[What follows is the text of a press release from Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitors.]
Since his diagnosis with inoperable prostate cancer in autumn 2008 Mr Megrahi's health has deteriorated. His condition has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent weeks.
Mr Al Megrahi can confirm that on 12th August he applied to the High Court of Justiciary to abandon his appeal against conviction under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
As the appeal hearing has commenced, and the court seized of the matter, leave of the court is required before the appeal can be formally abandoned.
Notes for Editors
In May 2009 the Libyan Government applied for Mr Al Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya under and in terms of a prisoner transfer treaty negotiated between the UK and Libya.
Last month Mr Al Megrahi made a separate application to the Scottish Justice Secretary to be released on compassionate grounds.
Press release from the Scottish Court Service:
A procedural hearing will take place at 10.00am on Tuesday 18th August 2009 to consider a Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of the appellant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
The hearing will be held in Court 3 at the Lawnmarket Building of the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr. Megrahi will not be present in court.
Press release from the Scottish Government:
In relation to the Minute of Abandonment lodged on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi to be heard in the High Court next Tuesday (August 18), a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"This is entirely a matter for the court, Mr Al Megrahi and his legal team. The Justice Secretary is continuing his considerations of both the applications before him, one under the UK-Libyan Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA), and the other on compassionate grounds. He expects to make a decision soon."
Having no criminal proceedings pending is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a PTA application, but an application for compassionate release depends on entirely different criteria.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libya states at Article 3(b) that a condition for transfer is 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".
Statement by the First Minister:
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish Government had not put any pressure on the Libyan to drop his second appeal.
Speaking in Edinburgh before Megrahi's application to drop his appeal was announced, he said: "We have no interest in pressurising people to drop appeals, why on earth should we?
"That's not our position - never has been."
He added: "Nothing that the Scottish Government has done or said suggests pressure on anybody to do anything."
He also said the issue would not be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday, saying it was a judicial matter, not a political one.
"This is a matter the justice secretary must determine and he must do it purely on judicial grounds, which is what he's been doing," he said.
[As reported on the BBC News website.]
Friday, 14 August 2009
Government and intelligence services influence on media coverage of Lockerbie
[The following are excerpts from an exclusive article just published on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Magnus Linklater, the editor of the Scotsman newspaper at the time of the Lockerbie investigation, has revealed that UK Government and intelligence services influenced coverage of the Lockerbie inquiry to implicate Iran and Syria.
Linklater admitted that both the police and UK Government ministers directed the newspaper to concentrate their coverage on Iranian and Syrian links with the downing of Pan Am 103, the suspects initially favoured by the US and UK administrations.
"This is not just conspiracy theory," Linklater said.
"It is sometimes forgotten just how powerful the evidence was, in the first few months after Lockerbie, that pointed towards the involvement of the Palestinian-Syrian terror group the PFLP-GC, backed by Iran and linked closely to terror groups in Europe. At The Scotsman newspaper, which I edited then, we were strongly briefed by police and ministers to concentrate on this link, with revenge for an American rocket attack on an Iranian airliner as the motive."
This line of inquiry was heavily promoted by the US and UK Governments for two years until the invasion of Kuwait, when the coincidental requirement to use Iranian airpsace to bomb Iraq became a priority. Libya was then identified as the prime suspect.
The involvement of Iran and Syria has been promoted consistently as an alternate explanation for the Lockerbie event, and PFLP-GC group member Mohamed Abu Talb was named by the two accused, Megrahi and Fhimah, in their special defence of incrimination. However, only three of the hundreds of listed defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, and this avenue of inquiry was never explored in a judicial forum. (...)
The lack of evidence in the circumstancial case against Megrahi and Fhimah has been the focus of much of the criticism of the judgement against Megrahi. Material submitted to the trial as semtex explosives evidence had in fact been found to have been manufactured from test explosions.
Linklater does not disclose why the newspaper did not undertake its own investigations. However he did state how former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser expressed concerns to him about whether the CIA could have been involved in planting some of the "evidence".
"I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Let’s go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle," Fraser is reported to have said.
[An article on the issue by Mr Linklater appears in today's edition of The Times. He is currently the newspaper's Scottish Editor.]
Is the appeal about to be abandoned?
