[The following are excerpts from a report published today by Agence France Presse.]
Libya agreed to compensate Lockerbie relatives to resolve a diplomatic row, not because Tripoli was behind the 1988 bombing, Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi has said in a television interview.
"This is a peaceful settlement to resolve the problems between us," Kadhafi told Australian television channel SBS's Dateline programme, to be aired on Sunday.
He said Tripoli had agreed to the settlement to abide by a court ruling that found Libya guilty of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people.
"We, at the end, accepted the judgement that was made, even though it is not a legal judgement but a political one," Kadhafi said in a transcript of the interview released by SBS ahead of the broadcast. (...)
Kadhafi denied Megrahi, who was controversially freed from his Scottish prison in August 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer and was given only months to live, was a Libyan agent.
"He is not an intelligence officer. He is a university professor," Kadhafi said.
The attack strained Libya's relations with the West, and in 1992 the UN imposed sanctions to force the handover of Megrahi and another suspect, who was acquitted by the court.
More than two years later, Libya took responsibility for the bombing in a letter to the UN Security Council, and signed a 2.7 billion-dollar deal to compensate families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.
Kadhafi said in the interview that "nobody accepts actions against civilian targets and downing planes."
He added Libya was blamed for the bombing because, "at the time, they'd blame everything on Libya" because it was leading an international liberation movement against the West.
[The only evidence at the Zeist trial that Megrahi was an intelligence agent came from the Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka. The court rejected Giaka's evidence on every other issue on the grounds that he was a fantasist and was actuated by mercenary motives. The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence regarding Megrahi's alleged position as a Libyan intelligence operative.]
Friday, 19 February 2010
A deep shadow
[This is the headline over my most recent column in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.
The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “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.”
So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.
The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”
If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.
Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?
Despite willingness expressed by both the Scottish and UK Governments to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie debacle, neither has initiated one, and each appear to expect the other to do so. Professor Robert Black QC says the complicated comedy of manners and faux fidelity hides the knowledge of both that the actings of their legal advisers are fatally compromised.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal because he thought it would maximise his chances of being allowed home to Libya to die (by keeping open the possibility of prisoner transfer). In fact, what Kenny MacAskill did was to release him on compassionate grounds, a procedure which, unlike prisoner transfer, does not require that there be no live legal proceedings. But Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that this was the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would jump.
The abandonment of the appeal did not signify that he now accepted the justness of his conviction. Far from it. In the statement released on his departure he said: “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.”
So the concerns about the conviction felt by many, including the SCCRC, remain. Until those concerns are officially addressed a deep shadow will hover over the Scottish criminal justice system, both domestically and internationally. It is blindingly obvious that the shadow can now best be removed by the establishment of an independent inquiry into the whole circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster.
The Scottish Government says that it favours an inquiry, but that it should be set up by the UK Government. The UK Government says that since all the legal proceedings relating to Lockerbie were under Scottish jurisdiction, any inquiry must be a matter for the Scottish Government. It is difficult to disagree with the following passage from an editorial in The Herald on 25 October 2009: “Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because 'that’s the way our system works', while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened 'by those with required powers'. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.”
If neither government is opposed to an inquiry, but only at odds about who should convene it, why has the problem not been resolved (as it was in relation to Stockline) by setting up a joint inquiry under section 32 of the Inquiries Act 2005? Could the answer be the legal advice that both governments are receiving?
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the Scottish Government, from whom would the Scottish Ministers seek advice on the legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal legal adviser, the Lord Advocate. If such an inquiry were to be set up, one of the issues at the forefront of its terms of reference would have to be the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the Lockerbie trial. Who is the head of the Scottish prosecution system? The Lord Advocate, of course.
If the possibility of holding a public inquiry were to be discussed within the UK Government, from whom would UK Ministers seek advice on the Scottish legal aspects of any such enterprise? From their principal Scottish legal adviser, the Advocate General for Scotland. Who was it who in the recent appeal fought valiantly and successfully to keep documents out of the hands of Megrahi’s legal team? The Advocate General for Scotland, of course.
