[This is the heading over a letter in today's edition of The Herald by Iain McKie, committee member of Justice for Megrahi and father of Shirley McKie. It reads as follows:]
As we witness the American and British governments’ cynical attempts to shift the blame for Lockerbie on to the Scottish Government the critical question is: Will the SNP administration display courage, vision and leadership, stand up to this bullying and call their bluff? Will the Scottish Government offer them the inquiry they are all afraid of?
How can we blame other governments if the search for the truth about Lockerbie, a Scottish tragedy that occurred on Scottish soil which was investigated and prosecuted by Scottish authorities, is frustrated by our own government?
It is a legitimate question to ask – what right does a country have to self-determination if when given the opportunity to exercise that right it fails to do so?
Last week a public petition was submitted appealing to the Scottish Parliament to call on our government to launch an independent inquiry into this indelible stain on the Scottish justice system.
The petitioner’s hope is that people from home and abroad will add their voices to this call.
As Robert Burns so eloquently put it: “There’s nane ever fear’d that the truth should be heard but they whom the truth would indite.’”
The petition can be found at:
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417.
[Another letter in the same newspaper from Mrs Ann Yule contains the following:]
Just recently reading the biography of Edwin Morgan by James McGonigal - Beyond the Last Dragon - I discovered that when the poet was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, he was told by the consultant that he might survive for six months or six years, which demonstrates just how difficult it is to give an accurate timescale for cancer sufferers. As it was he survived for 11 years.
So let’s waste no more time on this and turn to the much more important aspect of the conviction of Megrahi on the unreliable evidence of one man, whose memory seemed to improve out of all proportion after being promised $2m by the CIA. Let’s focus our minds in the right direction.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Facebook group: Friends of Justice for Megrahi
A Facebook group Friends of Justice for Megrahi has been set up. It can be accessed here.
Aisha Gaddafi on Megrahi
[What follows is an excerpt from an interview with Colonel Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph.]
A lawyer by training, her father's regime is not the only contentious cause she has spoken up for over the years. In her youth, just like her Dad, she was a keen supporter of the IRA, and three years ago, she was on the legal team that defended that other controversial Arab leader, Saddam Hussein. (...)
She is similarly bullish about the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, whose release last year on health grounds has caused such furore in Britain. (...)
"We have always viewed him as a detainee, not a prisoner, as there is no evidence that he commited such a crime," she says, adding that he deserves compensation for being locked up unjustly. "But it is terrible that there are politicians who are demanding to know why he is still alive. They have forgotten that it is an act of God. Nobody dies before his time."
A lawyer by training, her father's regime is not the only contentious cause she has spoken up for over the years. In her youth, just like her Dad, she was a keen supporter of the IRA, and three years ago, she was on the legal team that defended that other controversial Arab leader, Saddam Hussein. (...)
She is similarly bullish about the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, whose release last year on health grounds has caused such furore in Britain. (...)
"We have always viewed him as a detainee, not a prisoner, as there is no evidence that he commited such a crime," she says, adding that he deserves compensation for being locked up unjustly. "But it is terrible that there are politicians who are demanding to know why he is still alive. They have forgotten that it is an act of God. Nobody dies before his time."
Maltese urged to sign Lockerbie petition
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads as follows:]
The organisers of a petition seeking to overturn a verdict against the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing have appealed to the Maltese to support a bid to prove his innocence and clear Malta’s link to the disaster.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to open an inde-pendent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the bombing of a Pan Am aircraft in December 1988.
The petition is steered by Justice For Megrahi (JFM), an organisation which includes a number of British victims’ relatives, and individuals like world-renowned philosopher Noam Chomsky and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Mr Al-Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal in order to return to Libya after he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009 means there is currently no means in Scotland by which the verdict may be re-examined.
JFM believes it could convince the authorities to re-examine what it calls one of the biggest miscarriages of justice to associate Libya with one of the worst terrorist attacks. The Pan Am 747 was bound for New York when it exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted after Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci claimed the Libyan had bought the clothes used to conceal the bomb.
The Libyan was then accused of managing to elude security at Luqa airport by loading the suitcase containing a bomb unaccom panied on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, whereupon it was transferred, again unaccom panied, to a further flight to London. At Heathrow, it was finally loaded on to the target aircraft.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, appealed to the Maltese to support the call for an independent inquiry.
“There are serious doubts about the verdict and there are very serious doubts on the evidence given by Tony Gauci, who we now know was rewarded for his testimony,” he told The Sunday Times.
Those who studied the evidence know the atrocity was not caused by some device which originated from Malta and there is clear evidence that Mr Al-Megrahi never bought the clothing from the (Sliema) shop, Dr Swire said.
JFM representative Robert Forrester insisted that in the hope that Mr Gauci could identify the purchaser of the clothing from his shop, investigators had repeatedly shown him spreads of pictures of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Mr Forrester said evidence which emerged later showed that Mr Gauci and his brother were given money through the US Rewards for Justice Programme arrangement.