[Lucy Adams, chief reporter of The Herald is confident that it is. Here is what she says in an article in today's issue of the newspaper:]
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)
British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.
"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.
"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.
"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."
Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.
The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.
Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.
A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.
[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.
In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.
The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.
'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.
'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']
Come clean over this miscarriage of justice
[This is the headline over a leader in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Expectations are growing that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of perpetrating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, will be permitted to return to Libya next week.
Al-Megrahi was diagnosed last year with terminal prostate cancer. The Scottish Government seems to have bowed to pressure from Tripoli for him to be allowed to return home to Libya to die. It is not yet clear whether this release will be authorised on compassionate grounds, or whether it will be a formal prisoner transfer. Either way, allowing al-Megrahi to return home is the right decision.
The response from the relatives of those 270 civilians who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been divided. Dr Jim Swire, the unofficial spokesman of the British families whose relatives died when the plane crashed to the ground over the small Scottish town, yesterday welcomed the prospect of al-Megrahi's release. But the US families of those who died on the flight have expressed their anger about the move, with several accusing the UK and US governments of putting their desire to maintain good relations with Libya ahead of concerns about justice. The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has been pushing hard for al-Megrahi's transfer, is without doubt a repellent figure. For more than four decades he has locked up opponents, murdered dissenters and even sponsored terrorist attacks abroad. There is also something distasteful about the haste with which Western governments have rushed to embrace him since Libya agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme in 2003.
Yet the fact is that this particular agreement does not look like a Western attempt to curry favour with the Libyan regime. It is doubtful whether al-Megrahi should have been convicted in the first place. Al-Megrahi is unlikely to be a saint, having worked for the Libyan intelligence services for a number of years. But the evidence linking him to the Lockerbie bombing has looked increasingly weak since his conviction in 2001.
In that trial, held in a specially convened court in the Netherlands, al-Megrahi was positively identified by a witness who, it has been alleged, was offered a $2m reward for his evidence. The Libyan's defence team was also, apparently, denied access to official government papers that were made available to Scottish police. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the Iranian regime sponsored the bombing. One former Iranian agent has come forward to claim that it was revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a US warship in July 1988. Taken together, all this provides serious grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice took place.
Some doubt whether we will ever discover conclusive proof of who was responsible for the mass murder in Lockerbie, arguing that too much time has passed. But it would be wrong simply to give up trying to discover what happened. Even if al-Megrahi is permitted to return to Libya to die, his appeal against his conviction should run its course. The evidence against him – and the Libyan state – must be thoroughly tested.
So much about this tragedy remains shrouded in shadow. If it cannot be dragged into the light, we should at least attempt to establish what we do not know. And if the wrong individual was convicted for this terrible crime, the authorities must not be allowed to sweep that uncomfortable fact under the carpet.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
I was at Lockerbie: I rejoice that Megrahi is going home
[This is the headline over an article in The Herald by Canon Patrick Keegans who was parish priest in Lockerbie when Pan Am 103 fell on the town and killed eleven of his neighbours and friends in Sherwood Crescent. The following are the last six paragraphs.]
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
As far as we know, next week Mr Megrahi, to the relief of his wife and family, will be going home. I am rejoicing. That is the only word I can use. I would gladly help him on to the plane. I am glad that compassion still walks hand in hand with justice. As a Scot and as one so closely involved with Lockerbie, I would like to be able to thank the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, for what would be a courageous decision.
It is courageous enough to grant release on compassionate grounds but it will take even more courage to allow the appeal to continue. If the appeal is halted, then justice will be denied on several fronts. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi has a right to due legal process, to clear his name. The families of Pan Am 103, if the appeal is halted, will be left with nothing. We will be left in the dark guessing at what would have been the verdict in the appeal.
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
So, I would urge all the families of Pan Am 103 to do two things: first, to respond with compassion to Mr Megrahi and his family; and, secondly, to remember the motto, "Pan Am 103: the truth must be known". Surely there has to be some mechanism by which the material in the appeal can be brought into the public domain. This is not the end of Lockerbie.
On a personal level, I say to my many friends in America who strongly disagree with my views that the compassion and love you have experienced from me and from the people of Lockerbie will always be there for you.
And, again on a personal level, I would say to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he leaves Scottish soil and returns home: "Be at peace now with God and your family."
