[Today's edition of The Times carries an exclusive interview with Abdelbaset Megrahi. Reporter Martin Fletcher went to Megrahi's home in Tripoli yesterday, sent in his card and was invited inside. The following are extracts from his report.]
Is he the evil perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in British history, or a sick old man, a loving father and grandfather, who has suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice? Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi put on a virtuoso performance when The Times came calling yesterday.
His house, in the Dimachk area of Tripoli, was not hard to find. Policemen stood guard outside. The road was lined with the BMWs of smartly dressed friends and relatives who had come to pay their respects. The high outer walls were festooned with fairy lights and with pictures of the Lockerbie bomber as he looked when he left Libya more than a decade ago. In the garden stood a marquee where he had evidently been welcomed home the previous night.
We sent in our business cards and waited, more in hope than expectation. But ten minutes later we were ushered into the spacious hall of the distinctly plush villa where chandeliers hung above a marble floor — a far cry from the Scottish prisons where al-Megrahi has spent the past eight years. His family bought the house a couple of years ago with help from the Libyan Government.
The man himself was waiting in a reception room at the top of a wide and curving staircase; the curtains were drawn against the fierce afternoon sun and tropical fish swam in illuminated tanks.
He looked weak and grey, far older than his 57 years and scarcely recognisable as the man I last saw at his trial in the Netherlands in 2001. He was supporting himself on a walking stick. Like everyone else he wore flowing Arab robes of spotless white — “not what I wore in prison”, he joked in a soft voice and fluent English. He was seeing us, he explained, “because you came to our house. It is our culture.”
We sat on sofas. No tea was offered because it is Ramadan. To be free, he said, was “something amazing. I’m very, very happy.” When the doctors had told him he had just a few months left to live “this was my hope and wish — to be back with my family before I pass away . . . I always believed I would come back if justice prevailed”. (...)
As al-Megrahi was flying home ... on Thursday, President Obama sought to add another condition. He said that al-Megrahi should live out his days under house arrest. Al-Megrahi laughed. “He knows I’m a very ill person. You know what kind of illness I have. The only place I have to go is the hospital for medical treatment. I’m not interested in going anywhere else. Don’t worry, Mr Obama — it’s just three months.”
He did not come across as bitter or angry but continued to insist on his innocence, as he has done from the day of his conviction. He abandoned his appeal, he said, not because he was guilty but to give himself the best possible chance of going home before he died. He had applied to be freed on compassionate grounds and also to be transferred to a Libyan prison under the terms of an agreement Britain and Libya signed in April. One of the conditions of the latter was that all legal proceedings had to be finished.
He denied reports that he had been pressured to drop the appeal by a Scottish or British government terrified that such a hearing would expose a grave miscarriage of justice, but he added: “If there is justice in the UK I would be acquitted or the verdict would be quashed because it was unsafe. There was a miscarriage of justice.”
Al-Megrahi promised that before he died he would present new evidence through his Scottish lawyers that would exonerate him. “My message to the British and Scottish communities is that I will put out the evidence and ask them to be the jury,” he said. He refused to elaborate. (...)
He said that he understood why many of the victims’ relatives were angry at his release. “They have hatred for me. It’s natural to behave like this,” he said, although he pointedly added that others had written to him in prison to say that they forgave him whether he was guilty or innocent. He appealed for the families’ understanding. “They believe I’m guilty which in reality I’m not. One day the truth won’t be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: ‘The truth never dies’.”
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Friday, 21 August 2009
Lockerbie, the Unanswered Questions
[This is the heading over a post on The New York Times news blog, The Lede. The author is Robert Mackey, the blog editor. The following are excerpts.]
Now that the Scottish government has released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, the appeal he had filed in a Scottish court will never be heard by a judge.
The firestorm of anger that greeted the decision to release Mr Megrahi, who is terminally ill, on compassionate grounds on Thursday is clearly based on the belief that he was responsible for the bombing, but doubts about his conviction, some of which formed the basis for the legal appeal he filed and then withdrew at the request of the Scottish government as a condition of his release, surfaced years ago. Despite what some readers of The Lede who posted comments yesterday seem to have assumed, those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out.
In a review of the case on Wednesday, the Scottish broadcaster STV reported that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was filed in 2007 after “a four-year review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCRC), who concluded that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.”
On Wednesday, The Guardian published video of the Rev John Mosey, the father of one of the British victims of the bombing, who expressed his disappointment that halting Mr Megrahi’s appeal before it went to court meant that the public would never hear “this important evidence — the six separate grounds for appeal that the SCCRC felt were important enough to put forward, that could show that there’s been a miscarriage of justice.” Mr Mosey added, “We’d like to know what they are, where will they point?”
In an interview included in this video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday, Mr Mosey called for a new public inquiry into the bombing and said of Mr Megrahi, “From the evidence I saw and heard in the court, and what I’ve read and seen, I doubt that he had any involvement in it at all.”
A Scottish reader of The Lede’s previous post on Mr Megrahi’s release drew our attention to this video, of a BBC interview with the father of another British victim of the bombing, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed. Speaking as Mr Megrahi was being driven from prison, Dr Swire also called for a public inquiry and praised the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for his “brave” decision. He added: “I don’t believe for a moment that this man was involved, in the way that he was found to have been involved.”
Readers who want to know more about the case against Mr Megrahi, and the suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted, can consult two documentaries: “Shadow Over Lockerbie,” made for American public radio by John Biewen and Ian Ferguson in 2000, and “Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie,” made for the BBC in 2008.
Now that the Scottish government has released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, the appeal he had filed in a Scottish court will never be heard by a judge.
The firestorm of anger that greeted the decision to release Mr Megrahi, who is terminally ill, on compassionate grounds on Thursday is clearly based on the belief that he was responsible for the bombing, but doubts about his conviction, some of which formed the basis for the legal appeal he filed and then withdrew at the request of the Scottish government as a condition of his release, surfaced years ago. Despite what some readers of The Lede who posted comments yesterday seem to have assumed, those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out.
In a review of the case on Wednesday, the Scottish broadcaster STV reported that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was filed in 2007 after “a four-year review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCRC), who concluded that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.”
On Wednesday, The Guardian published video of the Rev John Mosey, the father of one of the British victims of the bombing, who expressed his disappointment that halting Mr Megrahi’s appeal before it went to court meant that the public would never hear “this important evidence — the six separate grounds for appeal that the SCCRC felt were important enough to put forward, that could show that there’s been a miscarriage of justice.” Mr Mosey added, “We’d like to know what they are, where will they point?”
In an interview included in this video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday, Mr Mosey called for a new public inquiry into the bombing and said of Mr Megrahi, “From the evidence I saw and heard in the court, and what I’ve read and seen, I doubt that he had any involvement in it at all.”
A Scottish reader of The Lede’s previous post on Mr Megrahi’s release drew our attention to this video, of a BBC interview with the father of another British victim of the bombing, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed. Speaking as Mr Megrahi was being driven from prison, Dr Swire also called for a public inquiry and praised the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for his “brave” decision. He added: “I don’t believe for a moment that this man was involved, in the way that he was found to have been involved.”
Readers who want to know more about the case against Mr Megrahi, and the suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted, can consult two documentaries: “Shadow Over Lockerbie,” made for American public radio by John Biewen and Ian Ferguson in 2000, and “Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie,” made for the BBC in 2008.
Lord Advocate drops appeal against Megrahi sentence
Scotland's top prosecutor today dropped an appeal against the "lenient" jail term imposed on the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, was freed from prison yesterday on compassionate grounds.
He had been jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum 27 years – a term which the Crown was appealing against as "unduly lenient".
The formal decision to drop the appeal was taken after studying medical reports, said the Crown Office.
The decision to drop the appeal was taken by Scotland's top law officer, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.
The Crown Office said: "The Lord Advocate has now had the opportunity to consider reports regarding Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis.
"Mr Megrahi is now terminally ill."
The Lord Advocate had taken account of the fact that Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and was no longer in Scotland.
"Had he remained in custody, he would have had no prospect of serving the current punishment part of his sentence, let alone any increased sentence that the Lord Advocate was seeking," said the Crown Office.
"That together with his release means that the outcome of any appeal could have no practical effect whatsoever for Mr Megrahi."
Megrahi successfully applied to judges on Tuesday to drop his second appeal against conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people died.
At that hearing, senior judge Lord Hamilton said it was of the "utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate made an early decision on whether she intended to insist on the appeal.
[The above is the text of a report posted this afternoon on The Scotsman's website.
Trust the Crown Office to reach a decision only after it could have not the slightest significance in the real world (and after not very heavily disguised criticism from the judges at the court hearing on 18 August at which Abdelbaset Megrahi was given leave to abandon his appeal). The conduct of the Crown Office throughout the whole Lockerbie case is one of the strongest arguments for an independent enquiry following Mr Megrahi's abandonment of his appeal; and it is a topic on which the Scottish Government, under the devolution settlement, certainly has the powers to render such an enquiry meaningful.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, was freed from prison yesterday on compassionate grounds.
