The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be freed on compassionate grounds next week, the BBC understands. (...)
Scottish ministers described the development as "complete speculation".
Kathleen Flynn, whose son died on the plane, told the BBC she was horrified the "terrorist" could be released.
She added that he showed no mercy as he planted his bomb and should "never qualify for anything compassionate".
"Did Megrahi as he planted a bomb on a US airliner reflect on any compassion for the people he was about to blow up out of the skies and the people on the ground in Lockerbie? I think not," she said.
The BBC's Daniel Sandford in Washington said "broadly" families in Scotland were concerned about the conviction, whereas US relatives were convinced of his guilt. (...)
It is believed UK and Libyan officials have held talks this week over Megrahi's appeal against his conviction.
The speed of his transfer is thought to be influenced by consensus among all parties that Megrahi be back on Libyan soil in time for Ramadan next week.
News of his release came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill visited Megrahi in prison, amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.
But a spokesman for Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said: "No decision has been taken, either on the application for compassionate release or the application under the prisoner transfer agreement and so it is entirely speculation."
A Scottish Government spokesman added that a decision was expected from Mr MacAskill this month.
[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.
A sidebar by the BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell reads:
'I understand preparations for Mr Megrahi's release are being made in time for him to be home with his family in Libya by Ramadan, which starts next Friday.
'The Parole Board for Scotland has been asked to give its opinion on compassionate release.
'The Libyan authorities - who have held high level talks with the Scottish justice secretary in recent days - have also been advised to make plans to fly Mr Megrahi back to Tripoli.
'The Scottish Government is right to say "no decision has been taken" - but that should change in the next few days and the likelihood is Mr Megrahi will return to Libya by next weekend.' ]
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Just to be absolutely clear
The correspondence between the Justice Department and myself makes it clear that no suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
If any official of the Justice Department or of the Libyan Government formed the view that such a suggestion had been made, he or she was clearly mistaken.
If any official of the Justice Department or of the Libyan Government formed the view that such a suggestion had been made, he or she was clearly mistaken.
A simple question -- and at last a simple reply
[Here is a transcript of my correspondence with the Scottish Government Justice Department on the subject of my simple question.]
From a Justice Department official at 13.03:
'Thank you for your email earlier today.
'In response to your question below - This is baseless and ill informed speculation. There may be confusion with the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments, which at Article 3(b) states as a condition for transfer that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State". An application for compassionate release depends on different criteria. Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal is entirely a matter for the Court, Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal and have not done so.'
From me to the Justice Department at 13.30:
'Thank you for your reply.
'I assure you that I am well aware of the different criteria that apply to prisoner transfer and to compassionate release, which is precisely why I addressed my question to the Department.
'You state that it would inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal (which is entirely a matter for the Court and for Mr Megrahi). I have never asked the Department to do so. The question that I posed was whether any suggestion had been made to Mr Megrahi, his legal representatives or officials of his government that the decision on compassionate release would or could be influenced by the abandonment of his appeal. Your reply does not answer that very simple question. I should be grateful if you would now do so.'
From a Justice Department official at 17.22:
'I believe that my answer to your simple question was and is 'no'.'
From a Justice Department official at 13.03:
'Thank you for your email earlier today.
'In response to your question below - This is baseless and ill informed speculation. There may be confusion with the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments, which at Article 3(b) states as a condition for transfer that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State". An application for compassionate release depends on different criteria. Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal is entirely a matter for the Court, Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal and have not done so.'
From me to the Justice Department at 13.30:
'Thank you for your reply.
'I assure you that I am well aware of the different criteria that apply to prisoner transfer and to compassionate release, which is precisely why I addressed my question to the Department.
'You state that it would inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal (which is entirely a matter for the Court and for Mr Megrahi). I have never asked the Department to do so. The question that I posed was whether any suggestion had been made to Mr Megrahi, his legal representatives or officials of his government that the decision on compassionate release would or could be influenced by the abandonment of his appeal. Your reply does not answer that very simple question. I should be grateful if you would now do so.'
From a Justice Department official at 17.22:
'I believe that my answer to your simple question was and is 'no'.'
A simple question
Because of persistent rumours that are circulating and which I have been informed by sources close to the Scottish Government Justice Department are accurate, I address the following simple question to the Justice Department:
Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or any official of that Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department suggested to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal?
[The issue has now been raised on its website by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its report can be read here and an editorial can be read here.]
Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or any official of that Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department suggested to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal?
[The issue has now been raised on its website by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its report can be read here and an editorial can be read here.]
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
The Lockerbie case and the corruption of justice, or: justice delayed is justice denied
[This is the heading over an article by Professor Hans Köchler which was published yesterday on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Back in August 1998 the United Nations Security Council had “welcomed” the resolution of the legal-political dispute between Libya and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom over the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie through the trial of two Libyan suspects before an extraterritorial Scottish Court in the Netherlands. While the dispute between the governments has been settled years ago and Libya now entertains businesslike relations with both the US and UK, the only individual convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, still awaits a final verdict in his case, the announcement of which he may not live to see because, while in Scottish custody, he has fallen ill with cancer that was detected only at a time when, so the prison authorities say, it was already too late to administer more than palliative care.
The hopeless, indeed Kafkaesque, situation which the lone Libyan prisoner finds himself in is further aggravated by the fact that his second appeal has suffered from enormous delays – which are scandalous under any circumstances and, seen in the context of deliberate withholding of evidence, are tantamount to an obstruction of justice. His predicament became even more serious when certain quarters confronted him with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.
Under these circumstances, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice (who certainly has seen the latest medical reports) should act without further delay on Mr. al Megrahi’s second request (the first was rejected) for “compassionate release” under the provisions of Scots law. This would allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail” the Lockerbie prisoner faces in regard to the prisoner exchange option. Apart from the convicted Libyan national’s right – under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – to a proper judicial review, it is in the supreme public interest of Scotland and the United Kingdom that this second appeal proceed unhindered and that, eventually, a decision be reached beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental criterion of Scots law was not in any way met by the trial verdict and (first) appeal decision of the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands back in 2001 and 2002. The Opinions of the Court issued by the two panels of Scottish judges were inconsistent and based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence; on testimony of at least two key witnesses who had received huge amounts of money; on the opinions of forensic experts of, to say the least, dubious reputation and with problematic links to intelligence services; and on at least one piece of evidence that had been inserted at a later stage into the list of documents and apparently been tampered with. Furthermore, vital evidence such as that of a break-in at a luggage storage area at Heathrow airport in the night before the departure of the doomed flight had been withheld from the court during the first trial (a fact that still has not been properly explained), and further vital evidence is still being withheld in the phase of the second appeal due to the British Foreign Secretary’s having issued a so-called Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Concerns similar to those which I had raised in my reports to the United Nations Organization in 2001 and 2002 about improprieties, irregularities and judicial malpractices have also been raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that, in June 2007, referred Mr. al Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court, suspecting – as I had done on the day of the original verdict on 31 January 2001 – that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Regrettably, the SCCRC has decided to keep some of the reasons for its decision secret.