Just the teensiest suspicion of a conflict of interest here, perhaps?
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Top pathologist supports Lockerbie bomber's release
[This is the headline over a report on the STV News website. It reads in part:]
The senior pathologist who supervised the examination of more than 250 victims of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken out in support of the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
This weekend marks six months since the Libyan was freed on compassionate grounds after he was judged by prison medics to have less than three months to live.
Now, in an exclusive interview with STV News, Professor Anthony Busuttil said he was "not remotely surprised" Megrahi has outlived the short prognosis that led to his release.
Professor Busuttil supervised the team of pathologists which examined the bodies of more than 250 victims at Lockerbie. He has vast medical experience, having investigated more than 900 murders during a long career.
Megrahi's release was criticised by many - particularly by relatives of the American victims.
However, Professor Busuttil, who witnessed the carnage at Lockerbie first hand, says it was the right thing to do - even though doctors could not say with absolute certainty how long Megrahi would live.
Megrahi started to undergo chemotherapy on his return to Libya and has not been seen in public since last September. Professor Busuttil says he has learned through contacts that the Lockerbie bomber is receiving the highest standards of care.
Professor Busuttil told STV News: " ... Some people get slightly better for a period before they get worse again, so it's part and parcel of how the disease affects the human body."
Asked if it was possible Megrahi would live for more than the three-month prognosis, he added: "I would have thought so. No clinician can tell you, look you've got six weeks and then after six weeks, you drop dead.
"I very much suspect that he is getting the best treatment that is available worldwide.
"He is going to die quite soon. It is appropriate to show compassion at that particular stage in life. I think it shows a strength of a country which is able to put away vengeance."
The senior pathologist who supervised the examination of more than 250 victims of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken out in support of the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
This weekend marks six months since the Libyan was freed on compassionate grounds after he was judged by prison medics to have less than three months to live.
Now, in an exclusive interview with STV News, Professor Anthony Busuttil said he was "not remotely surprised" Megrahi has outlived the short prognosis that led to his release.
Professor Busuttil supervised the team of pathologists which examined the bodies of more than 250 victims at Lockerbie. He has vast medical experience, having investigated more than 900 murders during a long career.
Megrahi's release was criticised by many - particularly by relatives of the American victims.
However, Professor Busuttil, who witnessed the carnage at Lockerbie first hand, says it was the right thing to do - even though doctors could not say with absolute certainty how long Megrahi would live.
Megrahi started to undergo chemotherapy on his return to Libya and has not been seen in public since last September. Professor Busuttil says he has learned through contacts that the Lockerbie bomber is receiving the highest standards of care.
Professor Busuttil told STV News: " ... Some people get slightly better for a period before they get worse again, so it's part and parcel of how the disease affects the human body."
Asked if it was possible Megrahi would live for more than the three-month prognosis, he added: "I would have thought so. No clinician can tell you, look you've got six weeks and then after six weeks, you drop dead.
"I very much suspect that he is getting the best treatment that is available worldwide.
"He is going to die quite soon. It is appropriate to show compassion at that particular stage in life. I think it shows a strength of a country which is able to put away vengeance."
Council rejects calls to release al-Megrahi medical records
[This is the headline over a report in The Times of 16 February. It reads in part:]
The council charged with monitoring the health of the Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has refused to publish details of his medical condition, angering families of his victims.
Al-Megrahi, East Renfrewshire Council has claimed, has a right to confidentiality and should be treated like any other former prisoner. (...)
Six months [after his release], opposition MSPs, have been calling for evidence that al-Megrahi is close to death, but East Renfrewshire Council said yesterday that monthly reports they receive from Libya about his health, used to update the Scottish government, were confidential — just as they would be for any other criminal they were supervising.
A council spokesman said: “They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other.”
