[This is the heading over a letter by Graeme H Bettison in today's edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
Lots of stupid things are said, especially at party conferences. My award goes to Prime Minister Cameron, quoted as saying that the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber was wrong and that “nothing like that must ever happen again”. How stupid is that?
For one, how many other Libyan nationals are in our prisons? Also, Mr Cameron is the one person who really could act on his own words. He could undo the prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya, but perhaps that was not something he had included in his election manifesto. [Note by RB: The UK Government could, of course, scrap the UK-Libya PTA. But that was not the mechanism whereby Mr Megrahi was released. The UK Government could not, under the current constitutional arrangements, scrap compassionate release. Justice and prisons are devolved to Holyrood.]
I wonder whether it might just be another of his hollow, stupid things to say – to side himself with those who found the Scottish Government’s decision difficult, if not impossible, to accept – and so use the tragedy as a party-political point-scorer.
I had, once, hoped that the mold of the last Tory era was something that should never happen again. The “generation game” conveyor belt of policies and on-the-hoof dancing around are more akin to Saturday night TV than proper government, and this makes me feel that it was a stupid thing for me to hope for.
After all, I am only a “thick” Scot.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Friday, 8 October 2010
Scottish Parliament e-Petition: Justice for Megrahi
This is the title of an e-Petition just submitted to the Scottish Parliament, calling on the Parliament "to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988." For reasons related to forthcoming changes in the Parliament's procedures, the petition is open for signature only until 28 October 2010. The full text of the petition can be viewed here. It can be signed on the same web page by anyone, anywhere in the world, who approves of its terms.
Related items on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here and here and here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage can be read here.
Related items on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here and here and here. Newsnet Scotland's coverage can be read here.
Cameron was wrong to throw himself into debate about release of Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Almost a throwaway line in the Prime Minister’s speech to conference was the allegation that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was “responsible” for the Lockerbie disaster (“MacAskill in the firing line over his decision to free Megrahi”, The Herald, October 7).
Maybe there are current issues so grave that attitudes to issues from the past have to be taken on the word of experienced English civil servants without question. Or perhaps the current degree of devolution, coupled to the independence of Scotland’s legal system, has sealed reality from his eyes and ears over Lockerbie.
Yet in 1989 the Conservative (Thatcher) Government handed the investigation and prosecution of the most outrageous of all terrorist attacks in the UK to Scotland. One might expect, therefore, with the current prominence of terror on the agenda, that he should carefully weigh up for himself the implications of the handling of the UK’s nearest equivalent to 9/11.
Mr Cameron relies upon the Lockerbie verdict. However, even a casual review of available material would reveal there are increasing reservations about that verdict.
Mr Cameron should be reminded that eventually the truth has a habit of coming out, and to rely on the verdict is to ignore the opinion of the UN’s observer at the trial, of an increasing number of lawyers, plus some of those bereaved by the tragedy, many people in Scotland and, last but not least, the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Accustomed as he is to berating the performance of his two predecessors in office, Mr Cameron might also reassess the undignified scramble by Jack Straw to overwhelm the Commons Committee on Human Rights, following Tony Blair’s “deal in the desert” in order to get the resulting prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Gaddafi’s regime ratified in time to be available for use in stopping an appeal by Megrahi, an appeal many believed would have overturned the verdict. Fortunately, Scotland turned its back on that shady business.
Mr Cameron is well brought up and expensively educated: he will know the parable of the man who built his house upon the sand. [Note by RB: Mr Cameron and Dr Swire are both old boys of the same school.] He should ponder on it now, before taking out a mortgage to build a house which may have no foundations. The SCCRC, and an increasing number of Scottish people, are not content to accept without further review, that Megrahi was guilty as charged. Scotland needs to build its house upon rock, not the shifting mists still surrounding this sad case. Mr Cameron may come to regret his throwaway line.
[The other letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
Almost a throwaway line in the Prime Minister’s speech to conference was the allegation that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was “responsible” for the Lockerbie disaster (“MacAskill in the firing line over his decision to free Megrahi”, The Herald, October 7).
Maybe there are current issues so grave that attitudes to issues from the past have to be taken on the word of experienced English civil servants without question. Or perhaps the current degree of devolution, coupled to the independence of Scotland’s legal system, has sealed reality from his eyes and ears over Lockerbie.