He had been jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum 27 years – a term which the Crown was appealing against as "unduly lenient".
The formal decision to drop the appeal was taken after studying medical reports, said the Crown Office.
The decision to drop the appeal was taken by Scotland's top law officer, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.
The Crown Office said: "The Lord Advocate has now had the opportunity to consider reports regarding Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis.
"Mr Megrahi is now terminally ill."
The Lord Advocate had taken account of the fact that Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds and was no longer in Scotland.
"Had he remained in custody, he would have had no prospect of serving the current punishment part of his sentence, let alone any increased sentence that the Lord Advocate was seeking," said the Crown Office.
"That together with his release means that the outcome of any appeal could have no practical effect whatsoever for Mr Megrahi."
Megrahi successfully applied to judges on Tuesday to drop his second appeal against conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people died.
At that hearing, senior judge Lord Hamilton said it was of the "utmost importance" that the Lord Advocate made an early decision on whether she intended to insist on the appeal.
[The above is the text of a report posted this afternoon on The Scotsman's website.
Trust the Crown Office to reach a decision only after it could have not the slightest significance in the real world (and after not very heavily disguised criticism from the judges at the court hearing on 18 August at which Abdelbaset Megrahi was given leave to abandon his appeal). The conduct of the Crown Office throughout the whole Lockerbie case is one of the strongest arguments for an independent enquiry following Mr Megrahi's abandonment of his appeal; and it is a topic on which the Scottish Government, under the devolution settlement, certainly has the powers to render such an enquiry meaningful.]
No fury over Lockerbie release from American media
[This is the headline over a report just posted on the website of The Times. It reads in part:]
News of yesterday’s premature release of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset al-Megrahi was met by American newspapers with a collective shrug.
Given the tepid response to the Scottish Justice minister’s decision from American officials — including President Obama — however, the reaction in the media is hardly surprising.
In a radio interview yesterday afternoon, Mr Obama reacted to al-Megrahi’s release with restraint, calling the decision “a mistake” and "not appropriate.” He went further, but not by much, in calling for al-Megrahi to be kept under house arrest by the Libyan government.
Mr Obama’s cool reaction seemed to be echoed in the pages of America’s elite newspapers. In The New York Times, the Lockerbie story commanded a tiny box of exactly 27 words in the bottom left corner of the newspaper’s front page. The actual story was pushed to page four and barely featured on the paper’s website.
In the Washington Post, al-Megrahi’s release received even less attention. The story was relegated to page 16, far beyond the space usually reserved for stories deemed important.
Only the Los Angeles Times featured the story prominently with a large front page photo with caption of al-Megrahi arriving in Libya to cheering throngs of supporters.
News of yesterday’s premature release of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset al-Megrahi was met by American newspapers with a collective shrug.
Given the tepid response to the Scottish Justice minister’s decision from American officials — including President Obama — however, the reaction in the media is hardly surprising.
In a radio interview yesterday afternoon, Mr Obama reacted to al-Megrahi’s release with restraint, calling the decision “a mistake” and "not appropriate.” He went further, but not by much, in calling for al-Megrahi to be kept under house arrest by the Libyan government.
Mr Obama’s cool reaction seemed to be echoed in the pages of America’s elite newspapers. In The New York Times, the Lockerbie story commanded a tiny box of exactly 27 words in the bottom left corner of the newspaper’s front page. The actual story was pushed to page four and barely featured on the paper’s website.
In the Washington Post, al-Megrahi’s release received even less attention. The story was relegated to page 16, far beyond the space usually reserved for stories deemed important.
Only the Los Angeles Times featured the story prominently with a large front page photo with caption of al-Megrahi arriving in Libya to cheering throngs of supporters.
Release of the Lockerbie prisoner: the case is not closed
Statement by Dr. Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands
Vienna, 21 August 2009
P/RE/21831c-is
Dr. Hans Koechler has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands. In two analytical reports, submitted to the United Nations in 2001 and 2002, about the trial and first appeal he had suspected a miscarriage of justice. Commenting on yesterday's release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr. Koechler clarified certain important points in interviews for Austrian and international media.
Domestic and international legal aspects of the release
The decision by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was in conformity with Scots law and did not violate any international obligation of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding other declarations, release on the basis of the recently ratified prisoner transfer agreement between the Libyan Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom would have violated the terms of an agreement concluded in 1991 (!) between the United Kingdom and the United States according to which the full sentence of any person convicted by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands would be served in a Scottish prison. Dr. Koechler who had listened to the reading of Mr. MacAskill’s statement, said that he is at a loss to explain how the Scottish authorities can say that they had no specific information on this legal matter because the UK authorities did not provide it to them. If he would have checked relevant documents in the public domain, he could have found – in the official records of the House of Commons – the text of a statement made by the then Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the late Robin Cook, on 31 January 2001. Because of the importance of the issue in legal and political terms the respective part of the statement is reproduced below:
"I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons."
This was the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the following question by the Hon. Francis Maude, MP:
"Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?"
In view of this official statement, made by the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, it is crystal-clear that only release on compassionate grounds was in conformity with the United Kingdom’s international obligations - as Dr. Koechler had already stated on 5 August 2009 in an interview for the BBC London.
Dropping of the appeal by the convict
In an op-ed article for The Independent (London), Dr. Koechler has expressed serious doubts about the decision by Mr. Al Megrahi to withdraw his (second) appeal. His decision may have been made under duress and would thus be legally questionable, he said. According to Scots law, the termination of the ongoing appeal was not in any way required for compassionate release to be granted. The Scottish Justice Secretary will have to clarify vis-à-vis the Scottish, British and international public the exact circumstances under which the appeal was dropped. According to reports, Mr. Al Megrahi’s request was lodged through his defence team on 12 August 2009, in close proximity to the date of his release (20 August 2009) and just a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary. How are these coincidences to be explained?
It should have been obvious to the Scottish authorities that - in a case where an act international terrorism is suspected - it would be in the public interest of the country that has jurisdiction to continue with criminal proceedings and to exhaust all legal means to establish the truth about the incident. Why did the authorities satisfy themselves to deal with the question of criminal responsibility of two, later only one, suspect, and why did they accept the abrupt ending of the ongoing appeal of the only person convicted?
Omission by Scotland's Justice Secretary of any reference to the decision of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Mr. MacAskill was right, in political as well as legal terms, in releasing Mr. Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, in yesterday’s statement explaining his decision, he failed the test of statesmanship or judicial expertise. Upon concluding his statement he appeared more like a Prosecutor in a trial, suddenly assuming a vindictive tone and trying to convince the court of the guilt of the indicted, not like the Secretary of Justice who has to make a decision that is not related to the question of guilt or innocence (as is the case with “release on compassionate grounds” according to Scots law).
It is noteworthy that, in his statement, the Justice Secretary did not in any way take note of the fact that - in the years since the trial court's decision on 31 January 2001 - serious doubts have arisen about the guilty verdict and that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – after four (!) years of painstaking investigations – had stated (in June 2007) that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and had, thus, referred the case back to the appeal court. He did – obviously deliberately – overlook the finding of the SCCRC according to which “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase [by Mr. Al Megrahi] of the items [clothes] from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.” It does not need special intellectual skills to realize that the entire verdict collapses if there is no proof for the assertion that Mr. Al Megrahi was the person who bought clothes on that particular day in that particular shop in Malta.
In view of the appeal now having been aborted, the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission will have been in vain. The least that is to be expected from the Scottish judicial authorities is that they publish the full report of the Commission. Up to the present moment, not only the full report has not been released into the public domain, several grounds of appeal given by the Commission are being kept secret.
Public inquiry and possible role of the United Nations
As matters stand in Scotland, there may be no further criminal proceedings or investigations. However, establishing the truth about the midair explosion of an airliner and identifying the perpetrators is in the supreme public interest of any polity that is built on the rule of law. The legitimacy of any state is closely connected to a state’s willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute sine ira et studio each and every incident such as that which caused the death of 270 innocent people on the PanAm plane and in Lockerbie, Dr. Koechler said. In an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera’s Felicity Barr the former UN-appointed observer reiterated his call for a public inquiry to be mandated by the British House of Commons. He further explained that, absent a decision by the House of Commons, the United Nations General Assembly may consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into the Lockerbie incident on the basis of Art. 22 of the UN Charter. Since the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, has decided on 12 September 2003 to remove the Lockerbie issue “from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized,” the General Assembly would undoubtedly have authority to deal with the issue.
About alternative theories
In all conversations with media representatives and in an interview, moderated from London and broadcast live on Al-Jazeera TV shortly after Mr. Al-Megrahi’s release, Dr. Koechler has made clear that, as a United Nations-appointed observer as well as a scholar, he does not engage in any speculation about the perpetrators as long as no alternative theory about the incident can be built beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that, if the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist would have respected that criterion, they could not have reached the guilty verdict in the case of Mr. Al Megrahi.