The public is also kept in the dark about what Scotland’s Justice Secretary discussed at his meeting with Mr. al Megrahi at Greenock prison, which was indeed an unprecedented step in Scottish legal history. One thing should be taken for certain, however: If Mr. MacAskill is a man of honour, he will not have made granting the prisoner’s request for “compassionate release” conditional upon the latter’s dropping the ongoing appeal. This would not only be morally outrageous, it would also be illegal in terms of Scots law and, as infringement upon a convicted person’s freedom to seek judicial review, in outright violation of the European Human Rights Convention the provisions of which are binding upon Scotland.
If Scotland prides itself in its unique judicial system, which it has practiced since long before devolution, the authorities should exercise all efforts to repair the damage that has been done to the country’s reputation by the flawed judicial proceedings in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. If Mr. MacAskill is indeed serious about dealing with the matter strictly within legal parameters, as he repeatedly said, the competent Scottish authorities should finally make those steps that are necessary to identify the actual “Lockerbie bombers” (in the plural!) wherever they may be and however powerful they still may be, apparently having succeeded for so long in using the Scottish judicial system to make Mr. al Megrahi a scapegoat in the strange and ugly world of international power politics.
Back in August 1998 the United Nations Security Council had “welcomed” the resolution of the legal-political dispute between Libya and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom over the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie through the trial of two Libyan suspects before an extraterritorial Scottish Court in the Netherlands. While the dispute between the governments has been settled years ago and Libya now entertains businesslike relations with both the US and UK, the only individual convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, still awaits a final verdict in his case, the announcement of which he may not live to see because, while in Scottish custody, he has fallen ill with cancer that was detected only at a time when, so the prison authorities say, it was already too late to administer more than palliative care.
The hopeless, indeed Kafkaesque, situation which the lone Libyan prisoner finds himself in is further aggravated by the fact that his second appeal has suffered from enormous delays – which are scandalous under any circumstances and, seen in the context of deliberate withholding of evidence, are tantamount to an obstruction of justice. His predicament became even more serious when certain quarters confronted him with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.
Under these circumstances, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice (who certainly has seen the latest medical reports) should act without further delay on Mr. al Megrahi’s second request (the first was rejected) for “compassionate release” under the provisions of Scots law. This would allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail” the Lockerbie prisoner faces in regard to the prisoner exchange option. Apart from the convicted Libyan national’s right – under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – to a proper judicial review, it is in the supreme public interest of Scotland and the United Kingdom that this second appeal proceed unhindered and that, eventually, a decision be reached beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental criterion of Scots law was not in any way met by the trial verdict and (first) appeal decision of the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands back in 2001 and 2002. The Opinions of the Court issued by the two panels of Scottish judges were inconsistent and based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence; on testimony of at least two key witnesses who had received huge amounts of money; on the opinions of forensic experts of, to say the least, dubious reputation and with problematic links to intelligence services; and on at least one piece of evidence that had been inserted at a later stage into the list of documents and apparently been tampered with. Furthermore, vital evidence such as that of a break-in at a luggage storage area at Heathrow airport in the night before the departure of the doomed flight had been withheld from the court during the first trial (a fact that still has not been properly explained), and further vital evidence is still being withheld in the phase of the second appeal due to the British Foreign Secretary’s having issued a so-called Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Concerns similar to those which I had raised in my reports to the United Nations Organization in 2001 and 2002 about improprieties, irregularities and judicial malpractices have also been raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that, in June 2007, referred Mr. al Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court, suspecting – as I had done on the day of the original verdict on 31 January 2001 – that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Regrettably, the SCCRC has decided to keep some of the reasons for its decision secret.
The public is also kept in the dark about what Scotland’s Justice Secretary discussed at his meeting with Mr. al Megrahi at Greenock prison, which was indeed an unprecedented step in Scottish legal history. One thing should be taken for certain, however: If Mr. MacAskill is a man of honour, he will not have made granting the prisoner’s request for “compassionate release” conditional upon the latter’s dropping the ongoing appeal. This would not only be morally outrageous, it would also be illegal in terms of Scots law and, as infringement upon a convicted person’s freedom to seek judicial review, in outright violation of the European Human Rights Convention the provisions of which are binding upon Scotland.
If Scotland prides itself in its unique judicial system, which it has practiced since long before devolution, the authorities should exercise all efforts to repair the damage that has been done to the country’s reputation by the flawed judicial proceedings in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. If Mr. MacAskill is indeed serious about dealing with the matter strictly within legal parameters, as he repeatedly said, the competent Scottish authorities should finally make those steps that are necessary to identify the actual “Lockerbie bombers” (in the plural!) wherever they may be and however powerful they still may be, apparently having succeeded for so long in using the Scottish judicial system to make Mr. al Megrahi a scapegoat in the strange and ugly world of international power politics.
Libyans in talks with MacAskill about fate of Megrahi
Libyan Government officials visited St Andrew's House yesterday for final discussions with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ahead of his final decision on the fate of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The six-strong delegation from Tripoli then travelled to Greenock Prison to see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, which left 270 people dead.
The prisoner is appealing his conviction but has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. Last week Mr MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.
However, for that transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal, unless Mr MacAskill decided to release him on compassionate grounds, which could permit the appeal to continue while Megrahi returned to die in his homeland.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a delegation from the Libyan Government met the Justice Secretary today as part of the continuing process started in June to hear representations from relevant parties in relation to Mr Al Megrahi's applications for release. This was a follow- up meeting to help clarify a number of issues and the Justice Secretary will now finalise his considerations over the next few weeks."
Yesterday's was the third meeting between Libyan representatives and the Justice Secretary, who has also met US Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as representatives of the US and UK dead from the flight and those from Lockerbie itself.
Megrahi wants to clear his name through the appeal, which began in April, but he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and it is not known if he will survive the lengthy legal process.
Despite the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referring the case for a fresh appeal two years ago, the process is barely under way.
[This is the text of an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. A report on the visit is also to be found in The Sun.]
The six-strong delegation from Tripoli then travelled to Greenock Prison to see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, which left 270 people dead.
The prisoner is appealing his conviction but has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. Last week Mr MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.