Yet in 1989 the Conservative (Thatcher) Government handed the investigation and prosecution of the most outrageous of all terrorist attacks in the UK to Scotland. One might expect, therefore, with the current prominence of terror on the agenda, that he should carefully weigh up for himself the implications of the handling of the UK’s nearest equivalent to 9/11.
Mr Cameron relies upon the Lockerbie verdict. However, even a casual review of available material would reveal there are increasing reservations about that verdict.
Mr Cameron should be reminded that eventually the truth has a habit of coming out, and to rely on the verdict is to ignore the opinion of the UN’s observer at the trial, of an increasing number of lawyers, plus some of those bereaved by the tragedy, many people in Scotland and, last but not least, the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Accustomed as he is to berating the performance of his two predecessors in office, Mr Cameron might also reassess the undignified scramble by Jack Straw to overwhelm the Commons Committee on Human Rights, following Tony Blair’s “deal in the desert” in order to get the resulting prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Gaddafi’s regime ratified in time to be available for use in stopping an appeal by Megrahi, an appeal many believed would have overturned the verdict. Fortunately, Scotland turned its back on that shady business.
Mr Cameron is well brought up and expensively educated: he will know the parable of the man who built his house upon the sand. [Note by RB: Mr Cameron and Dr Swire are both old boys of the same school.] He should ponder on it now, before taking out a mortgage to build a house which may have no foundations. The SCCRC, and an increasing number of Scottish people, are not content to accept without further review, that Megrahi was guilty as charged. Scotland needs to build its house upon rock, not the shifting mists still surrounding this sad case. Mr Cameron may come to regret his throwaway line.
[The other letters on the topic are also worth reading.]
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Doyen of Nationalist lawyers speaks out
"I don't think there's a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted. The Americans were out for vengeance. Anyone with a darker skin would do. With their barrowloads of money to buy witnesses, aided by our police and prosecution, they hoodwinked our courts."
[From an e-mail sent today by Ian Hamilton QC and quoted with his permission. Ian Hamilton is a veteran campaigner for Scottish independence. He was the recipient of a lifetime achievement award at the 2009 Law Awards of Scotland. Ian Hamilton blogs here.]
[From an e-mail sent today by Ian Hamilton QC and quoted with his permission. Ian Hamilton is a veteran campaigner for Scottish independence. He was the recipient of a lifetime achievement award at the 2009 Law Awards of Scotland. Ian Hamilton blogs here.]
The Lockerbie Trial - Dr Jim Swire questions the guilty verdict
[This is the heading over an article by Dr Swire published today on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads in part:]
When I first entered the Zeist court to attend the trial of Abdelbaset al Megrahi and [Al-Amin] Khalifa Fahima, I presumed that they must be guilty and that the evidence led in court would support this. Instead as the prosecution case unfolded I came to a firm conclusion that the case against them was not coherent and that much of the prosecution evidence was tainted.
Since then new evidence has again suggested gross interference with witnesses. In addition, Mr Megrahi's second appeal, before it was withdrawn, had already revealed a failure by the Crown Office, aided by the Whitehall government Advocate General and even a PII certificate from the Foreign Secretary, to share information with the defence. Such behaviour is not in line with established practice in Scottish criminal law.
Unfortunately this behaviour is in line with the criticisms made on this very issue by Prof Hans Koechler, UN Observer at the Zeist trial. However it was the court hearings at Zeist which originally convinced me (and many other observers, including a number of highly qualified lawyers) that this verdict should never have been reached at Zeist.
Much that has come to light about the case since then has reinforced that position. (...)
Prior to the trial I had campaigned as strongly as I could, for trial under Scots law, believing it to be amongst the fairest available and fearing that any trial under US law would lead to summary conviction and the death sentence. I remain at a loss as to why their Lordships failed to see the weaknesses of the prosecution’s case. As usual it is easy to criticise them in retrospect, but this seems to me an unfair and unproductive exercise. Let us just mark their CVs with the phrase ‘could have done better’.
I believe we cannot leave it there: to do so would be grossly unfair to Mr Megrahi and his family, and an intolerable burden on the memory of those who died. Mr Megrahi himself now seems to wrestle with guilt feelings over having withdrawn his appeal.
Beyond that however I also believe that the outcome has severely damaged the previous good reputation of our judicial system in Scotland. That I think should concern us all, for our citizens need to be able to believe that their judicial system will act independently of political or any other improper external pressure. Indeed justice should be, and be seen to be a faithful bulwark for the citizen even against his own government should he feel unfairly treated by it.