[In an article headed "I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense" in today's edition of The Independent Dr Koechler writes the following:]
I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.
But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.
His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.
In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.
We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.
I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.
The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?
We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.
Vienna, 21 August 2009
P/RE/21831c-is
Dr. Hans Koechler has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands. In two analytical reports, submitted to the United Nations in 2001 and 2002, about the trial and first appeal he had suspected a miscarriage of justice. Commenting on yesterday's release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr. Koechler clarified certain important points in interviews for Austrian and international media.
Domestic and international legal aspects of the release
The decision by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was in conformity with Scots law and did not violate any international obligation of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding other declarations, release on the basis of the recently ratified prisoner transfer agreement between the Libyan Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom would have violated the terms of an agreement concluded in 1991 (!) between the United Kingdom and the United States according to which the full sentence of any person convicted by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands would be served in a Scottish prison. Dr. Koechler who had listened to the reading of Mr. MacAskill’s statement, said that he is at a loss to explain how the Scottish authorities can say that they had no specific information on this legal matter because the UK authorities did not provide it to them. If he would have checked relevant documents in the public domain, he could have found – in the official records of the House of Commons – the text of a statement made by the then Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the late Robin Cook, on 31 January 2001. Because of the importance of the issue in legal and political terms the respective part of the statement is reproduced below:
"I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons."
This was the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the following question by the Hon. Francis Maude, MP:
"Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?"
In view of this official statement, made by the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, it is crystal-clear that only release on compassionate grounds was in conformity with the United Kingdom’s international obligations - as Dr. Koechler had already stated on 5 August 2009 in an interview for the BBC London.
Dropping of the appeal by the convict
In an op-ed article for The Independent (London), Dr. Koechler has expressed serious doubts about the decision by Mr. Al Megrahi to withdraw his (second) appeal. His decision may have been made under duress and would thus be legally questionable, he said. According to Scots law, the termination of the ongoing appeal was not in any way required for compassionate release to be granted. The Scottish Justice Secretary will have to clarify vis-à-vis the Scottish, British and international public the exact circumstances under which the appeal was dropped. According to reports, Mr. Al Megrahi’s request was lodged through his defence team on 12 August 2009, in close proximity to the date of his release (20 August 2009) and just a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary. How are these coincidences to be explained?
It should have been obvious to the Scottish authorities that - in a case where an act international terrorism is suspected - it would be in the public interest of the country that has jurisdiction to continue with criminal proceedings and to exhaust all legal means to establish the truth about the incident. Why did the authorities satisfy themselves to deal with the question of criminal responsibility of two, later only one, suspect, and why did they accept the abrupt ending of the ongoing appeal of the only person convicted?
Omission by Scotland's Justice Secretary of any reference to the decision of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Mr. MacAskill was right, in political as well as legal terms, in releasing Mr. Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, in yesterday’s statement explaining his decision, he failed the test of statesmanship or judicial expertise. Upon concluding his statement he appeared more like a Prosecutor in a trial, suddenly assuming a vindictive tone and trying to convince the court of the guilt of the indicted, not like the Secretary of Justice who has to make a decision that is not related to the question of guilt or innocence (as is the case with “release on compassionate grounds” according to Scots law).
It is noteworthy that, in his statement, the Justice Secretary did not in any way take note of the fact that - in the years since the trial court's decision on 31 January 2001 - serious doubts have arisen about the guilty verdict and that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – after four (!) years of painstaking investigations – had stated (in June 2007) that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and had, thus, referred the case back to the appeal court. He did – obviously deliberately – overlook the finding of the SCCRC according to which “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase [by Mr. Al Megrahi] of the items [clothes] from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.” It does not need special intellectual skills to realize that the entire verdict collapses if there is no proof for the assertion that Mr. Al Megrahi was the person who bought clothes on that particular day in that particular shop in Malta.
In view of the appeal now having been aborted, the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission will have been in vain. The least that is to be expected from the Scottish judicial authorities is that they publish the full report of the Commission. Up to the present moment, not only the full report has not been released into the public domain, several grounds of appeal given by the Commission are being kept secret.
Public inquiry and possible role of the United Nations
As matters stand in Scotland, there may be no further criminal proceedings or investigations. However, establishing the truth about the midair explosion of an airliner and identifying the perpetrators is in the supreme public interest of any polity that is built on the rule of law. The legitimacy of any state is closely connected to a state’s willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute sine ira et studio each and every incident such as that which caused the death of 270 innocent people on the PanAm plane and in Lockerbie, Dr. Koechler said. In an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera’s Felicity Barr the former UN-appointed observer reiterated his call for a public inquiry to be mandated by the British House of Commons. He further explained that, absent a decision by the House of Commons, the United Nations General Assembly may consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into the Lockerbie incident on the basis of Art. 22 of the UN Charter. Since the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, has decided on 12 September 2003 to remove the Lockerbie issue “from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized,” the General Assembly would undoubtedly have authority to deal with the issue.
About alternative theories
In all conversations with media representatives and in an interview, moderated from London and broadcast live on Al-Jazeera TV shortly after Mr. Al-Megrahi’s release, Dr. Koechler has made clear that, as a United Nations-appointed observer as well as a scholar, he does not engage in any speculation about the perpetrators as long as no alternative theory about the incident can be built beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that, if the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist would have respected that criterion, they could not have reached the guilty verdict in the case of Mr. Al Megrahi.
[In an article headed "I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense" in today's edition of The Independent Dr Koechler writes the following:]
I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.
But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.
His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.
In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.
The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.
We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.
I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.
It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.
The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?
We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.
This shameful miscarriage has gravely sullied the Scottish criminal justice system
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by me in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
PROFESSOR Robert Black, Professor [Emeritus] of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, was one of the architects of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Here he gives his views on the original investigation, Megrahi's trial, his appeal and the impact of the case on the Scottish justice system.
THE INVESTIGATION
Within a week of the tragedy the joint team of British and American investigators had formed the view that this had been no accident and that the cause of the destruction of the aircraft had been a bomb. There then followed the most extensive criminal investigation ever conducted in Scotland - or, it seems probable, anywhere else - into an act of terrorism.
It came as something of a surprise when on November 14, 1991, the prosecution authorities in Scotland and the US simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges against two named Libyan nationals who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.
Until then all of the leaks were that the atrocity had been committed by Ahmed Jibril's Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
Until the trial actually started I had no idea what the evidence was going to be and had no idea what the outcome was going to be. My job was to try to ensure that the trial would take place. It was what I heard at the trial that then gave rise to grave concerns.
THE TRIAL AT CAMP ZEIST
The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty.
But to many observers, including me, it seemed that the case presented by the prosecution was a very weak circumstantial one, and was further undermined by the additional prosecution concession that they had not been able to prove how the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the interline baggage system and on to the aircraft.
Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be December 7, 1988 (as distinct from November 23, 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta).
I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.
I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted.
The judges didn't appear to give themselves the instructions that they always give to a jury - the perfectly bog standard instructions that every jury in every Scottish criminal trial gets about how to approach the evidence.
THE APPEALS PROCESS
As far as the outcome of the first 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.
I had hoped that the appeal court in the second appeal would have addressed the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi's representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate.
This will not now happen, because Mr Megrahi sadly felt he had to abandon his second appeal, and I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.
KENNY MacASKILL'S ROLE
I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I am sorry he had to take so long to reach the decision.
However, in some respects it is just as well he did. He actually rejected the prisoner transfer application. If Megrahi hadn't belatedly put in an application for compassionate release he would still be in prison today. Perhaps the delay did serve a useful purpose. As Kenny correctly said in making his decision, he has to assume that Megrahi was properly convicted.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
If the approach is that everybody simply says "he abandoned his appeal and has been released on compassionate grounds, everything is therefore for the best" then it is a very sad day for the Scottish criminal justice system because no lessons have been learned.
My God, lessons need to be learned out of Lockerbie.
We have relied too much on those professionals in the system knowing what is the right thing to do and doing it almost instinctively. I am afraid that is simply no longer good enough.
There is still a cloud handing over Megrahi's conviction. Until that cloud is removed then the criminal justice system cannot legitimately claim to be one of the best in the world.
PROFESSOR Robert Black, Professor [Emeritus] of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, was one of the architects of the trial at Camp Zeist.
Here he gives his views on the original investigation, Megrahi's trial, his appeal and the impact of the case on the Scottish justice system.
THE INVESTIGATION
Within a week of the tragedy the joint team of British and American investigators had formed the view that this had been no accident and that the cause of the destruction of the aircraft had been a bomb. There then followed the most extensive criminal investigation ever conducted in Scotland - or, it seems probable, anywhere else - into an act of terrorism.
