[What follows is an excerpt from a long interview in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times with the recently appointed Libyan ambassador, Dr Saadun Suayeh:]
The single biggest issue, apart from immigration, that has seen the fate of Malta and Libya intertwine is Lockerbie.
The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie killed 270 people. It was a brutal terrorist attack that shocked the world and one that saw Malta implicated as the point of departure of the bomb, which eventually destroyed the aircraft.
The blame was pinned down to two Libyan secret service agents, who at the time worked in Malta. Only one of them, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was found guilty at a high-profile trial conducted under Scottish laws in Camp Zeist, the Netherlands.
Mr Al-Megrahi was condemned to life imprisonment. However, he was released on compassionate grounds last year amid serious doubts that he may have been wrongly convicted.
Malta has long denied any involvement in the Lockerbie case, insisting that the luggage containing the bomb could have never left the island unaccompanied.
Only last week campaigners, who believe that Mr Al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, presented a petition to the Scottish Parliament (...) asking for an independent inquiry into the Camp Zeist conclusions.
The search for the truth continues 22 years after the attack but how does Libya feel today about the affair?
Dr Suayeh talks little about the Lockerbie saga. He considers it “a closed chapter” and an issue Libya wants to put behind it.
“We have dealt with Lockerbie very responsibly and transparently and we left it up to the Scottish authorities to decide on Mr Al-Megrahi’s release. We would like to leave it at that,” he says.
As for the campaigners who still seek the truth about what happened on that fateful December night, Dr Suayeh says they are entitled to take what action they deem fit.
In 2003, two years after Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction, Libya formally accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials and agreed to pay billions in compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims. It was perceived as an admission of guilt but many felt the underlying motive was Mr Gaddafi’s pragmatic attempt to normalise international relations. Libya has since maintained its innocence.
“We always felt that Libya was wronged by the Lockerbie affair. We always wanted to be law abiding, and all that we hope for now, with this chapter behind us, is to foster better relations with everybody, hoping that truth prevails,” Dr Suayeh says.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Nationals of 33 countries sign Justice for Megrahi petition
[The following are excerpts from an article by Kurt Sansone in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times.]
More than 100 Maltese nationals have signed a petition calling on the Scottish government to open an independent inquiry into the only Lockerbie bombing conviction to date.
The petition, signed by nationals from 33 countries, was filed with the Scottish parliament last Tuesday and is piloted by the pressure group Justice for Megrahi. (...) [RB: The petition is still open for signature until 1 November, but the Scottish Parliament's e-petitions website has been out of operation since Thursday, 28 October, this on top of a five-day outage the previous week.]
The online petition attracted 1,649 signatories, a record for any petition ever filed with parliament’s petitions committee, according to Jim Swire, a founder of Justice for Megrahi and the father of Flora, a victim of the worst terrorist act on British soil. (...)
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Dr Swire told The Sunday Times the ball is in the petitions committee’s court, adding that campaigners will probably be summoned by Scottish MPs to explain the contents of the petition.
“We believe our cause will find some ears but I can’t say how Scottish MPs will react,” Dr Swire said when asked whether he was hopeful the petition would move forward.
However, he pointed out that with the Scottish election in May [2011] the governing Scottish National Party may be willing “to be seen to do something”.
Campaigners, he added, were comforted by the decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 that the Libyan “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice”. (...)
Investigators had concluded the suitcase containing the bomb that exploded over Scotland was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage on an Air Malta flight to Germany before making its way to London.
Malta has always denied any link with the case.
The luggage was traced back to Mr Al-Megrahi and another Libyan man who at the time were Libyan secret service agents working with Libyan Arab airlines in Malta.
The crucial evidence to convict Mr Al-Megrahi was provided by a Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, from Sliema, who identified him as the person who bought the clothes that were found in the luggage.
However, serious doubts have been shed on the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper.
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for cooperating. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial.
In presenting the petition, the campaigners said the “perverse judgement not only resulted in the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi, but maligned Germany, Libya, Malta and the UK.”
It also quotes Foreign Minister Tonio Borg as saying: “We have no proof that these two Libyan suspects were involved in anything illegal in Malta regarding this case, particularly the placing of this bomb on Air Malta Flight 180.”
More than 100 Maltese nationals have signed a petition calling on the Scottish government to open an independent inquiry into the only Lockerbie bombing conviction to date.
The petition, signed by nationals from 33 countries, was filed with the Scottish parliament last Tuesday and is piloted by the pressure group Justice for Megrahi. (...) [RB: The petition is still open for signature until 1 November, but the Scottish Parliament's e-petitions website has been out of operation since Thursday, 28 October, this on top of a five-day outage the previous week.]