I believe the fall-out from this dreadful case has demolished many thinking Scottish people’s confidence in the objectivity of their justice system, and that only an independent review of this case and the evidence for and against the verdict can restore that.
The Fatal Accident Inquiry, the investigation and the trial and first appeal were all of Scottish provenance, so were the findings of the SCCRC. Before we can answer the questions raised by the FAI findings concerning Whitehall, and in the absence of Mr Megrahi's appeal, we need the Government of Scotland to find a way to re-examine what has been done in her name in this case. Without that, confidence in our judicial system cannot be restored.
When I first entered the Zeist court to attend the trial of Abdelbaset al Megrahi and [Al-Amin] Khalifa Fahima, I presumed that they must be guilty and that the evidence led in court would support this. Instead as the prosecution case unfolded I came to a firm conclusion that the case against them was not coherent and that much of the prosecution evidence was tainted.
Since then new evidence has again suggested gross interference with witnesses. In addition, Mr Megrahi's second appeal, before it was withdrawn, had already revealed a failure by the Crown Office, aided by the Whitehall government Advocate General and even a PII certificate from the Foreign Secretary, to share information with the defence. Such behaviour is not in line with established practice in Scottish criminal law.
Unfortunately this behaviour is in line with the criticisms made on this very issue by Prof Hans Koechler, UN Observer at the Zeist trial. However it was the court hearings at Zeist which originally convinced me (and many other observers, including a number of highly qualified lawyers) that this verdict should never have been reached at Zeist.
Much that has come to light about the case since then has reinforced that position. (...)
Prior to the trial I had campaigned as strongly as I could, for trial under Scots law, believing it to be amongst the fairest available and fearing that any trial under US law would lead to summary conviction and the death sentence. I remain at a loss as to why their Lordships failed to see the weaknesses of the prosecution’s case. As usual it is easy to criticise them in retrospect, but this seems to me an unfair and unproductive exercise. Let us just mark their CVs with the phrase ‘could have done better’.
I believe we cannot leave it there: to do so would be grossly unfair to Mr Megrahi and his family, and an intolerable burden on the memory of those who died. Mr Megrahi himself now seems to wrestle with guilt feelings over having withdrawn his appeal.
Beyond that however I also believe that the outcome has severely damaged the previous good reputation of our judicial system in Scotland. That I think should concern us all, for our citizens need to be able to believe that their judicial system will act independently of political or any other improper external pressure. Indeed justice should be, and be seen to be a faithful bulwark for the citizen even against his own government should he feel unfairly treated by it.
I believe the fall-out from this dreadful case has demolished many thinking Scottish people’s confidence in the objectivity of their justice system, and that only an independent review of this case and the evidence for and against the verdict can restore that.
The Fatal Accident Inquiry, the investigation and the trial and first appeal were all of Scottish provenance, so were the findings of the SCCRC. Before we can answer the questions raised by the FAI findings concerning Whitehall, and in the absence of Mr Megrahi's appeal, we need the Government of Scotland to find a way to re-examine what has been done in her name in this case. Without that, confidence in our judicial system cannot be restored.
Lord Advocate condemned as ‘disastrous’
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times. It picks up on the piece in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, which had itself picked up some comments that I made in a blog post and a comment. The article in The Times reads in part:]
The appointment of Elish Angiolini as Scotland’s Lord Advocate was “a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated”, according to one of the country’s leading QCs.
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh, condemned Ms Angiolini — who announced her resignation last week — as “a Crown Office staffer” and said there had been too close a link between the Lord Advocate and government. [Note by RB: Nowhere among my criticisms of Mrs Angiolini's appointment as a law officer is there any hint of her having "too close a link" with the government.]
The criticism from such a senior legal figure is the first open expression of a wider discontent within some sections of the legal establishment, which has simmered since the appointment four years ago of Ms Angiolini, the former Solicitor General and a former head of policy at the Crown Office.
“She had never in her working life spent a day outside the Crown Office, when the whole point of a Lord Advocate is that he or she is not a Crown Office creature,” Professor Black said.
“That’s why she was the wrong appointment: not because she was a solicitor, not because she was a woman — she would have been [an] ideal Crown Agent [the civil service head of the Crown Office], but she was entirely the wrong person be Lord Advocate.”
He added: “It is to be hoped that it will be recognised that the appointment of a Crown Office staffer as Lord Advocate was a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated.”