It came as something of a surprise when on November 14, 1991, the prosecution authorities in Scotland and the US simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges against two named Libyan nationals who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.
Until then all of the leaks were that the atrocity had been committed by Ahmed Jibril's Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
Until the trial actually started I had no idea what the evidence was going to be and had no idea what the outcome was going to be. My job was to try to ensure that the trial would take place. It was what I heard at the trial that then gave rise to grave concerns.
THE TRIAL AT CAMP ZEIST
The prosecution in their closing submissions conceded that the case against the accused was entirely circumstantial. That, of course, is no bar to a verdict of guilty.
But to many observers, including me, it seemed that the case presented by the prosecution was a very weak circumstantial one, and was further undermined by the additional prosecution concession that they had not been able to prove how the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 got into the interline baggage system and on to the aircraft.
Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be December 7, 1988 (as distinct from November 23, 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta).
I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.
I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted.
The judges didn't appear to give themselves the instructions that they always give to a jury - the perfectly bog standard instructions that every jury in every Scottish criminal trial gets about how to approach the evidence.
THE APPEALS PROCESS
As far as the outcome of the first 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.
I had hoped that the appeal court in the second appeal would have addressed the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi's representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate.
This will not now happen, because Mr Megrahi sadly felt he had to abandon his second appeal, and I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.
KENNY MacASKILL'S ROLE
I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I am sorry he had to take so long to reach the decision.
However, in some respects it is just as well he did. He actually rejected the prisoner transfer application. If Megrahi hadn't belatedly put in an application for compassionate release he would still be in prison today. Perhaps the delay did serve a useful purpose. As Kenny correctly said in making his decision, he has to assume that Megrahi was properly convicted.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
If the approach is that everybody simply says "he abandoned his appeal and has been released on compassionate grounds, everything is therefore for the best" then it is a very sad day for the Scottish criminal justice system because no lessons have been learned.
My God, lessons need to be learned out of Lockerbie.
We have relied too much on those professionals in the system knowing what is the right thing to do and doing it almost instinctively. I am afraid that is simply no longer good enough.
There is still a cloud handing over Megrahi's conviction. Until that cloud is removed then the criminal justice system cannot legitimately claim to be one of the best in the world.
Lockerbie bomber: decision to release Megrahi was controversial, but correct
[This is the headline over an article in the Daily Telegraph by the paper's columnist Alan Cochrane. This is a staunch Conservative-supporting newspaper and it is somewhat surprising, and particularly significant, that it should carry such an article. The following are extracts.]
Whether deliberate or not — and I suspect it might have been planned to some degree — there was more than a whiff of old time religion in Kenny MacAskill’s entirely expected announcement yesterday that the Lockerbie bomber was to be allowed to go home to Libya to die.
In style and substance the Scottish justice minister adopted the sonorous tones and ecclesiastical references more in keeping with the pulpit than the despatch box. As such it was a surprise from this politician, who has never before worn his belief in a supreme being on his sleeve.
Mind you, his family is from Lewis - the closest Scotland has to a Bible-belt - and perhaps he thought that saying that Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power" might ease the acute pain his decision will cause amongst many relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie outrage.
It was this ‘sentence’ that Mr MacAskill used to justify his highly controversial decision, which sent shock waves and earned him serious criticism around the world, especially in the United States. The verdict from on high for Megrahi was one that no court, in any jurisdiction in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal final and irrevocable .."He is going to die." (...)
Scotland’s international reputation has been damaged by this affair which the SNP have allowed to drag on for far too long.
However, this observer believes that Kenny MacAskill made the correct decision for the correct reasons, appallingly difficult though it must have been.
It is true that those responsible for the Lockerbie outrage showed no compassion for their victims, none of whom were allowed to spend their last days with their families. And it is true that no fewer than eight Scottish judges - three at the original trial and five at the subsequent appeal - had believed that there was evidence enough to convict Megrahi.
But I think a compassionate release is in order in this case and if this man really does have only weeks to live - and that’s what the doctors told the minister - then he should be permitted to die at home. (...)
David Cameron, the Tory leader, describ[ed] the release as "nonsensical" and Bill Aitken, for the Scottish Tories. saying that it should have been possible to keep Megrahi somewhere in Scotland. The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders also deplored the release.
Strangest of all, however, and adding fuel to the many conspiracy theories that abound in this incredible case has been the dog that didn’t bark in the night. I refer, of course, to the British government.
It is of course proper of them to state, as they have, that the decision on either the transfer or the compassionate release of Megrahi was purely a matter for the Scottish authorities. But given that the Scottish minister saw or spoke to or received representations from victims’ families on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Libyan and US governments and with Megrahi himself, is it not beyond comprehension that the British government offered no opinion on the issue?
Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown not have a view on whether this man should go home? Does David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary? They may say that if they said anything it might have been construed as putting pressure of the devolved administration in Edinburgh.
But saying nothing was as Mr MacAskill said, with massive understatement,"highly regrettable."
All in all, this sometimes brittle minister made a good fist of a decision that is probably the most difficult I’ve ever seen a politician ever have to make.
[Note by RB: As I am becoming tired of saying, it simply is not the case that eight Scottish judges believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Megrahi.
The five judges in Megrhi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“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."]
Whether deliberate or not — and I suspect it might have been planned to some degree — there was more than a whiff of old time religion in Kenny MacAskill’s entirely expected announcement yesterday that the Lockerbie bomber was to be allowed to go home to Libya to die.
In style and substance the Scottish justice minister adopted the sonorous tones and ecclesiastical references more in keeping with the pulpit than the despatch box. As such it was a surprise from this politician, who has never before worn his belief in a supreme being on his sleeve.
Mind you, his family is from Lewis - the closest Scotland has to a Bible-belt - and perhaps he thought that saying that Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power" might ease the acute pain his decision will cause amongst many relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie outrage.
It was this ‘sentence’ that Mr MacAskill used to justify his highly controversial decision, which sent shock waves and earned him serious criticism around the world, especially in the United States. The verdict from on high for Megrahi was one that no court, in any jurisdiction in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal final and irrevocable .."He is going to die." (...)
Scotland’s international reputation has been damaged by this affair which the SNP have allowed to drag on for far too long.
However, this observer believes that Kenny MacAskill made the correct decision for the correct reasons, appallingly difficult though it must have been.
It is true that those responsible for the Lockerbie outrage showed no compassion for their victims, none of whom were allowed to spend their last days with their families. And it is true that no fewer than eight Scottish judges - three at the original trial and five at the subsequent appeal - had believed that there was evidence enough to convict Megrahi.
But I think a compassionate release is in order in this case and if this man really does have only weeks to live - and that’s what the doctors told the minister - then he should be permitted to die at home. (...)
David Cameron, the Tory leader, describ[ed] the release as "nonsensical" and Bill Aitken, for the Scottish Tories. saying that it should have been possible to keep Megrahi somewhere in Scotland. The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders also deplored the release.
Strangest of all, however, and adding fuel to the many conspiracy theories that abound in this incredible case has been the dog that didn’t bark in the night. I refer, of course, to the British government.
It is of course proper of them to state, as they have, that the decision on either the transfer or the compassionate release of Megrahi was purely a matter for the Scottish authorities. But given that the Scottish minister saw or spoke to or received representations from victims’ families on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Libyan and US governments and with Megrahi himself, is it not beyond comprehension that the British government offered no opinion on the issue?
Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown not have a view on whether this man should go home? Does David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary? They may say that if they said anything it might have been construed as putting pressure of the devolved administration in Edinburgh.
But saying nothing was as Mr MacAskill said, with massive understatement,"highly regrettable."
All in all, this sometimes brittle minister made a good fist of a decision that is probably the most difficult I’ve ever seen a politician ever have to make.
[Note by RB: As I am becoming tired of saying, it simply is not the case that eight Scottish judges believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Megrahi.
The five judges in Megrhi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“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."]
‘Deal in the desert’ put Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on path to freedom
[This is the headline over a long article in The Times. It reads in part:]
Supported by a walking stick, and wearing clothes that hung off his clearly diminished frame, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi did not look like the biggest mass murderer in British history as he boarded the flight yesterday that would take him home.
The Libyan known to the world as the Lockerbie bomber returned to his native country a free man after being granted compassionate release by the Scottish government, a decision that some believe has its roots in a deal made between Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi more than two years ago.
The notorious “deal in the desert” was a significant step towards Libya’s rehabilitation among world leaders after it was held responsible for the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, and also helped to clear the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast untapped reserves of oil. The prisoner transfer arrangement that the leaders agreed was also the first indication that al-Megrahi could one day return home.
By the time the memorandum of understanding between the two countries was announced, Scotland’s first nationalist government had come into power and Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, was furious that he had not been consulted. The issue became the subject of the first serious cross-border row — in a letter to Mr Blair, the First Minister made it clear that he thought his behaviour “unacceptable”.
“This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law,” Mr Salmond said.