The online petition attracted 1,649 signatories, a record for any petition ever filed with parliament’s petitions committee, according to Jim Swire, a founder of Justice for Megrahi and the father of Flora, a victim of the worst terrorist act on British soil. (...)
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Dr Swire told The Sunday Times the ball is in the petitions committee’s court, adding that campaigners will probably be summoned by Scottish MPs to explain the contents of the petition.
“We believe our cause will find some ears but I can’t say how Scottish MPs will react,” Dr Swire said when asked whether he was hopeful the petition would move forward.
However, he pointed out that with the Scottish election in May [2011] the governing Scottish National Party may be willing “to be seen to do something”.
Campaigners, he added, were comforted by the decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 that the Libyan “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice”. (...)
Investigators had concluded the suitcase containing the bomb that exploded over Scotland was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage on an Air Malta flight to Germany before making its way to London.
Malta has always denied any link with the case.
The luggage was traced back to Mr Al-Megrahi and another Libyan man who at the time were Libyan secret service agents working with Libyan Arab airlines in Malta.
The crucial evidence to convict Mr Al-Megrahi was provided by a Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, from Sliema, who identified him as the person who bought the clothes that were found in the luggage.
However, serious doubts have been shed on the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper.
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for cooperating. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial.
In presenting the petition, the campaigners said the “perverse judgement not only resulted in the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi, but maligned Germany, Libya, Malta and the UK.”
It also quotes Foreign Minister Tonio Borg as saying: “We have no proof that these two Libyan suspects were involved in anything illegal in Malta regarding this case, particularly the placing of this bomb on Air Malta Flight 180.”
Al-Megrahi 'pressured to abandon appeal'
[This is the headline over an article by Marcello Mega in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was forced to abandon his appeal to secure compassionate release on the grounds of his terminal cancer, a justice department whistleblower claims.
Three senior sources close to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who has now exceeded the three months he was expected to live by more than ten months, have confirmed the whistleblower's version of events.
Megrahi suddenly dropped his appeal against conviction shortly after the Scottish Government announced he was to be released to return to Libya on compassionate grounds.
It was claimed at the time that the government had made the dropping of the appeal a condition of his release, in order to spare any damage to the reputation the Scottish justice system. The government has always denied the allegations.
The whistleblower's information appeared in an e-mail received last year by the Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame, who met Megrahi after viewing a documentary that convinced her of his innocence. She continues to lobby for justice for him. (...)
The e-mail reads: "The minister seemed set to do the decent thing, allow a dying man to go home and the appeal to continue. However the department has strongly intimated to the Libyans that if Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release he must first drop his appeal. This was the (sic) rammed home to the Libyans at their meeting with the minister yesterday.
"Megrahi is desperate and will do anything to get home, including dropping his appeal, as his prisoner transfer request demonstrates. The department knows it, as does the minister."
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, and the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred his case back to appeal.
The SCCRC found there were six grounds for believing that Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice. (...)
It seemed inexplicable that he would abandon his appeal, but sources close to Megrahi have now revealed the chain of events and have confirmed that he was given no choice.
One Libyan source confirmed the meeting mentioned in the e-mail took place.
He said: "Three senior Libyans, including the Minister for Europe Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, met with Mr MacAskill and it was made clear that things would be resolved speedily if he dropped his appeal.
"They left Edinburgh and went direct to Greenock to visit Baset and they told him he had no choice. In fact they gave him no choice. They told him the appeal would be dropped, but that he would soon be home.
"He was not happy about the appeal. Even after he dies, he does not want his offspring to be labelled the children of the Lockerbie bomber."
Two other sources who have maintained close contact with Megrahi since his return to Libya and have been told the story directly by him confirmed the chain of events.
One said: "A few months earlier he'd have fought tooth and nail not to abandon his appeal. But he really did feel so ill he was sure he must die soon and the desire to get home and die with his family round him overtook everything else."
Grahame said: "I suspected inappropriate pressure had been placed on Megrahi and these latest revelations appear to confirm that. This makes the case for a full and thorough public inquiry even more pressing."
A Scottish Government Spokesperson said: "We have absolutely no knowledge of any such e-mail. The Scottish Government had no conceivable interest in the appeal being dropped."
[The Sunday Herald runs a story headlined Government admits Megrahi always had 50/50 chance of living past three months. It makes the earth-shattering disclosure that "a key Government official has now revealed Megrahi stood a 50% chance of living longer than three months. George Burgess, the Government’s former deputy director of criminal law and licensing, who advised MacAskill, said the three-month figure was a 'median survival time', rather than the upper limit of Megrahi’s life expectancy. Median survival time is defined as the time at which half the patients with a disease are expected to be alive and half expected to be dead."
