'Since it can be taken that the Crown with all
its resources and access to information did not uncover
this evidence in preparing for trial, it would seem
that it would be unreasonable to expect that the
Defence would have guessed that such evidence might
exist and to discover witnesses who were unknown to it.'
Mr Taylor made the assumption that the Crown knew nothing of this matter. On the other hand partial or non-disclosure of relevant material to the defence by the Crown was one of the referral reasons given by the SCCRC as to why there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
For the moment we must avoid harming the appeal process, but there seems no reason why a search should not be made of the copious documents in possession of the Crown to see whether they did in fact have evidence of this break-in. If they have, we need an explanation of why they did not pass it to the defence; if there is no record of them having heard of this evidence then an explanation for that should be sought..
The effect of the absence of the information about the Heathrow break-in was not confined to the Zeist trial. In 1990 (the late) Sheriff Principal John Mowat told our Fatal Accident Inquiry that it must assume that the device had ‘come from Frankfurt’. No mention could be made of the situation at Heathrow, for that was hidden from that court.
I was one of only two relatives who decided to represent himself at the FAI. I did this because I was not satisfied with what I saw as the failure by lawyers representing the relatives to call witnesses and lead evidence requested by us, their clients. I was not alone in this, there was widespread distress among us about this.
During my contribution to the court, I concentrated upon the responsibility of Heathrow to examine hold baggage using the latest technology, but was denied the opportunity to return to the question of Heathrow security, by the Sheriff Principal on the grounds that that had already been covered by our ‘professional representatives’.
Had I known about the break-in, my submissions would have been almost exclusively about Heathrow perimeter security, terminal three night security in particular, and their amazing failure to close the airport pending discovery of who had broken in.
Thus the content of that court was misdirected (inadvertently, since Mowat presumably did not know about the break-in either).
Since I believe that had Heathrow behaved responsibly in the face of this break-in, at a time of heightened terrorist warnings, then my daughter might still be alive, the issue seems crucial to the ability of the FAI to determine accurately what factors contributed to the deaths.
Please will you urgently consider discovery of what, if anything, the Crown Office knew about the Heathrow break-in, and also the question of whether the Fatal Accident Inquiry should be reconvened, in view of this compromising of its purpose to discover all the factors contributing to the deaths. I do not see why this part of the issues raised herein cannot be urgently addressed, appeal or no appeal.
As I write, the second appeal is in progress in the High Court. Whilst not wishing to interfere with that process in any way, I would like to bring an associated, and to my mind very serious, issue to your attention.
In the early morning of 21 December 1988, there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, as discussed in the first appeal at Zeist. This break-in gave access to an unknown individual to ‘airside’, through a breech in the night security cordon in terminal 3. The first appeal court accepted that that was the case.
As I understand it the break-in point was close to the facility given over to Iran Air and to that of the baggage assembly shed, where baggage container AV4041 was part loaded on the evening of 21 December.
The evidence about this break-in had ‘disappeared’ for 12 years before Manly caused it to be raised.
This had the bizarre effect of meaning that during the trial, Luqa airport Malta was alone put forward as the airport of origin for the ingestion of the IED, though there was total absence of evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security there. A lacuna which their Lordships described as a serious difficulty for the Crown case.
Yet during the trial Heathrow airport lacked sufficient supporting evidence to be considered as the point of ingestion in the main trial, since the break-in was unknown to their Lordships.
By the time the evidence about Heathrow did surface, the verdict had been reached, and the defence had long abandoned their ‘incrimination’.
Once the appellant in the current appeal had been found guilty, it became immediately justifiable to deny him the ‘presumption of innocence’, to which accused but untried people are entitled. Indeed, ever since the verdict he has been described of course either as ‘the Lockerbie bomber’ or ‘the man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing’. From this different world of presumed guilt, it is difficult to imagine a scenario suggesting that his proven movements and his use of false passports etc bore no relation to the Lockerbie disaster.
Now the information about this break-in was simply not available to the trial court nor the defence in the main trial at Zeist, only becoming known in time for the first appeal, where it was examined against the background of ‘proven guilt’ and did not of course cause the verdict to be overturned.
It seems quite extraordinary that this information was not available sooner to the trial nor to our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990.
If the defence in the main trial had known of it, they might well have pursued their defence of ‘incrimination’ with a great deal more determination than they did in fact show.
The reason for that speculation is that they were to have promoted the use of a (Syrian based) PFLP-GC IED. These devices were specifically designed for introduction into an airport well in advance of their use, being stable indefinitely at ground level. On the other hand if placed within the fuselage of an airliner they were designed to explode around 40 minutes after take-off without any intervention being required at any point, other than their placement within the aircraft. As I’m sure you know, the Lockerbie flight lasted for 38 minutes
Thus the break-in situation at Heathrow with a plane exploding 38 minutes after taking off from there, was a textbook description of how the PFLP-GC devices were designed to work, as had been explained to the main trial court by Herr Gobel of the West German forensic service. Hence it would have been a huge encouragement to the defence incrimination hypothesis.
