[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Aberdeen-based newspaper The Press and Journal. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Libyan authorities have applied for 57-year-old al Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK. Ministers received “formal notification” last Friday that al Megrahi wants to meet Mr MacAskill, a Scottish Government spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The spokesman added: “As part of the process the justice secretary has met UK relatives, he has linked up by video conference to Eric Holder, the US attorney general and the US relatives.
“He has also received a delegation from the Libyan government and will now meet Mr al Megrahi.”
No decision on the prisoner transfer can be made by Mr McAskill while al Megrahi pursues a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 bombing.
The government is also to seek medical advice as to whether al Megrahi is fit to leave Greenock Prison where he is being held. His lawyer, Tony Kelly, said yesterday: “My client would welcome a meeting so that he can have the opportunity to put his case to Mr MacAskill.”
Although the meeting might not need to be staged in the prison, the lawyer said his client is “ill and in some considerable discomfort”.
Mr Kelly also declined to comment on weekend reports that al Megrahi has handed over a signed document to the Libyan Government agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if Mr MacAskill allows him home to Libya. (...)
Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said the move was unprecedented.
He said: “Nothing like this seems to have happened in the case of the Great Train Robber or the Moors Murders, for example. I fail to see what possible purpose this visit will serve.”
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Monday, 13 July 2009
Justice, compassion, integrity
[What follows is the text of an article by Christine Grahame MSP in the Scottish edition of yesterday's Sunday Express. As far as I can discover, the article does not appear on the newspaper's website.]
He is the face of an atrocity which remains the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on UK soil, but soon, within a few months, the man convicted of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing will be dead. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has advanced stage terminal prostate cancer. On the two occasions when I visited him at Greenock Prison his constant discomfort was clearly evident. For almost 10 years since his conviction he has fought relentlessly to clear his name, but his degenerative terminal illness has changed his focus. Now he is a man desperate to see his family before he dies.
When the UK Government learned of Megrahi’s imminent second appeal following a lengthy four year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded there may have been a miscarriage of justice, Tony Blair hastily put in place a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the Libyan Government. It was two years before that appeal began.
Many in the UK Government and elsewhere who do not want this second appeal by Mr Megrahi to go ahead. Why?
The reputation of the Scottish legal system would be on the line if Mr Megrahi were successful, yet with every week that goes by another significant piece of new evidence undermines the Crown’s case. There are professional reputations in the Scottish legal establishment and in the US that are being challenged here.
Robert Black, the highly respected Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh who knows this case inside out has concluded: “I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.” That in itself is a serious indictment of the Scottish legal system.
Megrahi’s appeal has been plagued by delay and takes no account whatsoever of his terminal condition. Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal announced a further delay due to the ill health of one of the Appeal Judges, Lord Wheatley. This additional delay puts the process back a further four months at least. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Megrahi’s defence lawyer said when the Court announcement was made. The latest hold-up ensures, beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal process, regardless of what legal choices he makes in the next few weeks.
He has a very stark decision to make either continue with the appeal and at the point of his death a family member can take it forward to its conclusion on his behalf. This option means Megrahi will die in prison in an environment that senior prison officials have already told me are not suitable for a terminally ill man. Or alternatively he can abandon his appeal and hope that he is granted a Prisoner Transfer back to Libya, but this is by no means guaranteed.
There is however a third way; compassionate release to Libya which would allow him to die near to his close knit family, including his elderly parents and allow the appeal to proceed to a determination.
This can be granted unilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and would reflect the principles of Scots law based on justice and compassion. This option is supported by legal experts and relatives of victims such as the redoubtable Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned tirelessly to expose the truth behind the bombing which claimed the life of his daughter Flora. Many are opposed to such a compromise of course, including a significant number, but not all, of the US relatives of Pan Am 103 as are senior officials in the Scottish Justice Department, some of whom built their careers on the Lockerbie case.
A Prisoner Transfer may be seen as conveniently ending the matter. That would be naïve. Such is the weight of fresh evidence indicating Megrahi’s innocence combined with significant doubt over the original material used to convict in the first place, that calls for a public inquiry are likely to increase and denying one, indefensible. It is vital that the truth is exposed, for all involved, and most particularly victims families. Compassionate release offers the only compromise which would exhaust due legal process, demonstrate compassion and prove the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. Justice, compassion, integrity, three words engraved on the Scottish Parliament’s Mace. Let’s hope and trust this nation lives up to them.
He is the face of an atrocity which remains the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on UK soil, but soon, within a few months, the man convicted of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing will be dead. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has advanced stage terminal prostate cancer. On the two occasions when I visited him at Greenock Prison his constant discomfort was clearly evident. For almost 10 years since his conviction he has fought relentlessly to clear his name, but his degenerative terminal illness has changed his focus. Now he is a man desperate to see his family before he dies.
When the UK Government learned of Megrahi’s imminent second appeal following a lengthy four year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded there may have been a miscarriage of justice, Tony Blair hastily put in place a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the Libyan Government. It was two years before that appeal began.
Many in the UK Government and elsewhere who do not want this second appeal by Mr Megrahi to go ahead. Why?
The reputation of the Scottish legal system would be on the line if Mr Megrahi were successful, yet with every week that goes by another significant piece of new evidence undermines the Crown’s case. There are professional reputations in the Scottish legal establishment and in the US that are being challenged here.
Robert Black, the highly respected Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh who knows this case inside out has concluded: “I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.” That in itself is a serious indictment of the Scottish legal system.
Megrahi’s appeal has been plagued by delay and takes no account whatsoever of his terminal condition. Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal announced a further delay due to the ill health of one of the Appeal Judges, Lord Wheatley. This additional delay puts the process back a further four months at least. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Megrahi’s defence lawyer said when the Court announcement was made. The latest hold-up ensures, beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal process, regardless of what legal choices he makes in the next few weeks.
He has a very stark decision to make either continue with the appeal and at the point of his death a family member can take it forward to its conclusion on his behalf. This option means Megrahi will die in prison in an environment that senior prison officials have already told me are not suitable for a terminally ill man. Or alternatively he can abandon his appeal and hope that he is granted a Prisoner Transfer back to Libya, but this is by no means guaranteed.
There is however a third way; compassionate release to Libya which would allow him to die near to his close knit family, including his elderly parents and allow the appeal to proceed to a determination.
This can be granted unilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and would reflect the principles of Scots law based on justice and compassion. This option is supported by legal experts and relatives of victims such as the redoubtable Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned tirelessly to expose the truth behind the bombing which claimed the life of his daughter Flora. Many are opposed to such a compromise of course, including a significant number, but not all, of the US relatives of Pan Am 103 as are senior officials in the Scottish Justice Department, some of whom built their careers on the Lockerbie case.
A Prisoner Transfer may be seen as conveniently ending the matter. That would be naïve. Such is the weight of fresh evidence indicating Megrahi’s innocence combined with significant doubt over the original material used to convict in the first place, that calls for a public inquiry are likely to increase and denying one, indefensible. It is vital that the truth is exposed, for all involved, and most particularly victims families. Compassionate release offers the only compromise which would exhaust due legal process, demonstrate compassion and prove the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. Justice, compassion, integrity, three words engraved on the Scottish Parliament’s Mace. Let’s hope and trust this nation lives up to them.
MacAskill to meet Lockerbie bomber over jail transfer
Sunday, 12 July 2009
MacAskill in offer to meet Megrahi
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has offered to meet the Lockerbie bomber in prison as he decides if the convicted mass murderer ought to be allowed home to Libya.
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Col Gadaffi lobbies Gordon Brown for Lockerbie bomber release
[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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)