Lockerbie bomber set to be freed
[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Times of Malta. The following excerpts are particularly interesting for the comments of the anonymous Libyan official.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
The Scottish government is poised to officially decide to allow the former Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be released from prison and return home on compassionate grounds, according to reports.
An American lawyer who worked on the defence team of Abdel Basset al Megrahi said the Libyan, who is 57 and has terminal prostate cancer, was to be released imminently. (...)
A Libyan official in Tripoli said an agreement for Megrahi's release was "in the last steps" but added that a deal had also been struck that neither side would make any official announcement about Megrahi's release until he was on home soil. (...)
Frank Rubino, an American lawyer who previously worked on Megrahi's legal team, told Britain's Sky television that he had been told by al Megrahi's current defence team the Libyan would be allowed to go home soon.
"I am told that it will be in the very near future," he said. (...)
"The deal is now already in the last steps," the Libyan official, who did not want to be identified, said in Tripoli. "We have an agreement between the two sides not to make any statement until he (al Megrahi) comes home."
[Note by RB: I wonder if this "deal" contains a term to the effect that Mr Megrahi will abandon his appeal? The Scottish Government Justice Department has unequivocally stated that no suggestion was ever made to Megrahi that his prospects of compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, abandonment of his appeal. But could it be that there is an "understanding" that abandonment will take place? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man.]
US stands against bomber release
[This is the heading over a report on the BBC News website. The following are excerpts.]
US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.
The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.
A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.
However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland. (...)
A US official told the BBC they had "no information to suggest that the Scottish authorities have taken any decision" to release Megrahi.
The official added: "We maintain our long-standing position that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." (...)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had listened to the representations from everyone "with a legitimate interest".
"I now have to reflect," he said.
"I'm conscious that I have to do that as speedily as possible.
"Clearly he's terminally ill and there are other factors, but I have made no decision yet."
[A report on the website of The New York Times reads as follows:]
The United States spoke out Thursday against the prospect of an early release for the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, after Scottish government officials confirmed that they are considering freeing him on compassionate grounds next week because he has terminal prostate cancer. The prisoner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old Libyan and former intelligence agent who is serving a 27-year term in Scotland, was sentenced in 2001 for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The majority of the dead were Americans. A State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, said Thursday that “we have made our views clear to the U.K. government, to other authorities, that we believe that he should spend the rest of his time in jail.” The possible release got mixed reviews from the victims’ families. Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, told Sky News that Mr. Megrahi’s release would be “a disgrace.” But Jim Swire, whose daughter died, told Sky it was “inhumane” to keep Mr. Megrahi in prison.
US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.
The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.
A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.
However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland. (...)
A US official told the BBC they had "no information to suggest that the Scottish authorities have taken any decision" to release Megrahi.
The official added: "We maintain our long-standing position that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." (...)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had listened to the representations from everyone "with a legitimate interest".
"I now have to reflect," he said.
"I'm conscious that I have to do that as speedily as possible.
"Clearly he's terminally ill and there are other factors, but I have made no decision yet."
[A report on the website of The New York Times reads as follows:]
The United States spoke out Thursday against the prospect of an early release for the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, after Scottish government officials confirmed that they are considering freeing him on compassionate grounds next week because he has terminal prostate cancer. The prisoner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old Libyan and former intelligence agent who is serving a 27-year term in Scotland, was sentenced in 2001 for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The majority of the dead were Americans. A State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, said Thursday that “we have made our views clear to the U.K. government, to other authorities, that we believe that he should spend the rest of his time in jail.” The possible release got mixed reviews from the victims’ families. Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, told Sky News that Mr. Megrahi’s release would be “a disgrace.” But Jim Swire, whose daughter died, told Sky it was “inhumane” to keep Mr. Megrahi in prison.
From Susan Lindauer
[I have been asked by Susan Lindauer to post the following on this blog.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
Questions remain in Lockerbie case
[What follows is the text of an article on The Guardian website by Oliver Miles, who was the United Kingdom's ambassador in Libya at the time of the severing of diplomatic relations in 1984.]
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
Lockerbie bombing prisoner to go free
[Most British daily newspapers today contain reports to the effect that compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi is imminent. The following are excerpts from the report in today's edition of The Herald, which is the longest and most detailed.]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Lockerbie bomber 'to be released'
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.' ]
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.' ]
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)