Evidence was led in the first appeal that the Heathrow guard (the late Mr Manly) who gave this information to the defence after the verdict had been passed had been interviewed by both the Met’s anti-terrorism branch and the police, and had entered the details of his discovery in the Heathrow night security log immediately.
It is therefore very difficult to see how the Crown Office could have been in ignorance of it.
In his remarks to the first appeal court, concerning the break-in evidence, Mr Taylor (for Megrahi’s defence) said:
(from transcripts Pages 11085/6)
'No production or statement was made available
to or discovered by the Defence in the course of the
preparation for this trial gave any notice of the
existence of Mr. Manly or the evidence which it turns
out he is able to give. There was no reasonable basis,
in my submission, for the Defence anticipating that it
would turn out that there had been a breach of security
at the baggage build-up area at Heathrow Airport.
'The circumstances of this case are rather
special. The Defence was informed by the Crown that
14,000 witness statements had been taken in the course
of its inquiry. Defence preparations began more than
10 years after the event. The police had fully
investigated matters at Heathrow in the immediate
aftermath of the disaster. The Crown had prepared for
and conducted a Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990. The
Defence were heavily dependent on the assistance from
the Crown in preparing for trial.
'The Crown had indicated at an early stage
that it would approach the issue of disclosure in
accordance with the principles laid down by Your
Lordships' court in the case of McLeod and that if
possible it would go further than McLeod to assist the
Defence.
'Since it can be taken that the Crown with all
its resources and access to information did not uncover
this evidence in preparing for trial, it would seem
that it would be unreasonable to expect that the
Defence would have guessed that such evidence might
exist and to discover witnesses who were unknown to it.'
Mr Taylor made the assumption that the Crown knew nothing of this matter. On the other hand partial or non-disclosure of relevant material to the defence by the Crown was one of the referral reasons given by the SCCRC as to why there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
For the moment we must avoid harming the appeal process, but there seems no reason why a search should not be made of the copious documents in possession of the Crown to see whether they did in fact have evidence of this break-in. If they have, we need an explanation of why they did not pass it to the defence; if there is no record of them having heard of this evidence then an explanation for that should be sought..
The effect of the absence of the information about the Heathrow break-in was not confined to the Zeist trial. In 1990 (the late) Sheriff Principal John Mowat told our Fatal Accident Inquiry that it must assume that the device had ‘come from Frankfurt’. No mention could be made of the situation at Heathrow, for that was hidden from that court.
I was one of only two relatives who decided to represent himself at the FAI. I did this because I was not satisfied with what I saw as the failure by lawyers representing the relatives to call witnesses and lead evidence requested by us, their clients. I was not alone in this, there was widespread distress among us about this.
During my contribution to the court, I concentrated upon the responsibility of Heathrow to examine hold baggage using the latest technology, but was denied the opportunity to return to the question of Heathrow security, by the Sheriff Principal on the grounds that that had already been covered by our ‘professional representatives’.
Had I known about the break-in, my submissions would have been almost exclusively about Heathrow perimeter security, terminal three night security in particular, and their amazing failure to close the airport pending discovery of who had broken in.
Thus the content of that court was misdirected (inadvertently, since Mowat presumably did not know about the break-in either).
Since I believe that had Heathrow behaved responsibly in the face of this break-in, at a time of heightened terrorist warnings, then my daughter might still be alive, the issue seems crucial to the ability of the FAI to determine accurately what factors contributed to the deaths.
Please will you urgently consider discovery of what, if anything, the Crown Office knew about the Heathrow break-in, and also the question of whether the Fatal Accident Inquiry should be reconvened, in view of this compromising of its purpose to discover all the factors contributing to the deaths. I do not see why this part of the issues raised herein cannot be urgently addressed, appeal or no appeal.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Alan Feraday and Wikipedia
[I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for supplying me with this copy of his Wikipedia article on Alan Feraday. The article has now, for some reason, been removed from the Wikipedia website.]
Alan Feraday is the retired former head of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.
After RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in 1995, the laboratory came under media and scientific scrutiny in 1996 amid allegations that contaminated equipment had been used in the testing of forensic evidence.[1]
Contents
• 1 Expert witness
• 2 Danny McNamee
• 3 John Berry
• 4 Hassan Assali
• 5 Lockerbie trial
• 6 References
• 7 External links
Expert witness
Alan Feraday has appeared as an expert witness at criminal trials leading to convictions in at least four high-profile cases, three of which were subsequently overturned on appeal.[2] The appeal in the fourth case is ongoing.