The storm subsided when Downing Street claimed that the agreement did not extend to al-Megrahi, but by the end of the year a deal that involved the Libyan was agreed, with Scottish ministers being given a veto over any future request.
At the time it seemed unlikely that a transfer deal would ever be pursued. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred al-Megrahi’s case back to court, highlighting six areas in his original trial that could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. A series of hearings, some of which were held behind closed doors, started at the High Court in Edinburgh (...)
In the following months rumours began to circulate that al-Megrahi’s health really was in terminal decline. Reports suggested that his cancer had spread to his bones, and supporters urged the courts to speed up his appeal against the conviction. In April the first block of hearings in his appeal began in Edinburgh.
As defence lawyers were preparing their submissions Westminster was laying the grounds for an alternative option, and on April 29 this year the controversial prisoner transfer treaty was ratified. A week later the Libyan Government created a diplomatic headache for Scottish ministers by formally applying for al-Megrahi’s repatriation.
Consideration of the request was the sole responsibility of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary and a lawyer by trade. As part of his deliberations he began to meet all “relevant parties”. Among those he spoke to were families of the British victims and relatives of the 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives when falling wreckage crashed on to the ground.
Not all of them held the same view, but many of the British relatives were in agreement: al-Megrahi, they said, should not be in jail. The families of American victims were also given a say. In an emotional video-conference call between Washington and Edinburgh relatives of the 189 American victims — including 35 young students from Syracuse University — delivered the directly opposite verdict, calling for the Libyan to remain behind bars. Extracts of their testimonies, released this week, reveal the strength of their feeling. (...)
Just as it seemed that Mr MacAskill was caught in a no-win situation, the stakes were raised even higher. On July 24 al-Megrahi lodged another application with the Scottish government, this time seeking to be freed on compassionate grounds.
Yesterday the text of this plea was made public for the first time. His letter states: “I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery. My continued incarceration in HMP Greenock is not conducive to my wellbeing as my life nears it end ... I have never publicly taken a stance which would seek to impugn your nation and its system of justice. I have behaved with respect to the due legal process which I am subject to. It is with the same respect that I make the application to you to enable me to return to my country and my family with what is left of my life, as a son, husband, father and grandfather.” (...)
The decison over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber is quasi-judicial in that the Scottish Justice Minister must act free from political considerations. The opposition parties in Scotland instinctively refrained from commenting on the issue for fear of appearing to undermine the judicial process.
The united front broke down, though, at the sight of the Justice Secretary’s car driving through the gates of HMP Greenock before he granted the mass murderer the kind of face-to-face meeting that any other killer would be denied.
Mr MacAskill said that he was duty bound to hold the meeting because under the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi had the right to representation. The opposition argument was that representation from his defence team was sufficient under the terms of the agreement.
The charge levelled at Mr MacAskill that he struck a deal with al-Megrahi that day is likely to follow him despite fierce denials. The Scottish government says it was a coincidence that al-Megrahi went on to drop his appeal against conviction. Mr MacAskill faced further allegations of resorting to leaks in an unsubtle attempt to gauge reaction to the biggest decision taken by the nationalist government. (...)
Suspicions of a deal deepened when al-Megrahi’s defence team withdrew his appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh. The court was told that the Lockerbie bomber believed that the course of action would increase his chances of being sent home.
The Lord Advocate’s failure to withdraw the Crown’s outstanding appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction rendered as inadmissable his application to be considered under the prisoner transfer agreement, with the legal process incomplete.
The only remaining option for the Scottish government was the one that it has long been suspected of favouring — release on compassionate grounds.
With medical reports making clear that the criteria for such a decision had been met, and a recommendation from the parole board in favour of release on his desk, Mr MacAskill was faced with making the lonely decision for which his post dictates he must take responsibility.
When Mr Salmond declared this week that “international power politics” would not play a part in the decision, the die was cast.
Mr MacAskill, who was little-known outside of Holyrood before the implications of the case became clear, had decided to ignore the will of the Obama Administration and instead adhere to what he believes to be a key Scottish virtue — compassion.
[Further coverage in The Times can be read here.]
Supported by a walking stick, and wearing clothes that hung off his clearly diminished frame, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi did not look like the biggest mass murderer in British history as he boarded the flight yesterday that would take him home.
The Libyan known to the world as the Lockerbie bomber returned to his native country a free man after being granted compassionate release by the Scottish government, a decision that some believe has its roots in a deal made between Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi more than two years ago.
The notorious “deal in the desert” was a significant step towards Libya’s rehabilitation among world leaders after it was held responsible for the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, and also helped to clear the way for BP to invest £450 million in exploring Libya’s vast untapped reserves of oil. The prisoner transfer arrangement that the leaders agreed was also the first indication that al-Megrahi could one day return home.
By the time the memorandum of understanding between the two countries was announced, Scotland’s first nationalist government had come into power and Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, was furious that he had not been consulted. The issue became the subject of the first serious cross-border row — in a letter to Mr Blair, the First Minister made it clear that he thought his behaviour “unacceptable”.
“This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law,” Mr Salmond said.
The storm subsided when Downing Street claimed that the agreement did not extend to al-Megrahi, but by the end of the year a deal that involved the Libyan was agreed, with Scottish ministers being given a veto over any future request.
At the time it seemed unlikely that a transfer deal would ever be pursued. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred al-Megrahi’s case back to court, highlighting six areas in his original trial that could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. A series of hearings, some of which were held behind closed doors, started at the High Court in Edinburgh (...)
In the following months rumours began to circulate that al-Megrahi’s health really was in terminal decline. Reports suggested that his cancer had spread to his bones, and supporters urged the courts to speed up his appeal against the conviction. In April the first block of hearings in his appeal began in Edinburgh.
As defence lawyers were preparing their submissions Westminster was laying the grounds for an alternative option, and on April 29 this year the controversial prisoner transfer treaty was ratified. A week later the Libyan Government created a diplomatic headache for Scottish ministers by formally applying for al-Megrahi’s repatriation.
Consideration of the request was the sole responsibility of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary and a lawyer by trade. As part of his deliberations he began to meet all “relevant parties”. Among those he spoke to were families of the British victims and relatives of the 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives when falling wreckage crashed on to the ground.
Not all of them held the same view, but many of the British relatives were in agreement: al-Megrahi, they said, should not be in jail. The families of American victims were also given a say. In an emotional video-conference call between Washington and Edinburgh relatives of the 189 American victims — including 35 young students from Syracuse University — delivered the directly opposite verdict, calling for the Libyan to remain behind bars. Extracts of their testimonies, released this week, reveal the strength of their feeling. (...)
Just as it seemed that Mr MacAskill was caught in a no-win situation, the stakes were raised even higher. On July 24 al-Megrahi lodged another application with the Scottish government, this time seeking to be freed on compassionate grounds.
Yesterday the text of this plea was made public for the first time. His letter states: “I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery. My continued incarceration in HMP Greenock is not conducive to my wellbeing as my life nears it end ... I have never publicly taken a stance which would seek to impugn your nation and its system of justice. I have behaved with respect to the due legal process which I am subject to. It is with the same respect that I make the application to you to enable me to return to my country and my family with what is left of my life, as a son, husband, father and grandfather.” (...)
The decison over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber is quasi-judicial in that the Scottish Justice Minister must act free from political considerations. The opposition parties in Scotland instinctively refrained from commenting on the issue for fear of appearing to undermine the judicial process.
The united front broke down, though, at the sight of the Justice Secretary’s car driving through the gates of HMP Greenock before he granted the mass murderer the kind of face-to-face meeting that any other killer would be denied.
Mr MacAskill said that he was duty bound to hold the meeting because under the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi had the right to representation. The opposition argument was that representation from his defence team was sufficient under the terms of the agreement.
The charge levelled at Mr MacAskill that he struck a deal with al-Megrahi that day is likely to follow him despite fierce denials. The Scottish government says it was a coincidence that al-Megrahi went on to drop his appeal against conviction. Mr MacAskill faced further allegations of resorting to leaks in an unsubtle attempt to gauge reaction to the biggest decision taken by the nationalist government. (...)
Suspicions of a deal deepened when al-Megrahi’s defence team withdrew his appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh. The court was told that the Lockerbie bomber believed that the course of action would increase his chances of being sent home.
The Lord Advocate’s failure to withdraw the Crown’s outstanding appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction rendered as inadmissable his application to be considered under the prisoner transfer agreement, with the legal process incomplete.
The only remaining option for the Scottish government was the one that it has long been suspected of favouring — release on compassionate grounds.
With medical reports making clear that the criteria for such a decision had been met, and a recommendation from the parole board in favour of release on his desk, Mr MacAskill was faced with making the lonely decision for which his post dictates he must take responsibility.
When Mr Salmond declared this week that “international power politics” would not play a part in the decision, the die was cast.