The criticisms come a week [before] the conclusion of a key case involving the Scottish Government in the UK Supreme Court, a ruling on Cadder versus Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland). [Note by RB: The Supreme Court's Deputy Head of Communications has kindly informed me that the decision in Cadder is to be handed down on 26 October.]
The case involves the conviction of Peter Cadder for two assaults and a breach of the peace. He argues that his trial was unfair because, in Scots law, police can detain a person for six hours without granting access to a lawyer, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is widely expected that the bench of seven law lords will find in Cadder’s favour, to the huge embarrassment of the Crown Office. There is speculation that Ms Angiolini could be criticised in the judgment.
The appointment of Elish Angiolini as Scotland’s Lord Advocate was “a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated”, according to one of the country’s leading QCs.
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh, condemned Ms Angiolini — who announced her resignation last week — as “a Crown Office staffer” and said there had been too close a link between the Lord Advocate and government. [Note by RB: Nowhere among my criticisms of Mrs Angiolini's appointment as a law officer is there any hint of her having "too close a link" with the government.]
The criticism from such a senior legal figure is the first open expression of a wider discontent within some sections of the legal establishment, which has simmered since the appointment four years ago of Ms Angiolini, the former Solicitor General and a former head of policy at the Crown Office.
“She had never in her working life spent a day outside the Crown Office, when the whole point of a Lord Advocate is that he or she is not a Crown Office creature,” Professor Black said.
“That’s why she was the wrong appointment: not because she was a solicitor, not because she was a woman — she would have been [an] ideal Crown Agent [the civil service head of the Crown Office], but she was entirely the wrong person be Lord Advocate.”
He added: “It is to be hoped that it will be recognised that the appointment of a Crown Office staffer as Lord Advocate was a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated.”
The criticisms come a week [before] the conclusion of a key case involving the Scottish Government in the UK Supreme Court, a ruling on Cadder versus Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland). [Note by RB: The Supreme Court's Deputy Head of Communications has kindly informed me that the decision in Cadder is to be handed down on 26 October.]
The case involves the conviction of Peter Cadder for two assaults and a breach of the peace. He argues that his trial was unfair because, in Scots law, police can detain a person for six hours without granting access to a lawyer, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is widely expected that the bench of seven law lords will find in Cadder’s favour, to the huge embarrassment of the Crown Office. There is speculation that Ms Angiolini could be criticised in the judgment.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
David Cameron on Megrahi release
But Britain's reputation is not just about might. It's about doing what is right. When this country has got it wrong, we'll admit it, as I did when I apologised for Bloody Sunday.
When there's a cloud hanging over our reputation, we'll address it, as we have done by setting up an inquiry into whether this country was complicit in the mistreatment of detainees.
We will always pursue British interests, but there are some red lines we must never cross.
Like the sight of the man responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, the biggest mass murderer in British history, set free to get a hero's welcome in Tripoli. No. It was wrong, it undermined our standing in the world, and nothing like that must ever happen again.
[The foregoing is an excerpt from the Prime Minister's keynote speech today to the Conservative Party conference at Birmingham.
It would be interesting to discover just how, under the system of devolution that operates in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister envisages the UK Government being able lawfully to prevent something like the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi -- a prisoner convicted by a Scottish court, serving his sentence in a Scottish prison -- ever happening again.
The following is an excerpt from The Herald's report of this section of the Cameron speech:]
Tory HQ officials made clear last night that the PM was simply expressing an opinion about Mr MacAskill’s decision and not suggesting an attempt to change the devolution settlement so judicial powers should be transferred back to London.
However, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “David Cameron appears not to understand the reality of Scottish self-government, which shows more Tory disrespect for Scotland.
“Regardless of people’s opinion, the decision was Scotland’s to take on the basis of the due process of Scots law, which was done to the letter.”
[Newsnet Scotland's coverage of this aspect of the speech contains a long comment from Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester.]
When there's a cloud hanging over our reputation, we'll address it, as we have done by setting up an inquiry into whether this country was complicit in the mistreatment of detainees.
We will always pursue British interests, but there are some red lines we must never cross.
Like the sight of the man responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, the biggest mass murderer in British history, set free to get a hero's welcome in Tripoli. No. It was wrong, it undermined our standing in the world, and nothing like that must ever happen again.
[The foregoing is an excerpt from the Prime Minister's keynote speech today to the Conservative Party conference at Birmingham.