He added that al-Megrahi had satisfied to date the conditions attached to his release, namely that he stays in regular contact — usually twice a month, but there is no specific timescale identified in his release licence — and does not leave Libya. The Times understands that al-Megrahi is staying at his home in Tripoli, where he is receiving palliative care.
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “It is almost bizarre to suggest that the biggest mass murderer in Scottish history should be just like any other client. He is not. The public have a right to know what is going on.”
The council charged with monitoring the health of the Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has refused to publish details of his medical condition, angering families of his victims.
Al-Megrahi, East Renfrewshire Council has claimed, has a right to confidentiality and should be treated like any other former prisoner. (...)
Six months [after his release], opposition MSPs, have been calling for evidence that al-Megrahi is close to death, but East Renfrewshire Council said yesterday that monthly reports they receive from Libya about his health, used to update the Scottish government, were confidential — just as they would be for any other criminal they were supervising.
A council spokesman said: “They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other.”
He added that al-Megrahi had satisfied to date the conditions attached to his release, namely that he stays in regular contact — usually twice a month, but there is no specific timescale identified in his release licence — and does not leave Libya. The Times understands that al-Megrahi is staying at his home in Tripoli, where he is receiving palliative care.
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “It is almost bizarre to suggest that the biggest mass murderer in Scottish history should be just like any other client. He is not. The public have a right to know what is going on.”
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Confound these witch-hunters
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Kevin McKenna in today's edition of The Observer. It reads in part:]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
Nelson Mandela's rôle in brokering the Lockerbie trial
[In the course of a long article marking the twentieth anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990, on the website of Côte d'Ivoire television station Luambona TV, the following passage appears:]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Saturday, 13 February 2010
UK Tory leader on Megrahi release
David Cameron has pledged to "repair the relationship" between the Scottish and UK governments if he is elected to become the next Prime Minister.
The Tory leader said he would work "tirelessly" for the whole of the UK and condemned Gordon Brown for taking a year to met Alex Salmond during one of the "worst economic crisis in our modern history".
Mr Cameron also criticised both governments for not co-operating during the Lockerbie bomber's release, describing it as "shameful".
Addressing party members at their Scottish conference in Perth on Friday afternoon Mr Cameron said that "would not happen on my watch". (...)
On the Lockerbie bomber's release, Mr Cameron said: "It’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate."
[From a report on the STV News website.
A commentary on this issue on the Hythlodaeus blog contains the following paragraph:]
"As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston)."
The Tory leader said he would work "tirelessly" for the whole of the UK and condemned Gordon Brown for taking a year to met Alex Salmond during one of the "worst economic crisis in our modern history".
Mr Cameron also criticised both governments for not co-operating during the Lockerbie bomber's release, describing it as "shameful".
Addressing party members at their Scottish conference in Perth on Friday afternoon Mr Cameron said that "would not happen on my watch". (...)
On the Lockerbie bomber's release, Mr Cameron said: "It’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate."
[From a report on the STV News website.
A commentary on this issue on the Hythlodaeus blog contains the following paragraph:]
"As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston)."
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Kenny MacAskill pressed to share reports on Megrahi's health
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Friday, 5 February 2010
Flaws in evidence at Lockerbie trial
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
Holyrood committee splits over handling of Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report posted earlier today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
FBI is sued for not releasing Megrahi files
This is the headline over an article -- tagged as exclusive -- in today's edition of The Herald. It relates to the legal action raised in the United States by Judicial Watch following its fruitless FOIA application for documents held by the FBI relating to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. This was the subject of a post on this blog as long ago as 22 January 2010.
Scottish Parliament’s verdict on Lockerbie bomber sacrifices justice for political point-scoring
[This is the headline over an article by Alan Cochrane in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Interview with Dr Swire
Monday, 1 February 2010
Documents on Lockerbie may never be seen
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Europe "lost" Lockerbie observer's trial reports
[This is the headline over a news report on the website on the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)