Mr MacAskill, who was little-known outside of Holyrood before the implications of the case became clear, had decided to ignore the will of the Obama Administration and instead adhere to what he believes to be a key Scottish virtue — compassion.
[Further coverage in The Times can be read here.]
Released: Megrahi returns home to die
[This is the headline over The Herald's main report by chief reporter Lucy Adams on yesterday's release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]
The Libyan man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist act arrived home to a hero's welcome as an international political storm erupted around the decision to release him from a Scottish prison.
Thousands of compatriots - some waving Scottish flags - greeted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last night, hours after President Barack Obama, who called his release a "mistake", pleaded with Libya to avoid making his return a victory celebration.
Megrahi's freedom came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced he was allowing the terminally-ill cancer patient to return home to die on compassionate grounds.
Frail and dressed in a white tracksuit and cap, 57-year-old Megrahi - who was sentenced to 27 years for the murders of 270 people in 2001 - walked unaided up the steps of a chartered Libyan jet at Glasgow airport, which left at 3.26pm for north Africa.
In a statement released as he made his journey to freedom, the former Libyan agent said: "This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death. And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do."
Making one of the biggest decisions by a Scottish minister since devolution, Mr MacAskill had earlier said the dying Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power".
"It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die," he told the world's media. (...)
Pictures from Tripoli showed hundreds of people cheering Megrahi as he left the plane. A crowd also gathered in the city's Green Square to apparently celebrate his release.
However, the Tripoli Post reported how people were shocked at his poor state of health.
The newspaper said: "Many are blaming the Scottish authorities for not taking care of Megrahi's health while in prison and speculate that he was left, on purpose, to die of his cancer."
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter died on the Pan Am jet that exploded above Lockerbie in 1988, condemned the celebrations. "I think a hero's welcome is entirely inappropriate in the circumstances," she said. (...)
Details of Megrahi's personal plea for compassion were disclosed yesterday. "I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery," he told Mr MacAskill in a letter from jail. His plea was disclosed as private medical notes were also made public for the first time.
Last night, Sir Richard Dalton, who was British ambassador to Libya between 1999 and 2002, called the decision of Mr MacAskill to release the terminally-ill Megrahi "difficult" but "right".
He said: "Appalling though the atrocity was that led to the deaths of 270 people, there are not good reasons why anybody convicted of that crime should be excepted from normal rules which apply for considering release on compassionate grounds."
Jim Swire, who lost his 23-year-old daughter, Flora, in the atrocity and has been vocal in his belief in Megrahi's innocence, praised the decision.
He told the BBC: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."
[Further articles in the same newspaper on various aspects of Megrahi's release, its implications and reactions to it are to be found here and here and here and here. An editorial can be read here.
The Scotsman's coverage of Megrahi's release can be read here. An opinion piece by Tam Dalyell in the same newspaper can be read here and a leader entitled "History will record Megrahi's release as the right decision" here.]
The Libyan man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist act arrived home to a hero's welcome as an international political storm erupted around the decision to release him from a Scottish prison.
Thousands of compatriots - some waving Scottish flags - greeted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi last night, hours after President Barack Obama, who called his release a "mistake", pleaded with Libya to avoid making his return a victory celebration.
Megrahi's freedom came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced he was allowing the terminally-ill cancer patient to return home to die on compassionate grounds.
Frail and dressed in a white tracksuit and cap, 57-year-old Megrahi - who was sentenced to 27 years for the murders of 270 people in 2001 - walked unaided up the steps of a chartered Libyan jet at Glasgow airport, which left at 3.26pm for north Africa.
In a statement released as he made his journey to freedom, the former Libyan agent said: "This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya. It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death. And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do."
Making one of the biggest decisions by a Scottish minister since devolution, Mr MacAskill had earlier said the dying Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power".
"It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die," he told the world's media. (...)
Pictures from Tripoli showed hundreds of people cheering Megrahi as he left the plane. A crowd also gathered in the city's Green Square to apparently celebrate his release.
However, the Tripoli Post reported how people were shocked at his poor state of health.
The newspaper said: "Many are blaming the Scottish authorities for not taking care of Megrahi's health while in prison and speculate that he was left, on purpose, to die of his cancer."
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter died on the Pan Am jet that exploded above Lockerbie in 1988, condemned the celebrations. "I think a hero's welcome is entirely inappropriate in the circumstances," she said. (...)
Details of Megrahi's personal plea for compassion were disclosed yesterday. "I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery," he told Mr MacAskill in a letter from jail. His plea was disclosed as private medical notes were also made public for the first time.
Last night, Sir Richard Dalton, who was British ambassador to Libya between 1999 and 2002, called the decision of Mr MacAskill to release the terminally-ill Megrahi "difficult" but "right".
He said: "Appalling though the atrocity was that led to the deaths of 270 people, there are not good reasons why anybody convicted of that crime should be excepted from normal rules which apply for considering release on compassionate grounds."
Jim Swire, who lost his 23-year-old daughter, Flora, in the atrocity and has been vocal in his belief in Megrahi's innocence, praised the decision.
He told the BBC: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."
[Further articles in the same newspaper on various aspects of Megrahi's release, its implications and reactions to it are to be found here and here and here and here. An editorial can be read here.
The Scotsman's coverage of Megrahi's release can be read here. An opinion piece by Tam Dalyell in the same newspaper can be read here and a leader entitled "History will record Megrahi's release as the right decision" here.]
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Holyrood recall over freed bomber
The Scottish Parliament is to be recalled on Monday to discuss the controversial decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has flown back to Libya after being released on compassionate grounds. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The justice secretary reached his decisions on the basis of due process, clear evidence, and recommendations from the parole board and prison governor.
"Mr MacAskill is entirely open and accountable to parliament, and now that he has made his statement will be pleased to answer any and all questions which MSPs have on this important matter."
Holyrood presiding officer Alex Fergusson announced the move to bring back MSPs from their summer break, days after turning down an earlier request from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Fergusson said: "Following the announcement by the cabinet secretary for justice at 1pm today on the compassionate release of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I can confirm I have taken the decision to recall parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity."
The parliament will reconvene at 1430 BST on Monday when Mr MacAskill is expected to make a statement on his decision to release Megrahi.
He will then face questions on his handling of the case - and his ultimate decision - from MSPs.
[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has flown back to Libya after being released on compassionate grounds. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The justice secretary reached his decisions on the basis of due process, clear evidence, and recommendations from the parole board and prison governor.
"Mr MacAskill is entirely open and accountable to parliament, and now that he has made his statement will be pleased to answer any and all questions which MSPs have on this important matter."
Holyrood presiding officer Alex Fergusson announced the move to bring back MSPs from their summer break, days after turning down an earlier request from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Fergusson said: "Following the announcement by the cabinet secretary for justice at 1pm today on the compassionate release of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, I can confirm I have taken the decision to recall parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity."
The parliament will reconvene at 1430 BST on Monday when Mr MacAskill is expected to make a statement on his decision to release Megrahi.
He will then face questions on his handling of the case - and his ultimate decision - from MSPs.
[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's statement
Shortly after he was released from prison on compassionate grounds, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi issued a statement outlining his empathy for the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed in 1988.
“To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered,” he said.
“To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.”
The statement was read on behalf of al-Megrahi, while he was on board a specially chartered flight back home to Tripoli.
“I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland,” the statement read.
Some of the families of the British victims have expressed their relief that al-Megrahi has been freed since they doubt the safety of his conviction.
“Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
“I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.”
[The above is taken from an article recently posted on the website of The Times.
Here is the full text of Mr Megrahi's statement, taken from the BBC News website:]
I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland.
I would like to first of all take the opportunity to extend my gratitude to the many people of Scotland, and elsewhere, who have sent me their good wishes.
I bear no ill will to the people of Scotland; indeed, it is one of my regrets that I have been unable to experience any meaningful aspect of Scottish life, or to see your country.
To the staff in HM Prison Greenock, and before that at HM Prison Barlinnie, I wish to express thanks for the kindness that they were able to show me.
For those who assisted in my medical and nursing care; who tried to make my time here as comfortable as possible, I am of course grateful.
My legal team has worked tirelessly on my behalf; I wish to thank Advocates Margaret Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson together with the team at Taylor & Kelly, for all of their gallant efforts in my bid to clear my name.
I know they share, in no small measure, my disappointment about the abandonment of my appeal.
Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.
To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered.
To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.
And, lastly, I must turn to my conviction and imprisonment.
To be incarcerated in a far off land, completely alien to my way of life and culture has been not only been a shock but also a most profound dislocation for me personally and for my whole family.
I have had many burdens to overcome during my incarceration.
I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair.
In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description.
I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable.
To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.
As a result of my surrender, and that judgment of the Court, I had to spend over 10 years in prison.
I cannot find words in my language or yours that give proper expression to the desolation I have felt. This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya.
It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.
And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do.
The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome.