It would be interesting to discover just how, under the system of devolution that operates in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister envisages the UK Government being able lawfully to prevent something like the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi -- a prisoner convicted by a Scottish court, serving his sentence in a Scottish prison -- ever happening again.
The following is an excerpt from The Herald's report of this section of the Cameron speech:]
Tory HQ officials made clear last night that the PM was simply expressing an opinion about Mr MacAskill’s decision and not suggesting an attempt to change the devolution settlement so judicial powers should be transferred back to London.
However, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “David Cameron appears not to understand the reality of Scottish self-government, which shows more Tory disrespect for Scotland.
“Regardless of people’s opinion, the decision was Scotland’s to take on the basis of the due process of Scots law, which was done to the letter.”
[Newsnet Scotland's coverage of this aspect of the speech contains a long comment from Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester.]
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Of grasshoppers and skyscrapers
This is the heading over a thoughtful essay posted today by Caustic Logic on his blog The Lockerbie Divide. The essay is subtitled "Some thoughts on truth, belief, and stakes" and poses the question why the official explanation of Lockerbie is still so readily accepted (by relatives and by the mainstream media, among others) notwithstanding the exposure of the problems with that version (on The Lockerbie Divide, The Lockerbie Case, the Lockerbie thread of the JREF forum and elsewhere).
Monday, 4 October 2010
Calls for release of Megrahi records ignore Data Protection Act
[This is the heading over a letter from Mrs Jo Greenhorn in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Given calls by Labour’s Richard Baker for the release of the medical records of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, I believe he, and his party, have questions to answer ahead of the Scottish elections next year (“Row sparks new Megrahi records call”, The Herald, October 1).
Can we assume that the Labour Party disapproves of Data Protection laws?
This is what Mr Baker implies every time he calls for the full publication of a particular person’s medical records. These laws either cover all of us or none.
Such laws exist to ensure no medical professional, or indeed, politician, can breach the rights of any patient.
So, are medical records covered by Data Protection law? Yes or no? If yes, Mr Baker should fall silent on the matter. If no, Labour needs to clarify its policy.
The authority to make such a change does not exist at Holyrood. It would need to be made from Westminster.
Were this not the case the Scottish Government could have authorised, for example, the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report on Megrahi’s case some time ago.
Labour in government in London prevented this by using Data Protection laws to withhold vital evidence for Megrahi’s appeal. I would admire Mr Baker more if the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt provoked equally strenuous demands from him for clearing the route to that very thing happening.
The SCCRC stated in 2007 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. That statement is not hidden by Data Protection laws.
Mr Baker and his party do not seem interested in the serious doubts about Megrahi’s conviction. That they choose instead to back a foreign government that paid some $2 million (£1.26m) to the star witness at that trial.
That same government in Washington breaches international protocol by attempting to interfere in Scottish affairs.
Given calls by Labour’s Richard Baker for the release of the medical records of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, I believe he, and his party, have questions to answer ahead of the Scottish elections next year (“Row sparks new Megrahi records call”, The Herald, October 1).
Can we assume that the Labour Party disapproves of Data Protection laws?
This is what Mr Baker implies every time he calls for the full publication of a particular person’s medical records. These laws either cover all of us or none.
Such laws exist to ensure no medical professional, or indeed, politician, can breach the rights of any patient.
So, are medical records covered by Data Protection law? Yes or no? If yes, Mr Baker should fall silent on the matter. If no, Labour needs to clarify its policy.
The authority to make such a change does not exist at Holyrood. It would need to be made from Westminster.
Were this not the case the Scottish Government could have authorised, for example, the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report on Megrahi’s case some time ago.
Labour in government in London prevented this by using Data Protection laws to withhold vital evidence for Megrahi’s appeal. I would admire Mr Baker more if the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt provoked equally strenuous demands from him for clearing the route to that very thing happening.
The SCCRC stated in 2007 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. That statement is not hidden by Data Protection laws.
Mr Baker and his party do not seem interested in the serious doubts about Megrahi’s conviction. That they choose instead to back a foreign government that paid some $2 million (£1.26m) to the star witness at that trial.
That same government in Washington breaches international protocol by attempting to interfere in Scottish affairs.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Retour sur l'affaire Lockerbie
Gideon Levy's award-winning documentary Lockerbie Revisited is being broadcast tonight at 20.30 (19.30 BST) by the Swiss channel TV8.