However, for that transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal, unless Mr MacAskill decided to release him on compassionate grounds, which could permit the appeal to continue while Megrahi returned to die in his homeland.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a delegation from the Libyan Government met the Justice Secretary today as part of the continuing process started in June to hear representations from relevant parties in relation to Mr Al Megrahi's applications for release. This was a follow- up meeting to help clarify a number of issues and the Justice Secretary will now finalise his considerations over the next few weeks."
Yesterday's was the third meeting between Libyan representatives and the Justice Secretary, who has also met US Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as representatives of the US and UK dead from the flight and those from Lockerbie itself.
Megrahi wants to clear his name through the appeal, which began in April, but he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and it is not known if he will survive the lengthy legal process.
Despite the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referring the case for a fresh appeal two years ago, the process is barely under way.
[This is the text of an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. A report on the visit is also to be found in The Sun.]
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Church of Scotland: free Lockerbie bomber
The Church of Scotland has intervened in the case of the Lockerbie bomber, urging the government to free the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history.
The Kirk claims it is unchristian to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in jail and has urged Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to free him on compassionate grounds.
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk’s church and society council, appealed to the government after medical reports suggested the Libyan may only have weeks to live. His intervention comes just weeks before the justice minister is due to rule on the case.
“We have to continue to feel hugely for the families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing. Nonetheless it would seem that the compassionate response would be to release Mr Megrahi to his family for the remaining days of his life,” said Galloway.
“The Christian faith places forgiveness and compassion close to its centre and while the justice system rightly always includes an element of punishment, in the current circumstances we have to be able to lay some of that aside.
“In other words, to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness is where on balance we believe society should seek to lean.” (...)
The intervention by the church, which has 600,000 members, will put pressure on MacAskill, whose decision to meet Megrahi was widely criticised and prompted accusations that the convicted terrorist was being given preferential treatment.
Megrahi’s supporters have grown hopeful that he will either be handed over to Libya or freed, believing it would be a severe embarrassment to the government if he were to die in a Scottish jail. Last week Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, freed Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, on compassionate grounds after being told he is severely ill with pneumonia and is unlikely to recover.
MacAskill requested a new medical report on the condition of Megrahi, who has been advised by consultants that the disease is at an advanced stage.
A condition of the prisoner transfer treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. The 57-year-old is believed to be prepared to drop his appeal against his conviction in order to spend the rest of his life close to his family in Libya. If, however, he is freed on compassionate grounds he could continue to pursue his appeal.
Last night American relatives of those who died criticised the Kirk’s intervention.
Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said: “This is nonsense. This is the first word I have ever heard from the Church of Scotland in 21 years. They didn’t send us any condolences, they didn’t send us any support.
“The reason the United States has separation of church and state is because church people usually get it wrong. I’d like to be compassionate but this man may die next week or he may live 10 years.”
John Lamont, community safety spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “Unless we have compelling medical evidence suggesting release on the grounds of compassion is considered, justice requires that the sentence imposed is the sentence served, subject of course to Mr Megrahi’s ongoing appeal.”
A recent Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times indicated 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.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.
This story has been picked up by the Monday editions of a number of daily newspapers. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and the Daily Express's here.]
The Kirk claims it is unchristian to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in jail and has urged Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to free him on compassionate grounds.
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk’s church and society council, appealed to the government after medical reports suggested the Libyan may only have weeks to live. His intervention comes just weeks before the justice minister is due to rule on the case.
“We have to continue to feel hugely for the families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing. Nonetheless it would seem that the compassionate response would be to release Mr Megrahi to his family for the remaining days of his life,” said Galloway.
“The Christian faith places forgiveness and compassion close to its centre and while the justice system rightly always includes an element of punishment, in the current circumstances we have to be able to lay some of that aside.
“In other words, to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness is where on balance we believe society should seek to lean.” (...)
The intervention by the church, which has 600,000 members, will put pressure on MacAskill, whose decision to meet Megrahi was widely criticised and prompted accusations that the convicted terrorist was being given preferential treatment.
Megrahi’s supporters have grown hopeful that he will either be handed over to Libya or freed, believing it would be a severe embarrassment to the government if he were to die in a Scottish jail. Last week Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, freed Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, on compassionate grounds after being told he is severely ill with pneumonia and is unlikely to recover.
MacAskill requested a new medical report on the condition of Megrahi, who has been advised by consultants that the disease is at an advanced stage.
A condition of the prisoner transfer treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. The 57-year-old is believed to be prepared to drop his appeal against his conviction in order to spend the rest of his life close to his family in Libya. If, however, he is freed on compassionate grounds he could continue to pursue his appeal.
Last night American relatives of those who died criticised the Kirk’s intervention.
Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said: “This is nonsense. This is the first word I have ever heard from the Church of Scotland in 21 years. They didn’t send us any condolences, they didn’t send us any support.
“The reason the United States has separation of church and state is because church people usually get it wrong. I’d like to be compassionate but this man may die next week or he may live 10 years.”
John Lamont, community safety spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “Unless we have compelling medical evidence suggesting release on the grounds of compassion is considered, justice requires that the sentence imposed is the sentence served, subject of course to Mr Megrahi’s ongoing appeal.”
A recent Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times indicated 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.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.
This story has been picked up by the Monday editions of a number of daily newspapers. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and the Daily Express's here.]
Saturday, 8 August 2009
He’s dying: does it matter where?
[This is the headline over an article in The Sunday Herald by their distinguished columnist Ian Bell. It reads in part:]
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is dying in a Scottish jail because of his conviction for the mass murder of Pan Am Flight 103's 259 passengers in 1988 and for the deaths of 11 people in Lockerbie. Many - and I am one - do not believe he is guilty. For once, that is not the point. Why is it impossible for the dying prisoner to end his days confined in Libya, his homeland?
Because the worst mass murder "in British legal history" deserves no leeway? Because Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not to be trusted, even if Britain's government these days says otherwise? Or just because, under the tendentious terms of a "prisoner transfer agreement" between Libya and the United Kingdom, al-Megrahi must first drop his latest appeal? Which is to say that he must accept his guilt and the flawed (at best) process that led to his conviction, if he hopes to die at home? (...)
Chile's Augusto Pinochet was responsible for many thousands of murders: no serious doubt exists. But when England ceased to be his favourite shopping destination, and when a trial in Madrid seemed likely, Mrs Thatcher's chum was suddenly transformed into a poor, infirm, senile old man. Straw chose to believe it, officially, and to exercise compassion. Safely across the Atlantic, Pinochet hopped instantly from his wheelchair. Justice, if such is the yardstick, was denied.
What does the yardstick amount to, in any case? If British citizens are convicted abroad for crimes large or small the first priority, it seems, is repatriation. We find it cruel that foreign jurisdictions sometimes hesitate to release callow drug smugglers to the British penal system. There were those, indeed, who thought that even Gary Glitter deserved better than an Asian clink. But al-Megrahi? That's too much, apparently.