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was forced to abandon his appeal to secure compassionate release on the grounds of his terminal cancer, a justice department whistleblower claims.
Three senior sources close to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who has now exceeded the three months he was expected to live by more than ten months, have confirmed the whistleblower's version of events.
Megrahi suddenly dropped his appeal against conviction shortly after the Scottish Government announced he was to be released to return to Libya on compassionate grounds.
It was claimed at the time that the government had made the dropping of the appeal a condition of his release, in order to spare any damage to the reputation the Scottish justice system. The government has always denied the allegations.
The whistleblower's information appeared in an e-mail received last year by the Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame, who met Megrahi after viewing a documentary that convinced her of his innocence. She continues to lobby for justice for him. (...)
The e-mail reads: "The minister seemed set to do the decent thing, allow a dying man to go home and the appeal to continue. However the department has strongly intimated to the Libyans that if Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release he must first drop his appeal. This was the (sic) rammed home to the Libyans at their meeting with the minister yesterday.
"Megrahi is desperate and will do anything to get home, including dropping his appeal, as his prisoner transfer request demonstrates. The department knows it, as does the minister."
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, and the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred his case back to appeal.
The SCCRC found there were six grounds for believing that Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice. (...)
It seemed inexplicable that he would abandon his appeal, but sources close to Megrahi have now revealed the chain of events and have confirmed that he was given no choice.
One Libyan source confirmed the meeting mentioned in the e-mail took place.
He said: "Three senior Libyans, including the Minister for Europe Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, met with Mr MacAskill and it was made clear that things would be resolved speedily if he dropped his appeal.
"They left Edinburgh and went direct to Greenock to visit Baset and they told him he had no choice. In fact they gave him no choice. They told him the appeal would be dropped, but that he would soon be home.
"He was not happy about the appeal. Even after he dies, he does not want his offspring to be labelled the children of the Lockerbie bomber."
Two other sources who have maintained close contact with Megrahi since his return to Libya and have been told the story directly by him confirmed the chain of events.
One said: "A few months earlier he'd have fought tooth and nail not to abandon his appeal. But he really did feel so ill he was sure he must die soon and the desire to get home and die with his family round him overtook everything else."
Grahame said: "I suspected inappropriate pressure had been placed on Megrahi and these latest revelations appear to confirm that. This makes the case for a full and thorough public inquiry even more pressing."
A Scottish Government Spokesperson said: "We have absolutely no knowledge of any such e-mail. The Scottish Government had no conceivable interest in the appeal being dropped."
[The Sunday Herald runs a story headlined Government admits Megrahi always had 50/50 chance of living past three months. It makes the earth-shattering disclosure that "a key Government official has now revealed Megrahi stood a 50% chance of living longer than three months. George Burgess, the Government’s former deputy director of criminal law and licensing, who advised MacAskill, said the three-month figure was a 'median survival time', rather than the upper limit of Megrahi’s life expectancy. Median survival time is defined as the time at which half the patients with a disease are expected to be alive and half expected to be dead."
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Dropping appeal against the conviction of Megrahi does not make the doubts go away
[This is the heading over a letter from Morag Kerr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse (“Cardinal backs call for independent inquiry into conviction of Megrahi”, The Herald October 27). Prominent among the critics was Dr Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who described the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner” .
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice. The dropping of the appeal by Megrahi does not make these doubts go away; nor does it transform the verdict into a sound one.
[I an grateful to Morag Kerr for allowing me to reproduce here the letter as it was submitted and before it was edited:]
The statement by a Scottish government spokesman that “there [is] no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction” (...) is incomprehensible.
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding the safety of that conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse. Prominent among the critics was Dr. Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who published a blistering attack on the judicial process, describing the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, further declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner.” Indeed, simply reading through the 81-page Opinion of the Court reveals so much reasonable doubt surrounding the evidence that the pronouncement of the guilty verdict comes as a bolt from the blue.
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were no less than six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice.
The dropping of the appeal by Mr. al-Megrahi, whether coerced or not, does not make these doubts go away, nor does it magically transform a perverse verdict into a sound one.
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse (“Cardinal backs call for independent inquiry into conviction of Megrahi”, The Herald October 27). Prominent among the critics was Dr Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who described the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner” .
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice. The dropping of the appeal by Megrahi does not make these doubts go away; nor does it transform the verdict into a sound one.