Feraday's involvement in a number of other criminal cases was the subject of a parliamentary question in 1996.[3]
Danny McNamee
Feraday was the Crown's main scientific witness in the McNamee case which concerned a terrorist bomb explosion in London's Hyde Park in 1982. McNamee's fingerprint was alleged to have been on a printed circuit board that had been discovered in an IRA arms cache. Feraday testified that a PCB fragment said to have been found at the scene of the Hyde Park bombing, but which had not been forensically tested for explosive residues, came from the same type of circuit board in the arms cache. McNamee, who was convicted in 1987 largely as a result of Feraday's evidence, successfully appealed against his conviction in December 1998.[4]
John Berry
Another case in which Feraday appeared as an expert witness was the 1983 prosecution of businessman John Berry, who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy charges. At the trial, Feraday testified that the timers Berry had sold in the Middle East had been designed specifically for terrorist purposes. Berry spent ten years in jail before his conviction was overturned in September 1993, when four highly qualified witnesses ridiculed the evidence that Feraday had given at the trial.
Commenting on the case, Lord Justice Taylor declared that the nature of Feraday's evidence was "dogmatic in the extreme" and that in future he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics. In a recent development the Home Office has agreed to pay compensation from the public purse to Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Feraday.[5]
Hassan Assali
Libyan national, Hassan Assali, came to Britain in 1965. In 1985, Assali was convicted of constructing electronic timers in contravention of the 1883 Explosives Substances Act on the basis of Feraday's testimony that the timing devices were designed specifically for the triggering of IEDs. Assali's appeal against conviction was rejected in 1986. He applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1998 to review his case and, following a second appeal when other electronics experts disputed the trial evidence given by Feraday, Assali's conviction was quashed in 2005.[6]
Lockerbie trial
Both Alan Feraday and his RARDE colleague, Dr Thomas Hayes, gave expert witness evidence at the Lockerbie trial in 2000. Feraday testified that Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down on 21 December 1988 by a suitcase bomb triggered by an electronic timer made by the Swiss firm Mebo.[7] From a piece of charred clothing allegedly found at the scene of the crash in January 1989, Hayes teased out a tiny piece of timer circuit board in May 1989. The timer fragment was photographed at RARDE but was not tested for explosive residues. Feraday took the timer fragment to the FBI laboratory in the United States where Thomas Thurman was able to confirm that it had come from the Mebo MST-13 timer, twenty of which had been supplied to Libya. The clothing and the timer fragment led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi at the trial, and to his sentence of 27 years' imprisonment in Scotland. Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected in 2002 but he applied in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case.[8]
On 28 June 2007, the SCCRC referred Megrahi's case back for another appeal on the basis that he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.[9]
The second appeal started at the High Court of Justiciary on 28 April 2009.[10] A documentary film "Lockerbie revisited", which was broadcast on Dutch television on 27 April 2009, focused on the Mebo timer fragment evidence and Feraday's role in its identification.
References
1. ^ Robert Verkaik (1996-05-22). "Innocent beyond doubt". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/innocent-beyond-doubt-1348637.html.
2. ^ "'Doubts' over Lockerbie evidence". BBC News. 2005-08-19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4164422.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
3. ^ "PQ on the Caddy Inquiry". 1996-12-09. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1996/dec/09/caddy-inquiry.
4. ^ "The Case of Danny McNamee". http://www.scandals.org/mcnamee/index.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
5. ^ Ludwig de Braekeleer. "Alan Feraday and the evidence of the Lockerbie trial". Canada Free Press. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5542. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
6. ^ "Commission refers conviction of Mr Hassan Assali to Court of Appeal". 2003-04-19. http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/news/news_233.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
7. ^ "Lockerbie bomb 'in suitcase'". BBC News. 2000-06-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/792623.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
8. ^ Lucy Christie (2005-08-19). "Lockerbie terror bomber's conviction thrown into doubt". Edinburgh Evening News. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Lockerbie-terror-bombers-conviction-thrown.2653683.jp. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
9. ^ Laura Blue. "Re-Opening the Lockerbie Tragedy". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1639065,00.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
10. ^ Jason Allardyce; Mark Macaskill (2009-05-10). "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home". timesonline. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6256846.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
External links
• "Police investigations of 'politically sensitive' or high profile crimes", Report on the Lockerbie investigation by former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd
• "Lockerbie revisited", Dutch television documentary by Gideon Levy
Alan Feraday is the retired former head of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.
After RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in 1995, the laboratory came under media and scientific scrutiny in 1996 amid allegations that contaminated equipment had been used in the testing of forensic evidence.[1]
Contents
• 1 Expert witness
• 2 Danny McNamee
• 3 John Berry
• 4 Hassan Assali
• 5 Lockerbie trial
• 6 References
• 7 External links
Expert witness
Alan Feraday has appeared as an expert witness at criminal trials leading to convictions in at least four high-profile cases, three of which were subsequently overturned on appeal.[2] The appeal in the fourth case is ongoing.
Feraday's involvement in a number of other criminal cases was the subject of a parliamentary question in 1996.[3]
Danny McNamee
Feraday was the Crown's main scientific witness in the McNamee case which concerned a terrorist bomb explosion in London's Hyde Park in 1982. McNamee's fingerprint was alleged to have been on a printed circuit board that had been discovered in an IRA arms cache. Feraday testified that a PCB fragment said to have been found at the scene of the Hyde Park bombing, but which had not been forensically tested for explosive residues, came from the same type of circuit board in the arms cache. McNamee, who was convicted in 1987 largely as a result of Feraday's evidence, successfully appealed against his conviction in December 1998.[4]
John Berry
Another case in which Feraday appeared as an expert witness was the 1983 prosecution of businessman John Berry, who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy charges. At the trial, Feraday testified that the timers Berry had sold in the Middle East had been designed specifically for terrorist purposes. Berry spent ten years in jail before his conviction was overturned in September 1993, when four highly qualified witnesses ridiculed the evidence that Feraday had given at the trial.
Commenting on the case, Lord Justice Taylor declared that the nature of Feraday's evidence was "dogmatic in the extreme" and that in future he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics. In a recent development the Home Office has agreed to pay compensation from the public purse to Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Feraday.[5]
Hassan Assali
Libyan national, Hassan Assali, came to Britain in 1965. In 1985, Assali was convicted of constructing electronic timers in contravention of the 1883 Explosives Substances Act on the basis of Feraday's testimony that the timing devices were designed specifically for the triggering of IEDs. Assali's appeal against conviction was rejected in 1986. He applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1998 to review his case and, following a second appeal when other electronics experts disputed the trial evidence given by Feraday, Assali's conviction was quashed in 2005.[6]
Lockerbie trial
Both Alan Feraday and his RARDE colleague, Dr Thomas Hayes, gave expert witness evidence at the Lockerbie trial in 2000. Feraday testified that Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down on 21 December 1988 by a suitcase bomb triggered by an electronic timer made by the Swiss firm Mebo.[7] From a piece of charred clothing allegedly found at the scene of the crash in January 1989, Hayes teased out a tiny piece of timer circuit board in May 1989. The timer fragment was photographed at RARDE but was not tested for explosive residues. Feraday took the timer fragment to the FBI laboratory in the United States where Thomas Thurman was able to confirm that it had come from the Mebo MST-13 timer, twenty of which had been supplied to Libya. The clothing and the timer fragment led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi at the trial, and to his sentence of 27 years' imprisonment in Scotland. Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected in 2002 but he applied in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case.[8]
On 28 June 2007, the SCCRC referred Megrahi's case back for another appeal on the basis that he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.[9]
The second appeal started at the High Court of Justiciary on 28 April 2009.[10] A documentary film "Lockerbie revisited", which was broadcast on Dutch television on 27 April 2009, focused on the Mebo timer fragment evidence and Feraday's role in its identification.
References
1. ^ Robert Verkaik (1996-05-22). "Innocent beyond doubt". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/innocent-beyond-doubt-1348637.html.
2. ^ "'Doubts' over Lockerbie evidence". BBC News. 2005-08-19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4164422.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
3. ^ "PQ on the Caddy Inquiry". 1996-12-09. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1996/dec/09/caddy-inquiry.
4. ^ "The Case of Danny McNamee". http://www.scandals.org/mcnamee/index.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
5. ^ Ludwig de Braekeleer. "Alan Feraday and the evidence of the Lockerbie trial". Canada Free Press. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5542. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
6. ^ "Commission refers conviction of Mr Hassan Assali to Court of Appeal". 2003-04-19. http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/news/news_233.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
7. ^ "Lockerbie bomb 'in suitcase'". BBC News. 2000-06-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/792623.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
8. ^ Lucy Christie (2005-08-19). "Lockerbie terror bomber's conviction thrown into doubt". Edinburgh Evening News. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Lockerbie-terror-bombers-conviction-thrown.2653683.jp. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
9. ^ Laura Blue. "Re-Opening the Lockerbie Tragedy". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1639065,00.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
10. ^ Jason Allardyce; Mark Macaskill (2009-05-10). "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home". timesonline. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6256846.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
External links
• "Police investigations of 'politically sensitive' or high profile crimes", Report on the Lockerbie investigation by former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd
• "Lockerbie revisited", Dutch television documentary by Gideon Levy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)