Perhaps it is. Some of the friends and relatives of those lost in the bombing of Clipper Maid Of The Seas, the Americans in particular, are horrified by the transfer agreement, far less by the notion the prisoner in HMP Greenock deserves consideration. If guilty, al-Megrahi exhibited not a shred of humanity in plotting mass murder. His rights, you might say, are forfeited. But the fact remains the principle of transfer has been agreed. The law, Scots law, seems only to demand its own reputation be protected in the process.
So al-Megrahi could die of prostate cancer in Greenock. Equally, the Scottish government could decide the absence of compassion amounts to cruelty, and that cruelty has no place in a justice system: a line of thinking that seems to have occurred to Jack Straw, who last week granted the "compassionate release" of terminally ill train robber Ronnie Biggs. Kenny MacAskill, our own justice minister, has visited the prisoner and seems inclined to interpret the rules flexibly. These say a terminally ill inmate should have no more than three months to live. And why should that guideline be sacrosanct, exactly?
I don't ask these questions simply because I doubt al-Megrahi's guilt. This has more to do with the point and the purpose of retribution generally. I could point out the Crown continues to be devious, suspiciously so, in its efforts to counter the Libyan's second appeal. I could also note that an entirely safe conviction does not have to be protected by attempts to limit the grounds for such an appeal, as we witnessed from the Crown in 2008.
But with the Scottish system demanding an effective admission of guilt in exchange for repatriation, and American relatives threatening to seek judicial review to block any exchange, ensuring al-Megrahi will die at Greenock, I fail to envy MacAskill's task. Even his prison visit was condemned by Labour and supportive lawyers. It was "shameful", supposedly, and likely to undermine the legal process. It was in fact perfectly proper, well within his rights and, arguably, his duty. In a Britain that proposes to extradite diagnosed Asperger's victims to satisfy US paranoia over computer hacking, with no hope of reciprocity, MacAskill is a small beacon of sanity. What difference does it make if al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli rather than Greenock? What need is served? And must I add that Western allies who conspire in extraordinary rendition and franchised torture do not hold much moral high ground?
Al-Megrahi is a pawn. He is a pawn for governments, a pawn for investigators and prosecutors, most of all, a pawn in the grief and unresolved anger of the bereaved. He could be repatriated, if he drops his appeal. He could, conceivably, continue his appeal, if he is released on compassionate grounds. So ask yourself this: when a dying man denies guilt for a crime that still beggars belief, why should any avenue ever be blocked?
Justice, idealised justice, is meant, above all, to reflect our moral worth as a society. By that measure alone the al-Megrahi case is, as lawyers like to say, unsatisfactory. Deeply unsatisfactory.
[There is an editorial on the subject in the same newspaper. The following are extracts:]
This weekend two old men, long resident in different British jails, are being treated very differently and for very different reasons. One of them, the great train robber Ronnie Biggs, was released from his 30-year prison sentence, though such is the gravity of his physical condition that the 80-year-old will probably live out the rest of his life in hospital. In making the decision, the justice secretary finally agreed that he had come to the conclusion that the risk posed by the old boy was "manageable", hence the decision to grant "compassionate release on medical grounds". (...)
Compare this to the treatment meted out to Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who is incarcerated in Greenock Prison for his role in the destruction of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in December 1988.
In the incident, 259 passengers lost their lives while 11 other innocents were killed on the ground. Almost from the start, the Lockerbie bombing was destined to be a cause celebre. Then as now, it came during a period of heightened tensions between the West and the Arab world and although it predated the so-called war against terrorism, the incident was still regarded as a challenge to Western values.
Twenty years later, it is still impossible to claim with absolute certainty - surely the cornerstone of any decent criminal justice system - that al-Megrahi was the only instigator of that dreadful crime. Others, too, must have been involved and it is even possible that he was an innocent caught up in a hall of mirrors and that he was left to take the rap. There are certainly those who think so and the opinion is given weight by the fact that these include a number of the families who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103. Of course, there are also those who believe that al-Megrahi is irredeemably guilty and they, too, include victims' families, proving that there is no freehold on grief and suffering.
Whatever else the Scottish prison system has done to al-Megrahi, he is no longer the man that he once was. Age has caught up with him and he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer. As with the case of Biggs, there are reasonable grounds for showing compassion and allowing him to be released from prison, although in his case this would not keep him in hospital, but allow him to return to his native Libya.
Two months ago the Libyan authorities made just such an application under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK and then followed it last week with a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
So far the good sense shown in Biggs's case has been lacking in the dealings with al-Megrahi - a result no doubt of the outrage expressed by some of the victims' families - but last week there was a sudden outbreak of objective thinking. Justice minister Kenny MacAskill met al-Megrahi at Greenock - the first minister to do such a thing - and that visit will do much to concentrate his mind in the days ahead when the Libyan government's request is given due consideration.
It was right and proper that MacAskill took this step, not because of any doubts about al-Megrahi's sentence, but because justice should always go the extra mile to convince itself - and us - that the right thing is being done.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is dying in a Scottish jail because of his conviction for the mass murder of Pan Am Flight 103's 259 passengers in 1988 and for the deaths of 11 people in Lockerbie. Many - and I am one - do not believe he is guilty. For once, that is not the point. Why is it impossible for the dying prisoner to end his days confined in Libya, his homeland?
Because the worst mass murder "in British legal history" deserves no leeway? Because Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not to be trusted, even if Britain's government these days says otherwise? Or just because, under the tendentious terms of a "prisoner transfer agreement" between Libya and the United Kingdom, al-Megrahi must first drop his latest appeal? Which is to say that he must accept his guilt and the flawed (at best) process that led to his conviction, if he hopes to die at home? (...)
Chile's Augusto Pinochet was responsible for many thousands of murders: no serious doubt exists. But when England ceased to be his favourite shopping destination, and when a trial in Madrid seemed likely, Mrs Thatcher's chum was suddenly transformed into a poor, infirm, senile old man. Straw chose to believe it, officially, and to exercise compassion. Safely across the Atlantic, Pinochet hopped instantly from his wheelchair. Justice, if such is the yardstick, was denied.
What does the yardstick amount to, in any case? If British citizens are convicted abroad for crimes large or small the first priority, it seems, is repatriation. We find it cruel that foreign jurisdictions sometimes hesitate to release callow drug smugglers to the British penal system. There were those, indeed, who thought that even Gary Glitter deserved better than an Asian clink. But al-Megrahi? That's too much, apparently.