I say goodbye to Scotland and shall not return. My time here has been very unhappy and I do not leave a piece of myself. But to the country's people I offer my gratitude and best wishes.
“To those victims’ relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered,” he said.
“To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.”
The statement was read on behalf of al-Megrahi, while he was on board a specially chartered flight back home to Tripoli.
“I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland,” the statement read.
Some of the families of the British victims have expressed their relief that al-Megrahi has been freed since they doubt the safety of his conviction.
“Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
“I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.”
[The above is taken from an article recently posted on the website of The Times.
Here is the full text of Mr Megrahi's statement, taken from the BBC News website:]
I am obviously very relieved to be leaving my prison cell at last and returning to Libya, my homeland.
I would like to first of all take the opportunity to extend my gratitude to the many people of Scotland, and elsewhere, who have sent me their good wishes.
I bear no ill will to the people of Scotland; indeed, it is one of my regrets that I have been unable to experience any meaningful aspect of Scottish life, or to see your country.
To the staff in HM Prison Greenock, and before that at HM Prison Barlinnie, I wish to express thanks for the kindness that they were able to show me.
For those who assisted in my medical and nursing care; who tried to make my time here as comfortable as possible, I am of course grateful.
My legal team has worked tirelessly on my behalf; I wish to thank Advocates Margaret Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson together with the team at Taylor & Kelly, for all of their gallant efforts in my bid to clear my name.
I know they share, in no small measure, my disappointment about the abandonment of my appeal.
Many people, including the relatives of those who died in, and over, Lockerbie, are, I know, upset that my appeal has come to an end; that nothing more can be done about the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing.
I share their frustration. I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out - until my diagnosis of cancer.
To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this: they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered.
To those who bear me ill will, I do not return that to you.
And, lastly, I must turn to my conviction and imprisonment.
To be incarcerated in a far off land, completely alien to my way of life and culture has been not only been a shock but also a most profound dislocation for me personally and for my whole family.
I have had many burdens to overcome during my incarceration.
I had to sit through a trial which I had been persuaded to attend on the basis that it would have been scrupulously fair.
In my second, most recent, appeal I disputed such a description.
I had to endure a verdict being issued at the conclusion of that trial which is now characterised by my lawyers, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as unreasonable.
To me, and to other right thinking people back at home in Libya, and in the international community, it is nothing short of a disgrace.
As a result of my surrender, and that judgment of the Court, I had to spend over 10 years in prison.
I cannot find words in my language or yours that give proper expression to the desolation I have felt. This horrible ordeal is not ended by my return to Libya.
It may never end for me until I die. Perhaps the only liberation for me will be death.
And I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear: all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do.
The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction.
I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted.
The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome.
I say goodbye to Scotland and shall not return. My time here has been very unhappy and I do not leave a piece of myself. But to the country's people I offer my gratitude and best wishes.
From Lockerbie's local newspaper
[The following come from an article in this morning's edition of the Annandale Herald, Lockerbie's local weekly newspaper. It was published before Kenny MacAskill's decision was announced.]
Retired Scottish law professor Robert Black, who grew up in Lockerbie and was one of the architects of the original trial in the Netherlands, said he was sad Megrahi would “die a convicted man”.
Convinced Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he told the Herald and News: “If it is the case that Abdelbaset Megrahi is soon to be returned to Libya to die surrounded by his extended family, I will be delighted on simple humanitarian grounds. But I am sad he felt it necessary, for whatever reason, to abandon his appeal.
“However, I fully appreciate the state of his health is now so precarious that he is prepared to do anything, however unpalatable, that he thinks will improve his chances of repatriation within the shortest possible time scale.”
Professor Black said the time taken for the system to deal with Megrahi’s case was “a disgrace” and he now hoped for some sort of independent inquiry, whether Scottish, UK, European Union or United Nations, into “the whole sorry Lockerbie affair”.
He said: “There are those of us who will fight as hard as we can to secure that it happens.”
Retired teacher and trustee of Dryfesdale Lodge visitor centre John Gair said: “I was very sorry that he dropped his last appeal. There may be much more to be found out about it. There is still an element of doubt about this. I don’t know if we will ever know the real truth but it would have been nice to feel we really knew the truth about what happened.”
A Rosebank resident at the time of the disaster and member of the community liaison group, Maxwell Kerr said he could see both sides on the argument about Megrahi’s possible release: “I have spoken to people who said he should serve his time, that because he has been judged and punished in Scotland he should serve his sentence here. But there are others like Jim Swire and Robert Black who believe he is innocent. It is a difficult thing to answer and now we will have to wait and see what the justice minister says.”
Retired Scottish law professor Robert Black, who grew up in Lockerbie and was one of the architects of the original trial in the Netherlands, said he was sad Megrahi would “die a convicted man”.
Convinced Megrahi was wrongly convicted, he told the Herald and News: “If it is the case that Abdelbaset Megrahi is soon to be returned to Libya to die surrounded by his extended family, I will be delighted on simple humanitarian grounds. But I am sad he felt it necessary, for whatever reason, to abandon his appeal.
“However, I fully appreciate the state of his health is now so precarious that he is prepared to do anything, however unpalatable, that he thinks will improve his chances of repatriation within the shortest possible time scale.”
Professor Black said the time taken for the system to deal with Megrahi’s case was “a disgrace” and he now hoped for some sort of independent inquiry, whether Scottish, UK, European Union or United Nations, into “the whole sorry Lockerbie affair”.
He said: “There are those of us who will fight as hard as we can to secure that it happens.”
Retired teacher and trustee of Dryfesdale Lodge visitor centre John Gair said: “I was very sorry that he dropped his last appeal. There may be much more to be found out about it. There is still an element of doubt about this. I don’t know if we will ever know the real truth but it would have been nice to feel we really knew the truth about what happened.”
A Rosebank resident at the time of the disaster and member of the community liaison group, Maxwell Kerr said he could see both sides on the argument about Megrahi’s possible release: “I have spoken to people who said he should serve his time, that because he has been judged and punished in Scotland he should serve his sentence here. But there are others like Jim Swire and Robert Black who believe he is innocent. It is a difficult thing to answer and now we will have to wait and see what the justice minister says.”
The decision
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has granted compassionate release. The separate prisoner transfer request by the Libyan Government has been refused because of the legitimate expectations held by the US Government and the US relatives, on the basis of undertakings allegedly given by the UK Government (but not admitted by that government) at the time of the initial agreement for the Zeist trial, that any sentence imposed on a person convicted would be served in Scotland.
Here is the full text of Mr MacAskill's statement:
STATEMENT BY KENNY MACASKILL, CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
Introduction
Good afternoon. I will make a statement and then take questions.
It is my privilege to serve as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Government of Scotland. It is a post in which I take great pride, but one which carries with it great responsibility. Never, perhaps, more so than with these decisions that I now have to make.
On the evening of 21 December 1988 a heinous crime was perpetrated. It claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. Four days before Christmas, men, women and children going about their daily lives were cruelly murdered. They included 11 from one small Scottish town. That town was Lockerbie – a name that will forever be associated with the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil.
A prisoner transfer application has been submitted by the Government of Libya seeking the transfer of Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi. The man convicted of those offences in the Scottish courts. He has also now sought to be released on compassionate grounds due to his prostate cancer that is terminal.
This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland. I now find myself having to make these decisions. However, the applications have been lawfully made, and I am obliged to address them. Final advice from my officials was given late on Friday 14 August 2009. I have now had an opportunity to reflect upon this.
Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.
In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.
Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.
Mr Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.
Mr Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.
I realise that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.
I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.
Prisoner Transfer
Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.
The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr Al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.
Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government’s opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.
I received numerous letters and representations, and recognised that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.
I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.
I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.
I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.
Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.
It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.
Compassionate Release
I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.
Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.
The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.
On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.
In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.
It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.
Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner – he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.
It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.
Conclusion
Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.
Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.
However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.
Mr Al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
For these reasons – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.
Here is the full text of Mr MacAskill's statement:
STATEMENT BY KENNY MACASKILL, CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi
Introduction
Good afternoon. I will make a statement and then take questions.
It is my privilege to serve as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Government of Scotland. It is a post in which I take great pride, but one which carries with it great responsibility. Never, perhaps, more so than with these decisions that I now have to make.
On the evening of 21 December 1988 a heinous crime was perpetrated. It claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. Four days before Christmas, men, women and children going about their daily lives were cruelly murdered. They included 11 from one small Scottish town. That town was Lockerbie – a name that will forever be associated with the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil.
A prisoner transfer application has been submitted by the Government of Libya seeking the transfer of Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi. The man convicted of those offences in the Scottish courts. He has also now sought to be released on compassionate grounds due to his prostate cancer that is terminal.
This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland. I now find myself having to make these decisions. However, the applications have been lawfully made, and I am obliged to address them. Final advice from my officials was given late on Friday 14 August 2009. I have now had an opportunity to reflect upon this.
Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.
In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.
Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.
Mr Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.
Mr Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.