[I an grateful to Morag Kerr for allowing me to reproduce here the letter as it was submitted and before it was edited:]
The statement by a Scottish government spokesman that “there [is] no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction” (...) is incomprehensible.
Serious concerns have been expressed regarding the safety of that conviction since the verdict was announced in 2001, with many of those who attended the trial describing it as perverse. Prominent among the critics was Dr. Hans Köchler, official UN observer to the trial, who published a blistering attack on the judicial process, describing the verdict as “arbitrary, even irrational”, further declaring that “the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner.” Indeed, simply reading through the 81-page Opinion of the Court reveals so much reasonable doubt surrounding the evidence that the pronouncement of the guilty verdict comes as a bolt from the blue.
The case was the subject of a three-and-a-half-year in-depth investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, at a cost of £1,108,536 to the public purse. The Commission produced an 800-page report together with 13 volumes of appendices, resulting in the conclusion (announced in 2007) that there were no less than six grounds for believing the conviction to be a possible miscarriage of justice.
The dropping of the appeal by Mr. al-Megrahi, whether coerced or not, does not make these doubts go away, nor does it magically transform a perverse verdict into a sound one.
Independent inquiry into Megrahi case would achieve nothing
[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann in yesterday's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
I welcome the support of Cardinal Keith O’Brien for the petition asking the Scottish Government to hold an independent inquiry into all the circumstances of the trial and conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (...) But although I signed the petition, I have little confidence that it will have any effect.
Both First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have repeatedly stated their belief that Megrahi’s conviction was entirely correct, and they seem determined to ignore the independent report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) listing several serious concerns about the evidence at his trial and suggesting that the conviction may have been unsafe.
In any case, it seems that an inquiry set up by the Scottish Government would have no powers to summon witnesses or to examine them under oath, or to demand the release of relevant UK and US documents so far denied even to Megrahi’s defence team, so it would be a pointless exercise.
A UK inquiry could meet these witness and disclosure requirements, but neither the Coalition Government nor the Labour Opposition is the slightest bit interested in opening up such a can of worms, in which previous Tory and Labour governments were deeply involved.
So it seems that the only chance of finally getting to the truth is to re-open Megrahi’s second appeal to the Scottish Appeal Court. I’m sure some way could be found to achieve this if there was sufficient political pressure and the judicial will, but these are both sadly lacking.
Mind you, I would not be too confident of such an appeal producing a fair and sensible result.
[Here are my responses to the pretexts that the Scottish Government have put forward for refusing to set up an independent inquiry:]
Reason 1 "The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue international in its nature."
Answer This misrepresents what the petition asks the Scottish Government to do.
The petition calls on the Scottish 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." It does not ask for the establishment of a general inquiry tasked with finding out the truth about the Lockerbie disaster. This would, of course, be beyond the powers of the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 1998.
The petition asks for an inquiry into the conviction of a person by a Scottish court. This might involve consideration of --
*the police investigation of the tragedy;
*the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103;
*the conduct of the Crown Office in preparing the prosecution;
*the trial in the Scottish Court in the Netherlands;
*the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi;
*the rejection of the first appeal;
*the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal;
*the dropping of this second appeal;
*the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi.
Each and every one of these matters is within "the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government".
Reason 2 "The Scottish Justice Secretary made it clear that under the powers devolved to Holyrood no worthwhile scrutiny could be ordered here because there would be no powers to compel witnesses." (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/macaskill-tells-world-why-he-freed-megrahi-1.982718)
Answer An inquiry constituted under the Inquiries Act 2005 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents) does have power under sections 21, 22 and 28 to compel witnesses and to compel the production of documents and other evidence. Indeed, the relevant powers of such an inquiry are greater than those of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under sections 194H and 194I of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Yet, with even its limited powers, the SCCRC was able to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into the Megrahi conviction, involving the interview of many witnesses and the consideration of thousands of documents and other items of evidence, and to reach conclusions based thereon.
I welcome the support of Cardinal Keith O’Brien for the petition asking the Scottish Government to hold an independent inquiry into all the circumstances of the trial and conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (...) But although I signed the petition, I have little confidence that it will have any effect.
Both First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have repeatedly stated their belief that Megrahi’s conviction was entirely correct, and they seem determined to ignore the independent report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) listing several serious concerns about the evidence at his trial and suggesting that the conviction may have been unsafe.
In any case, it seems that an inquiry set up by the Scottish Government would have no powers to summon witnesses or to examine them under oath, or to demand the release of relevant UK and US documents so far denied even to Megrahi’s defence team, so it would be a pointless exercise.