Perhaps it is. Some of the friends and relatives of those lost in the bombing of Clipper Maid Of The Seas, the Americans in particular, are horrified by the transfer agreement, far less by the notion the prisoner in HMP Greenock deserves consideration. If guilty, al-Megrahi exhibited not a shred of humanity in plotting mass murder. His rights, you might say, are forfeited. But the fact remains the principle of transfer has been agreed. The law, Scots law, seems only to demand its own reputation be protected in the process.
So al-Megrahi could die of prostate cancer in Greenock. Equally, the Scottish government could decide the absence of compassion amounts to cruelty, and that cruelty has no place in a justice system: a line of thinking that seems to have occurred to Jack Straw, who last week granted the "compassionate release" of terminally ill train robber Ronnie Biggs. Kenny MacAskill, our own justice minister, has visited the prisoner and seems inclined to interpret the rules flexibly. These say a terminally ill inmate should have no more than three months to live. And why should that guideline be sacrosanct, exactly?
I don't ask these questions simply because I doubt al-Megrahi's guilt. This has more to do with the point and the purpose of retribution generally. I could point out the Crown continues to be devious, suspiciously so, in its efforts to counter the Libyan's second appeal. I could also note that an entirely safe conviction does not have to be protected by attempts to limit the grounds for such an appeal, as we witnessed from the Crown in 2008.
But with the Scottish system demanding an effective admission of guilt in exchange for repatriation, and American relatives threatening to seek judicial review to block any exchange, ensuring al-Megrahi will die at Greenock, I fail to envy MacAskill's task. Even his prison visit was condemned by Labour and supportive lawyers. It was "shameful", supposedly, and likely to undermine the legal process. It was in fact perfectly proper, well within his rights and, arguably, his duty. In a Britain that proposes to extradite diagnosed Asperger's victims to satisfy US paranoia over computer hacking, with no hope of reciprocity, MacAskill is a small beacon of sanity. What difference does it make if al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli rather than Greenock? What need is served? And must I add that Western allies who conspire in extraordinary rendition and franchised torture do not hold much moral high ground?
Al-Megrahi is a pawn. He is a pawn for governments, a pawn for investigators and prosecutors, most of all, a pawn in the grief and unresolved anger of the bereaved. He could be repatriated, if he drops his appeal. He could, conceivably, continue his appeal, if he is released on compassionate grounds. So ask yourself this: when a dying man denies guilt for a crime that still beggars belief, why should any avenue ever be blocked?
Justice, idealised justice, is meant, above all, to reflect our moral worth as a society. By that measure alone the al-Megrahi case is, as lawyers like to say, unsatisfactory. Deeply unsatisfactory.
[There is an editorial on the subject in the same newspaper. The following are extracts:]
This weekend two old men, long resident in different British jails, are being treated very differently and for very different reasons. One of them, the great train robber Ronnie Biggs, was released from his 30-year prison sentence, though such is the gravity of his physical condition that the 80-year-old will probably live out the rest of his life in hospital. In making the decision, the justice secretary finally agreed that he had come to the conclusion that the risk posed by the old boy was "manageable", hence the decision to grant "compassionate release on medical grounds". (...)
Compare this to the treatment meted out to Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who is incarcerated in Greenock Prison for his role in the destruction of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in December 1988.
In the incident, 259 passengers lost their lives while 11 other innocents were killed on the ground. Almost from the start, the Lockerbie bombing was destined to be a cause celebre. Then as now, it came during a period of heightened tensions between the West and the Arab world and although it predated the so-called war against terrorism, the incident was still regarded as a challenge to Western values.
Twenty years later, it is still impossible to claim with absolute certainty - surely the cornerstone of any decent criminal justice system - that al-Megrahi was the only instigator of that dreadful crime. Others, too, must have been involved and it is even possible that he was an innocent caught up in a hall of mirrors and that he was left to take the rap. There are certainly those who think so and the opinion is given weight by the fact that these include a number of the families who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103. Of course, there are also those who believe that al-Megrahi is irredeemably guilty and they, too, include victims' families, proving that there is no freehold on grief and suffering.
Whatever else the Scottish prison system has done to al-Megrahi, he is no longer the man that he once was. Age has caught up with him and he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer. As with the case of Biggs, there are reasonable grounds for showing compassion and allowing him to be released from prison, although in his case this would not keep him in hospital, but allow him to return to his native Libya.
Two months ago the Libyan authorities made just such an application under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK and then followed it last week with a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
So far the good sense shown in Biggs's case has been lacking in the dealings with al-Megrahi - a result no doubt of the outrage expressed by some of the victims' families - but last week there was a sudden outbreak of objective thinking. Justice minister Kenny MacAskill met al-Megrahi at Greenock - the first minister to do such a thing - and that visit will do much to concentrate his mind in the days ahead when the Libyan government's request is given due consideration.
It was right and proper that MacAskill took this step, not because of any doubts about al-Megrahi's sentence, but because justice should always go the extra mile to convince itself - and us - that the right thing is being done.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Lockerbie bomber deserves the same compassion as Ronnie Biggs
It is interesting to note the contrasting treatment of Ronnie Biggs and Abdelbaset Mohmed al Megrahi, both of whom are said to be terminally ill and have applied for release from prison on compassionate grounds ("Ronnie Biggs will spend his last days free - but in a hospital bed", The Herald, August 7).
Biggs has now been released by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, despite having served in total just one-third of his 30-year sentence after escaping from prison and enjoying 35 years of a comfortable life "on the run". Megrahi languishes in Greenock Prison, while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, and his legal advisers agonise over what to do about him and his justified appeal case against conviction.
Biggs was convicted for his involvement in the Great Train Robbery, in which the train driver was viciously attacked and almost killed. But his notoriety was due to the powerful and ruthless gang which he and his brother ran in London's East End, engaging in protection rackets, extortion, intimidation, robbery and criminal violence, probably including murder. Biggs escaped justice only because his reign of terror ensured that no-one was willing to testify against him.
In contrast, the Libyan Megrahi was, at worst, a pawn in the international terrorist plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, and was certainly not a terrorist mastermind. In fact, he might not even have been involved at all, since his conviction is based almost entirely on what I believe to be questionable identification evidence. He might also be the victim of the security services and the UK government's refusal to release certain relevant documents to his defence team, which might make his conviction unsafe.
If Megrahi has only a few months to live, as we are told, I believe he should be released as soon as possible on compassionate grounds and allowed to spend his remaining time with his wife and family in Libya. Such a decision would bring credit, not disrepute, to our Scottish justice system. Why should the wishes of a dying man be denied by judicial red tape and the demands of some American families?