I realise that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.
I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.
Prisoner Transfer
Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.
The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr Al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.
Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government’s opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.
I received numerous letters and representations, and recognised that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.
I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.
I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.
I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.
Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.
It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.
Compassionate Release
I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.
Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.
The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.
On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.
In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.
It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” – that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.
Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner – he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.
It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.
Conclusion
Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.
Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.
However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.
Mr Al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
For these reasons – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.
MacAskill to show mercy to Megrahi
[This is the headline over the principal Lockerbie report in today's edition of The Scotsman. The following are excerpts:]
Kenny MacAskill will today announce that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison and allowed to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds, The Scotsman understands.
The justice secretary has made his decision and will announce it to the world at a 1pm press conference.
Last night, preparations were under way for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from Greenock jail – a decision that will infuriate American relatives of the Lockerbie victims and many United States politicians who are convinced the Libyan is guilty of the worst mass-murder in British legal history. (…)
There has been widespread speculation that Mr MacAskill would go down the route of granting the Libyan compassionate release.
Rumours that Megrahi was to be released intensified yesterday, after news that a police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a vehicle with blacked-out windows had been undertaken on Tuesday night between Greenock and Prestwick airport.
The convoy was sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow; it was thought to be a rehearsal in preparation for taking Megrahi to catch a flight to Libya.
Mr MacAskill's likely decision means Megrahi could be on his way home as early as today – in time for Ramadan, which begins tomorrow.
The release of Megrahi will delight campaigners who have long believed in the Libyan's innocence. Politicians including Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP, and Christine Grahame, the South of Scotland SNP MSP, have been long-term campaigners for his freedom.
Those who doubt his guilt say the evidence presented at his trial before three Scottish judges in the Netherlands was not strong enough to convict him.
His release will also please Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
[The same newspaper has an opinion piece by me entitled "Dropping of bomber appeal leaves a black mark on our legal system". Having been prepared hurriedly over the telephone last night, it is not the most polished piece of prose that I have ever produced. It reads as follows:]
The decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home through compassionate release is the correct one, not only because I believe him to be innocent, but simply on humane grounds, writes Robert Black.
He is seriously ill and only has a matter of months to live. It would be wrong to keep him in prison. The most unfortunate aspect of the events of the last few days has been the decision by Megrahi to drop his appeal. It potentially leaves a hanging chad over the Scottish judicial system, with many questions about what really happened left to be answered.
Taking this forward, it is clear that the UK government will not countenance any public inquiry into what happened.
They have made it clear – most recently in The Scotsman, that they will block any independent inquiry.
The Scottish Government has suggested that it does not have sufficient powers to hold a worthwhile inquiry into Lockerbie.
However, I disagree with it on this.
I think that there is scope for a review of how well the judicial system performed and to look at whether any lessons need to be learned.
That certainly is within the scope of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
It could look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
All of them are within the powers of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.
This would not satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal.
There are alternatives. There is a chance that the European Union may hold an inquiry. Malta still has the stain of being the place from which the bomb was flown out and it may wish to try to get the EU to start an inquiry.
One of the questions which would have been answered in an appeal is whether the bomb did fly out from Malta.
Then there is the United Nations.
Certainly, the UK and United States would use their Security Council vetoes to stop an inquiry being initiated there, but they have no veto over the UN's General Assembly.
By coincidence, the state that is just about to chair the General Assembly is Libya. So there is a possibility of a UN inquiry.
On other aspects of this case, I think if there was any criticism over how this has been handled in the last few weeks, it is not that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill spoke to people including Megrahi, but that he could have been more confidential about it.
In the end, though, I do not believe that it will damage Scotland's relations with the US.
Much of the reason behind the interventions by politicians such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is, I believe, posturing for domestic political purposes and little more.
I understand that assurances have been given that Megrahi's return will be low key and that should alleviate any problems.
Kenny MacAskill will today announce that the Lockerbie bomber is to be released from prison and allowed to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds, The Scotsman understands.
The justice secretary has made his decision and will announce it to the world at a 1pm press conference.
Last night, preparations were under way for the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from Greenock jail – a decision that will infuriate American relatives of the Lockerbie victims and many United States politicians who are convinced the Libyan is guilty of the worst mass-murder in British legal history. (…)
There has been widespread speculation that Mr MacAskill would go down the route of granting the Libyan compassionate release.
Rumours that Megrahi was to be released intensified yesterday, after news that a police exercise involving motorcycle outriders and a vehicle with blacked-out windows had been undertaken on Tuesday night between Greenock and Prestwick airport.
The convoy was sighted simulating the necessary road and junction closures along the M77 from Glasgow; it was thought to be a rehearsal in preparation for taking Megrahi to catch a flight to Libya.
Mr MacAskill's likely decision means Megrahi could be on his way home as early as today – in time for Ramadan, which begins tomorrow.
The release of Megrahi will delight campaigners who have long believed in the Libyan's innocence. Politicians including Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP, and Christine Grahame, the South of Scotland SNP MSP, have been long-term campaigners for his freedom.
Those who doubt his guilt say the evidence presented at his trial before three Scottish judges in the Netherlands was not strong enough to convict him.
His release will also please Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
[The same newspaper has an opinion piece by me entitled "Dropping of bomber appeal leaves a black mark on our legal system". Having been prepared hurriedly over the telephone last night, it is not the most polished piece of prose that I have ever produced. It reads as follows:]
The decision to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home through compassionate release is the correct one, not only because I believe him to be innocent, but simply on humane grounds, writes Robert Black.
He is seriously ill and only has a matter of months to live. It would be wrong to keep him in prison. The most unfortunate aspect of the events of the last few days has been the decision by Megrahi to drop his appeal. It potentially leaves a hanging chad over the Scottish judicial system, with many questions about what really happened left to be answered.
Taking this forward, it is clear that the UK government will not countenance any public inquiry into what happened.
They have made it clear – most recently in The Scotsman, that they will block any independent inquiry.
The Scottish Government has suggested that it does not have sufficient powers to hold a worthwhile inquiry into Lockerbie.
However, I disagree with it on this.
I think that there is scope for a review of how well the judicial system performed and to look at whether any lessons need to be learned.
That certainly is within the scope of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
It could look at the Scottish criminal justice system and all its aspects: investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
All of them are within the powers of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.
This would not satisfy the relatives, whose primary concern is to know what happened, but to me and the people of Scotland, knowing how the criminal justice system works seems a very important goal.
There are alternatives. There is a chance that the European Union may hold an inquiry. Malta still has the stain of being the place from which the bomb was flown out and it may wish to try to get the EU to start an inquiry.
One of the questions which would have been answered in an appeal is whether the bomb did fly out from Malta.
Then there is the United Nations.
Certainly, the UK and United States would use their Security Council vetoes to stop an inquiry being initiated there, but they have no veto over the UN's General Assembly.
By coincidence, the state that is just about to chair the General Assembly is Libya. So there is a possibility of a UN inquiry.
On other aspects of this case, I think if there was any criticism over how this has been handled in the last few weeks, it is not that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill spoke to people including Megrahi, but that he could have been more confidential about it.
In the end, though, I do not believe that it will damage Scotland's relations with the US.
Much of the reason behind the interventions by politicians such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is, I believe, posturing for domestic political purposes and little more.
I understand that assurances have been given that Megrahi's return will be low key and that should alleviate any problems.
Megrahi release today to prevent 'martyrdom'
[This is the headline over the main Lockerbie report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released today on compassionate grounds but Libya has given an undertaking that there will be no "triumphalism".
The Herald understands that one compelling reason for allowing the Libyan to return to Tripoli is to avoid him dying as a "martyr" in prison and putting Scotland on the map for all the wrong reasons.
The public announcement will be made at 1pm by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as The Herald stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan government.
The Foreign Office yesterday advised the State Department of the decision.
Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.
There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi is expected to fly from Luton to collect Megrahi at lunchtime.
[The same newspaper has a further article by Lucy Adams headed "Scotland caught in the middle of an international drama" on the diplomatic manoeuvrings that got us where we are today; and a thoughtful and moving opinion piece by Anne Johnstone entitled "Ability to show compassion is a gift more precious to the giver".]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released today on compassionate grounds but Libya has given an undertaking that there will be no "triumphalism".
The Herald understands that one compelling reason for allowing the Libyan to return to Tripoli is to avoid him dying as a "martyr" in prison and putting Scotland on the map for all the wrong reasons.
The public announcement will be made at 1pm by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as The Herald stated last week.
Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan government.
The Foreign Office yesterday advised the State Department of the decision.
Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.
There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.
Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi is expected to fly from Luton to collect Megrahi at lunchtime.
[The same newspaper has a further article by Lucy Adams headed "Scotland caught in the middle of an international drama" on the diplomatic manoeuvrings that got us where we are today; and a thoughtful and moving opinion piece by Anne Johnstone entitled "Ability to show compassion is a gift more precious to the giver".]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)