No UK or US television station has yet had the courage to show the film, in spite of its being the 2009 winner of the Prix Europa “Best Television Current Affairs Programme of the Year” award. However, there will be an opportunity to see it at a fringe event hosted by Christine Grahame MSP during the SNP conference in Perth. It is being shown on Friday 15th October 2010, in the Murray Room, at the Salutation Hotel, Perth at 6.00pm.
No UK or US television station has yet had the courage to show the film, in spite of its being the 2009 winner of the Prix Europa “Best Television Current Affairs Programme of the Year” award. However, there will be an opportunity to see it at a fringe event hosted by Christine Grahame MSP during the SNP conference in Perth. It is being shown on Friday 15th October 2010, in the Murray Room, at the Salutation Hotel, Perth at 6.00pm.
Friday, 1 October 2010
Lord Advocate to step down
The Lord Advocate, Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC has today announced that she will be stepping down from office at the next Scottish election.
The Lord Advocate said that it had been an enormous privilege to serve the people of Scotland both as a prosecutor for 27 years and as a Law Officer, to two different Governments, over the last decade.
She wished to recognise the skill and dedication of all those who work in, and support, the justice system in Scotland. In particular, she thanked the team of Crown Counsel and staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; and all staff in the Scottish Government legal service. (...)
First Minister Alex Salmond said:
"By next year Elish Angiolini will have completed an unprecedented 10 years as a Law Officer, including five years as Lord Advocate. In doing so, she was the first woman to hold the post and the first to be appointed by successive administrations. It has been a pleasure to work with her since 2007, and her term as Lord Advocate has been marked by significant improvements and substantial success in the disposal of justice in Scotland.
"Among her many achievements are reform of the courts system, and a much-needed new approach to tackling sexual crime. Under her leadership, recorded crime has dropped to a 32-year low in Scotland, and citizens fear crime significantly less than they did when she took office.
"She will be a substantial loss to government after next year, but her positive legacy will be long and lasting. I wish her well in her future career."
[From a press release issued this morning by the Scottish Government.
Is it too much to hope for that Mrs Angiolini's successor -- who, it is devoutly to be wished, will not be another Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service civil servant -- will have a more open mind about Lockerbie, about the damage and loss of public esteem that the Scottish criminal justice system has suffered because of it and about the best way to rectify this?]
The Lord Advocate said that it had been an enormous privilege to serve the people of Scotland both as a prosecutor for 27 years and as a Law Officer, to two different Governments, over the last decade.
She wished to recognise the skill and dedication of all those who work in, and support, the justice system in Scotland. In particular, she thanked the team of Crown Counsel and staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; and all staff in the Scottish Government legal service. (...)
First Minister Alex Salmond said:
"By next year Elish Angiolini will have completed an unprecedented 10 years as a Law Officer, including five years as Lord Advocate. In doing so, she was the first woman to hold the post and the first to be appointed by successive administrations. It has been a pleasure to work with her since 2007, and her term as Lord Advocate has been marked by significant improvements and substantial success in the disposal of justice in Scotland.
"Among her many achievements are reform of the courts system, and a much-needed new approach to tackling sexual crime. Under her leadership, recorded crime has dropped to a 32-year low in Scotland, and citizens fear crime significantly less than they did when she took office.
"She will be a substantial loss to government after next year, but her positive legacy will be long and lasting. I wish her well in her future career."
[From a press release issued this morning by the Scottish Government.
Is it too much to hope for that Mrs Angiolini's successor -- who, it is devoutly to be wished, will not be another Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service civil servant -- will have a more open mind about Lockerbie, about the damage and loss of public esteem that the Scottish criminal justice system has suffered because of it and about the best way to rectify this?]
Rewards and bribery
This is the heading over a post published today on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It reproduces the text of a long contribution by our own blog treasure, Rolfe, on the JREF forum's Lockerbie thread. In it Rolfe outlines the evidence regarding the role that money played in the Pan Am 103 investigators' dealings with witnesses in Malta, including Tony Gauci. It can be read here.
Row sparks new Megrahi records call
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had published “everything we can, except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations, and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary’s decisions to reject the prisoner transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone – and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had published “everything we can, except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations, and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary’s decisions to reject the prisoner transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone – and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
[Various organs of the media have reported the Scottish Government's reaction to Wednesday's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The full statement issued by the Scottish Government to the media is as follows:]
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Doubts remain over Megrahi’s guilt because of payments made to ‘star’ witnesses
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)