[The above is the text of a letter by Iain A D Mann in the edition of The Herald for 8 August. A letter by Malcolm W Ewen in The Scotsman of the same date reads as follows:]
Criticising the controversial meeting between the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Greenock Prison (your report, 6 August), the advocate Paul McBride QC, suggests people seem to have forgotten that Megrahi has been found guilty.
No, we haven't. We remember he was convicted eight years ago, by three judges in the absence of much relevant information which has come to light since the trial. We particularly remember that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded Megrahi might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Many believe the whole truth about the atrocity will probably be forever withheld, but people need to know once and for all if the conviction of the only person held responsible is safe.
Referring to Megrahi's lawyers, Mr McBride asks: "Tell me what Mr Megrahi can tell Mr MacAskill that these professionals can't?"
I suggest only Megrahi can look the justice secretary in the eye and say: "I'm innocent."
Biggs has now been released by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, despite having served in total just one-third of his 30-year sentence after escaping from prison and enjoying 35 years of a comfortable life "on the run". Megrahi languishes in Greenock Prison, while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, and his legal advisers agonise over what to do about him and his justified appeal case against conviction.
Biggs was convicted for his involvement in the Great Train Robbery, in which the train driver was viciously attacked and almost killed. But his notoriety was due to the powerful and ruthless gang which he and his brother ran in London's East End, engaging in protection rackets, extortion, intimidation, robbery and criminal violence, probably including murder. Biggs escaped justice only because his reign of terror ensured that no-one was willing to testify against him.
In contrast, the Libyan Megrahi was, at worst, a pawn in the international terrorist plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, and was certainly not a terrorist mastermind. In fact, he might not even have been involved at all, since his conviction is based almost entirely on what I believe to be questionable identification evidence. He might also be the victim of the security services and the UK government's refusal to release certain relevant documents to his defence team, which might make his conviction unsafe.
If Megrahi has only a few months to live, as we are told, I believe he should be released as soon as possible on compassionate grounds and allowed to spend his remaining time with his wife and family in Libya. Such a decision would bring credit, not disrepute, to our Scottish justice system. Why should the wishes of a dying man be denied by judicial red tape and the demands of some American families?
[The above is the text of a letter by Iain A D Mann in the edition of The Herald for 8 August. A letter by Malcolm W Ewen in The Scotsman of the same date reads as follows:]
Criticising the controversial meeting between the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Greenock Prison (your report, 6 August), the advocate Paul McBride QC, suggests people seem to have forgotten that Megrahi has been found guilty.
No, we haven't. We remember he was convicted eight years ago, by three judges in the absence of much relevant information which has come to light since the trial. We particularly remember that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded Megrahi might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Many believe the whole truth about the atrocity will probably be forever withheld, but people need to know once and for all if the conviction of the only person held responsible is safe.
Referring to Megrahi's lawyers, Mr McBride asks: "Tell me what Mr Megrahi can tell Mr MacAskill that these professionals can't?"
I suggest only Megrahi can look the justice secretary in the eye and say: "I'm innocent."
CID looking into McFadyen claims
Lothian and Borders police have confirmed that MSP Christine Grahame's letter -in which she makes claims regarding Crown Agent Norman McFadyen's handling of the Lockerbie investigation- has been passed to the force's Criminal Investigations Department (CID). (...)
The police had previously only comfirmed that the letter had been received. The news that the CID are now examining its contents raises the possibility that a criminal investigation may follow.
"In relation to your request for information about the letter sent by Ms Grahame we can confirm that the letter contains a significant amount of information which is currently being considered by the Criminal Investigation Department," the force said in a statement from the Head of CID.
"Lothian and Borders Police will reply to Ms Grahame once the information contained in the letter has been considered."
A prosecution against a sitting Crown Agent would be unprecedented.
The details of Ms Grahame's claims are not known. However, following its receipt by the police, the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr MacFadyen, saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[From an exclusive report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
The police had previously only comfirmed that the letter had been received. The news that the CID are now examining its contents raises the possibility that a criminal investigation may follow.
"In relation to your request for information about the letter sent by Ms Grahame we can confirm that the letter contains a significant amount of information which is currently being considered by the Criminal Investigation Department," the force said in a statement from the Head of CID.
"Lothian and Borders Police will reply to Ms Grahame once the information contained in the letter has been considered."
A prosecution against a sitting Crown Agent would be unprecedented.
The details of Ms Grahame's claims are not known. However, following its receipt by the police, the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr MacFadyen, saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[From an exclusive report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Victims' relatives disagree over bomber's release
This is the headline over a lengthy article in today's edition of the Times of Malta. It can be read here.
Do not set 'guilty' Lockerbie bomber free, detectives plead
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
The investigating officers who led the original inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have made an unprecedented intervention in the case to argue against the release of the Libyan convicted of the attack.
In a letter to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish police chief and the FBI boss who led the international investigation 20 years ago launch a powerfully worded plea against the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for his part in the bombing.
In the letter obtained by The Times, Stuart Henderson, the retired senior investigating officer at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US taskforce, whose detective work helped to convict Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, insist that he is guilty. They also argue that his release would “nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world”. (...)
In the letter sent to Kenny MacAskill last month, Mr Henderson and Mr Marquise claim the evidence they gathered added to a “strong circumstantial case” against al-Megrahi, and point out that Libya has admitted culpability for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on a number of occasions since.
They say that releasing him would make a mockery of the work undertaken during the Lockerbie investigation, the biggest murder inquiry in British history, involving Scottish police, Scotland Yard, the FBI and other agencies from around the world.
The pair write: “To release Mr Megrahi to a regime which has admitted culpability for killing 270 citizens of the world would be a mistake. It would nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world who only wanted to find the truth.”
The detectives acknowledge al-Megrahi's poor health but contend it should not be a reason to release him.
“The eight judges who have already heard the evidence including three who were able to observe each witness under direct and cross-examination came to the same conclusion the rest of us did - Mr Megrahi was guilty of murder. His current health situation does not change that.”
Mr MacAskill, who is awaiting independent medical reports assessing al-Megrahi's condition, is expected to make a decision on his future by the end of this month. On Wednesday, the minister took the unprecedented step of visiting the Libyan in jail, prompting accusations that he was undermining the legal process. Al-Megrahi's second appeal is currently under way, although he will be forced to abandon his attempt to clear his name if he wishes to pursue a prisoner transfer. Release on compassionate grounds would allow him to continue with the appeal after being freed.