“Mr Al-Megrahi’s case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal, on no fewer than six grounds, in part due to the testimony of Mr Gauci.”
Furthermore, there is also the issue of the respective security regimes at Luqa, Frankfurt and Heathrow. Before the trial, the regimes of all three airports were expertly assessed – with Luqa coming out on top.
In addition, 18 hours before the Pam Am aircraft’s departure, someone broke into Heathrow airside giving access to the area in the vicinity of the Pan Am shed.
This information was known to the UK authorities well in advance of the trial but was not made public until after the verdict was announced.
While the JFM campaign acts to see Mr Al-Megrahi’s name cleared of the crime, it is also committed to seeing both the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system and the good name of Malta restored, Mr Forrester said.
“Both Malta and Scotland are victims of what is tantamount to a criminal injustice by this verdict. This is an issue that goes beyond our obvious sympathy for Mr Al-Megrahi.
“The Maltese people won the George Cross for their extraordinary bravery during adversity of the Second World War, only to see their name tainted by what occurred at Camp Zeist – this is a gross and unconscionable insult.
“Ask yourself this. What would you do if you wanted to place a bomb on a plane departing from Heathrow? Place it, unaccompanied, on a flight leaving Malta for Frankfurt to eventually be transferred to London in the hope that it would evade the security at three airports, or would you opt for the more obvious and more likely to succeed choice of simply singling out Heathrow?
“The three judges, who were also the jury, clearly preferred the more fantastical solution.”
The petition (available on http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/list_petitions.asp) will run until October 28.
The organisers of a petition seeking to overturn a verdict against the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing have appealed to the Maltese to support a bid to prove his innocence and clear Malta’s link to the disaster.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to open an inde-pendent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the bombing of a Pan Am aircraft in December 1988.
The petition is steered by Justice For Megrahi (JFM), an organisation which includes a number of British victims’ relatives, and individuals like world-renowned philosopher Noam Chomsky and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Mr Al-Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal in order to return to Libya after he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009 means there is currently no means in Scotland by which the verdict may be re-examined.
JFM believes it could convince the authorities to re-examine what it calls one of the biggest miscarriages of justice to associate Libya with one of the worst terrorist attacks. The Pan Am 747 was bound for New York when it exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted after Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci claimed the Libyan had bought the clothes used to conceal the bomb.
The Libyan was then accused of managing to elude security at Luqa airport by loading the suitcase containing a bomb unaccom panied on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, whereupon it was transferred, again unaccom panied, to a further flight to London. At Heathrow, it was finally loaded on to the target aircraft.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, appealed to the Maltese to support the call for an independent inquiry.
“There are serious doubts about the verdict and there are very serious doubts on the evidence given by Tony Gauci, who we now know was rewarded for his testimony,” he told The Sunday Times.
Those who studied the evidence know the atrocity was not caused by some device which originated from Malta and there is clear evidence that Mr Al-Megrahi never bought the clothing from the (Sliema) shop, Dr Swire said.
JFM representative Robert Forrester insisted that in the hope that Mr Gauci could identify the purchaser of the clothing from his shop, investigators had repeatedly shown him spreads of pictures of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Mr Forrester said evidence which emerged later showed that Mr Gauci and his brother were given money through the US Rewards for Justice Programme arrangement.
“Mr Al-Megrahi’s case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal, on no fewer than six grounds, in part due to the testimony of Mr Gauci.”
Furthermore, there is also the issue of the respective security regimes at Luqa, Frankfurt and Heathrow. Before the trial, the regimes of all three airports were expertly assessed – with Luqa coming out on top.
In addition, 18 hours before the Pam Am aircraft’s departure, someone broke into Heathrow airside giving access to the area in the vicinity of the Pan Am shed.
This information was known to the UK authorities well in advance of the trial but was not made public until after the verdict was announced.
While the JFM campaign acts to see Mr Al-Megrahi’s name cleared of the crime, it is also committed to seeing both the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system and the good name of Malta restored, Mr Forrester said.
“Both Malta and Scotland are victims of what is tantamount to a criminal injustice by this verdict. This is an issue that goes beyond our obvious sympathy for Mr Al-Megrahi.
“The Maltese people won the George Cross for their extraordinary bravery during adversity of the Second World War, only to see their name tainted by what occurred at Camp Zeist – this is a gross and unconscionable insult.
“Ask yourself this. What would you do if you wanted to place a bomb on a plane departing from Heathrow? Place it, unaccompanied, on a flight leaving Malta for Frankfurt to eventually be transferred to London in the hope that it would evade the security at three airports, or would you opt for the more obvious and more likely to succeed choice of simply singling out Heathrow?
“The three judges, who were also the jury, clearly preferred the more fantastical solution.”
The petition (available on http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/list_petitions.asp) will run until October 28.
New PM, same old Tory
[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.
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.
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?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)