[Note by RB: Mr Henderson and Mr Marquise are gravely in error when they say that "The eight judges who have already heard the evidence ... came to the same conclusion as the rest of us did - Mr Megrahi was guilty of murder." Only the three judges at the Zeist trial heard the evidence and reached that conclusion. The five judges at the 2002 appeal made it clear that they had not considered the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi nor whether any reasonable tribunal could have convicted on that evidence. In paragraph 369 of their Opinion they said:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
In June 2007, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission came to the conclusion that Megrahi's conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. One of its six reasons for so finding was that in respect of absolutely crucial findings in fact by the trial court (the date of purchase of the clothing that surrounded the bomb and, hence, the identity of the purchaser) no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion that the evidence established that it was Megrahi.
And whether Libya has admitted culpability for the Lockerbie tragedy has no bearing on whether a particular Libyan citizen was properly convicted or should now be released on compassionate grounds. But, of course, Libya has not admitted culpability. Here is a link to the official Libyan position which is that "Libya accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials". If, as a result of the present appeal, Megrahi's conviction is quashed there is no Libyan government admission of responsibility or culpability.]
The investigating officers who led the original inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have made an unprecedented intervention in the case to argue against the release of the Libyan convicted of the attack.
In a letter to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish police chief and the FBI boss who led the international investigation 20 years ago launch a powerfully worded plea against the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for his part in the bombing.
In the letter obtained by The Times, Stuart Henderson, the retired senior investigating officer at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US taskforce, whose detective work helped to convict Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, insist that he is guilty. They also argue that his release would “nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world”. (...)
In the letter sent to Kenny MacAskill last month, Mr Henderson and Mr Marquise claim the evidence they gathered added to a “strong circumstantial case” against al-Megrahi, and point out that Libya has admitted culpability for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on a number of occasions since.
They say that releasing him would make a mockery of the work undertaken during the Lockerbie investigation, the biggest murder inquiry in British history, involving Scottish police, Scotland Yard, the FBI and other agencies from around the world.
The pair write: “To release Mr Megrahi to a regime which has admitted culpability for killing 270 citizens of the world would be a mistake. It would nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world who only wanted to find the truth.”
The detectives acknowledge al-Megrahi's poor health but contend it should not be a reason to release him.
“The eight judges who have already heard the evidence including three who were able to observe each witness under direct and cross-examination came to the same conclusion the rest of us did - Mr Megrahi was guilty of murder. His current health situation does not change that.”
Mr MacAskill, who is awaiting independent medical reports assessing al-Megrahi's condition, is expected to make a decision on his future by the end of this month. On Wednesday, the minister took the unprecedented step of visiting the Libyan in jail, prompting accusations that he was undermining the legal process. Al-Megrahi's second appeal is currently under way, although he will be forced to abandon his attempt to clear his name if he wishes to pursue a prisoner transfer. Release on compassionate grounds would allow him to continue with the appeal after being freed.
[Note by RB: Mr Henderson and Mr Marquise are gravely in error when they say that "The eight judges who have already heard the evidence ... came to the same conclusion as the rest of us did - Mr Megrahi was guilty of murder." Only the three judges at the Zeist trial heard the evidence and reached that conclusion. The five judges at the 2002 appeal made it clear that they had not considered the sufficiency of the evidence against Megrahi nor whether any reasonable tribunal could have convicted on that evidence. In paragraph 369 of their Opinion they said:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The true position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
In June 2007, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission came to the conclusion that Megrahi's conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. One of its six reasons for so finding was that in respect of absolutely crucial findings in fact by the trial court (the date of purchase of the clothing that surrounded the bomb and, hence, the identity of the purchaser) no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion that the evidence established that it was Megrahi.
And whether Libya has admitted culpability for the Lockerbie tragedy has no bearing on whether a particular Libyan citizen was properly convicted or should now be released on compassionate grounds. But, of course, Libya has not admitted culpability. Here is a link to the official Libyan position which is that "Libya accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials". If, as a result of the present appeal, Megrahi's conviction is quashed there is no Libyan government admission of responsibility or culpability.]
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Linking compassionate release to dropping appeal
'Last month The Herald revealed that Megrahi had applied to return to Tripoli on "compassionate release" because he is terminally ill.
'Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings.'
These two sentences from The Herald's report on the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's meeting with Abdelbaset Megrahi are troubling. If the suggestion is that the Justice Department is encouraging Megrahi to abandon his appeal as a condition of being granted compassionate release, or is indicating that abandonment would improve his prospects of being granted compassionate release, this would be highly improper conduct on the part of the Department. The abandonment of an ongoing appeal is legally a wholly irrelevant consideration in the formulation of any decision on compassionate release; and a decision taken having regard to this irrelevant consideration would be judicially challengeable.
Moreover, it would make no sense: the advantage of compassionate release over prisoner transfer is precisely that it enables Megrahi's appeal to proceed; and it is clearly in the Scottish public interest that the widespread concerns over his conviction should be ventilated in court and judicially adjudicated upon, however embarrassing this may be for elements within the Scottish criminal justice system.
'Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings.'
These two sentences from The Herald's report on the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's meeting with Abdelbaset Megrahi are troubling. If the suggestion is that the Justice Department is encouraging Megrahi to abandon his appeal as a condition of being granted compassionate release, or is indicating that abandonment would improve his prospects of being granted compassionate release, this would be highly improper conduct on the part of the Department. The abandonment of an ongoing appeal is legally a wholly irrelevant consideration in the formulation of any decision on compassionate release; and a decision taken having regard to this irrelevant consideration would be judicially challengeable.
Moreover, it would make no sense: the advantage of compassionate release over prisoner transfer is precisely that it enables Megrahi's appeal to proceed; and it is clearly in the Scottish public interest that the widespread concerns over his conviction should be ventilated in court and judicially adjudicated upon, however embarrassing this may be for elements within the Scottish criminal justice system.
MacAskill in row over prison visit to Megrahi
[This is the headline over The Herald's report on reactions to the Justice Secretary's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
Labour has been plunged into a row over the party's criticism of the Scottish Justice Secretary's visit to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Opposition politicians rounded on Kenny MacAskill after he met Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he considers a request for him to be transferred to Libya. Labour's justice spokesman, Richard Baker, accused Mr MacAskill of setting a "dangerous precedent" by visiting the Libyan in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence.
He said: "Does every convicted murderer get a chance to meet the Justice Minister if they fall ill? Megrahi's appeal is ongoing and Mr MacAskill should not be meeting this man."
But Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long argued Megrahi's innocence, told The Herald: "I feel very strongly that Mr MacAskill was right to have gone to see Mr Megrahi.
"He was my opponent and I have disagreed with Mr MacAskill on many matters, but on this, I strongly support him."
When asked if criticism of his visit was wrong, he replied "totally" before adding of the Justice Secretary's decision: "He has already seen the relatives of victims of the bombing. He has already seen the US law officers and frankly it's a unique case.
"I believe Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime and that he was a sanctions-buster for Libyan airlines.
"But on this particular point, I think it's totally unfair to criticise Mr MacAskill for going to see him. I wish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament had shown more interest in the whole Lockerbie saga and clearly Mr Baker knows little about it." (...)
In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. However, for the transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal.
Last month The Herald revealed that Megrahi had applied to return to Tripoli on "compassionate release" because he is terminally ill.
Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings. (...)
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the trial at Zeist, said the visit was a "first" in Scottish legal history, but expressed concerns about any pressure being placed on Megrahi to drop the appeal.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Justice Secretary is quite clear that he must have the fullest picture possible before making this important decision.
"To suggest he may do the same for any other convicted prisoner is just ridiculous. This is a unique situation."
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. The Times's report contains the following:
'Yesterday, after a half-hour visit to the Libyan in Greenock Prison by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, it was revealed that a medical report on al-Megrahi's condition had been ordered by the Scottish government, and a spokeswoman said that it was expected soon. “The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she added.
'Clear signs that ministers are anxious to resolve the matter in the Libyan's favour if possible came when it was indicated that they intended to be “flexible” in interpreting the rules which govern the term “compassionate grounds”. Scottish Prison Service guidelines state that these mean that inmates with three months to live or less may be released. However, it emerged that these guidelines could be relaxed in al-Megrahi's case. (...)
'A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said he spent about half an hour with al-Megrahi during the visit, which had been arranged while the minister was considering the Libyan's application for a transfer. The Justice Secretary has already spoken to the US Attorney General and British and American victims' families as part of considering the request. The spokeswoman confirmed that the visit would be used, not only to consider the prisoner transfer issue, but al-Megrahi's subsequent plea for release on compassionate grounds.
'“We are seeking medical advice and medical reports which we would not have sought under the prisoner transfer application. We are hoping to get the reports as soon as we can. The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she said.
'When asked if the decision would be dependent on whether al-Megrahi had three months or less to live, the spokeswoman replied: “They are guidelines, they are flexible.” The Times understands that Mr MacAskill is aiming to make an announcement before the end of this month.
'Supporters are hoping the Libyan will be granted compassionate release in order to allow the continuation of his latest attempt to clear his name. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the courts two years ago on six points that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. The first stage of the appeal has been heard in Edinburgh, but no ruling is expected until the autumn as one of the presiding judges is recovering from heart surgery.
'Pursuing a prisoner transfer, on the other hand, would force al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The terms of the deal permit deliberations, but forbid a final decision on the request while legal proceedings are taking place.']
Labour has been plunged into a row over the party's criticism of the Scottish Justice Secretary's visit to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Opposition politicians rounded on Kenny MacAskill after he met Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he considers a request for him to be transferred to Libya. Labour's justice spokesman, Richard Baker, accused Mr MacAskill of setting a "dangerous precedent" by visiting the Libyan in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence.
He said: "Does every convicted murderer get a chance to meet the Justice Minister if they fall ill? Megrahi's appeal is ongoing and Mr MacAskill should not be meeting this man."
But Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long argued Megrahi's innocence, told The Herald: "I feel very strongly that Mr MacAskill was right to have gone to see Mr Megrahi.
"He was my opponent and I have disagreed with Mr MacAskill on many matters, but on this, I strongly support him."
When asked if criticism of his visit was wrong, he replied "totally" before adding of the Justice Secretary's decision: "He has already seen the relatives of victims of the bombing. He has already seen the US law officers and frankly it's a unique case.
"I believe Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime and that he was a sanctions-buster for Libyan airlines.
"But on this particular point, I think it's totally unfair to criticise Mr MacAskill for going to see him. I wish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament had shown more interest in the whole Lockerbie saga and clearly Mr Baker knows little about it." (...)
In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. However, for the transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal.
Last month The Herald revealed that Megrahi had applied to return to Tripoli on "compassionate release" because he is terminally ill.
Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings. (...)
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the trial at Zeist, said the visit was a "first" in Scottish legal history, but expressed concerns about any pressure being placed on Megrahi to drop the appeal.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Justice Secretary is quite clear that he must have the fullest picture possible before making this important decision.
"To suggest he may do the same for any other convicted prisoner is just ridiculous. This is a unique situation."
[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. The Times's report contains the following:
'Yesterday, after a half-hour visit to the Libyan in Greenock Prison by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, it was revealed that a medical report on al-Megrahi's condition had been ordered by the Scottish government, and a spokeswoman said that it was expected soon. “The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she added.
'Clear signs that ministers are anxious to resolve the matter in the Libyan's favour if possible came when it was indicated that they intended to be “flexible” in interpreting the rules which govern the term “compassionate grounds”. Scottish Prison Service guidelines state that these mean that inmates with three months to live or less may be released. However, it emerged that these guidelines could be relaxed in al-Megrahi's case. (...)
'A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said he spent about half an hour with al-Megrahi during the visit, which had been arranged while the minister was considering the Libyan's application for a transfer. The Justice Secretary has already spoken to the US Attorney General and British and American victims' families as part of considering the request. The spokeswoman confirmed that the visit would be used, not only to consider the prisoner transfer issue, but al-Megrahi's subsequent plea for release on compassionate grounds.
'“We are seeking medical advice and medical reports which we would not have sought under the prisoner transfer application. We are hoping to get the reports as soon as we can. The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she said.
'When asked if the decision would be dependent on whether al-Megrahi had three months or less to live, the spokeswoman replied: “They are guidelines, they are flexible.” The Times understands that Mr MacAskill is aiming to make an announcement before the end of this month.
'Supporters are hoping the Libyan will be granted compassionate release in order to allow the continuation of his latest attempt to clear his name. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the courts two years ago on six points that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. The first stage of the appeal has been heard in Edinburgh, but no ruling is expected until the autumn as one of the presiding judges is recovering from heart surgery.
'Pursuing a prisoner transfer, on the other hand, would force al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The terms of the deal permit deliberations, but forbid a final decision on the request while legal proceedings are taking place.']
Jim Swire interview
Dr Jim Swire was interviewed on STV yesterday in the context of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi in HMP Greenock. The interview can be viewed here.
There are interesting articles on the issue and on Lockerbie generally in The Independent by the paper's Defence Correspondent Kim Sengupta. They can be read here and here. A short article in The New York Times can be read here and a longer one from the Congressional Quarterly website CQ Politics can be read here.
There are interesting articles on the issue and on Lockerbie generally in The Independent by the paper's Defence Correspondent Kim Sengupta. They can be read here and here. A short article in The New York Times can be read here and a longer one from the Congressional Quarterly website CQ Politics can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)