A UK inquiry could meet these witness and disclosure requirements, but neither the Coalition Government nor the Labour Opposition is the slightest bit interested in opening up such a can of worms, in which previous Tory and Labour governments were deeply involved.
So it seems that the only chance of finally getting to the truth is to re-open Megrahi’s second appeal to the Scottish Appeal Court. I’m sure some way could be found to achieve this if there was sufficient political pressure and the judicial will, but these are both sadly lacking.
Mind you, I would not be too confident of such an appeal producing a fair and sensible result.
[Here are my responses to the pretexts that the Scottish Government have put forward for refusing to set up an independent inquiry:]
Reason 1 "The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue international in its nature."
Answer This misrepresents what the petition asks the Scottish Government to do.
The petition calls on the Scottish 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." It does not ask for the establishment of a general inquiry tasked with finding out the truth about the Lockerbie disaster. This would, of course, be beyond the powers of the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 1998.
The petition asks for an inquiry into the conviction of a person by a Scottish court. This might involve consideration of --
*the police investigation of the tragedy;
*the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103;
*the conduct of the Crown Office in preparing the prosecution;
*the trial in the Scottish Court in the Netherlands;
*the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi;
*the rejection of the first appeal;
*the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal;
*the dropping of this second appeal;
*the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi.
Each and every one of these matters is within "the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government".
Reason 2 "The Scottish Justice Secretary made it clear that under the powers devolved to Holyrood no worthwhile scrutiny could be ordered here because there would be no powers to compel witnesses." (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/macaskill-tells-world-why-he-freed-megrahi-1.982718)
Answer An inquiry constituted under the Inquiries Act 2005 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents) does have power under sections 21, 22 and 28 to compel witnesses and to compel the production of documents and other evidence. Indeed, the relevant powers of such an inquiry are greater than those of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under sections 194H and 194I of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Yet, with even its limited powers, the SCCRC was able to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into the Megrahi conviction, involving the interview of many witnesses and the consideration of thousands of documents and other items of evidence, and to reach conclusions based thereon.
New probe into Lockerbie needed
[This is the heading over a letter from Tom Minogue in yesterday's edition of The Courier, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Dundee and Fife. It reads as follows:]
Dr Jim Swire is right to petition the Scottish Parliament (...) with a view to initiating an independent investigation into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
My Lockerbie concerns began within hours of the crash on hearing reports of US officials on the scene gathering evidence.
Later, the testing in the US of the timer fragment was in my view wrong. The investigation should have been a matter for Scottish police. The involvement of a foreign government politicised the investigation.
Reinforcing my concerns were the reports of the UN-appointed trial observer, Professor Hans Koechler who reported that for the entire period of the trial in The Hague, two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice sat next to the Crown Office prosecution team who they passed documents to, and talked to, as if they were supervising them. None of these US officials were listed or mentioned in any of the official trial documents.
I don't claim to know if Megrahi is guilty or not but I do know for certain that he didn't get a fair trial .
Dr Jim Swire is right to petition the Scottish Parliament (...) with a view to initiating an independent investigation into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
My Lockerbie concerns began within hours of the crash on hearing reports of US officials on the scene gathering evidence.
Later, the testing in the US of the timer fragment was in my view wrong. The investigation should have been a matter for Scottish police. The involvement of a foreign government politicised the investigation.
Reinforcing my concerns were the reports of the UN-appointed trial observer, Professor Hans Koechler who reported that for the entire period of the trial in The Hague, two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice sat next to the Crown Office prosecution team who they passed documents to, and talked to, as if they were supervising them. None of these US officials were listed or mentioned in any of the official trial documents.
I don't claim to know if Megrahi is guilty or not but I do know for certain that he didn't get a fair trial .
Lockerbie blame shifting
Wasn't it supposed to be the Syrians who killed [Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq] Hariri (or so The New York Times and the London Times would have us believe) that blew Hariri's motorcade up – along with the 21 others whose names we have all forgotten – on St Valentine's Day of 2005? Nope. Since the Syrians offered their assistance to the United States in Iraq, it's been the pesky Iranians (courtesy The New York Times and The Times of London) who, through their Hezbollah allies, have been blamed for the mass slaughter. Notice, by the way, how the Syrians and Iranians were blamed for Lockerbie and then, post-Syrian help in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the Libyans?
[From Robert Fisk's Lebanon and Iran make uneasy bedfellows in today's edition of The Independent.]
[From Robert Fisk's Lebanon and Iran make uneasy bedfellows in today's edition of The Independent.]
Friday, 29 October 2010
SNP must prompt Megrahi inquiry
[This is the heading over a letter from Jack Fraser in yesterday's edition of the Edinburgh Evening News. It reads as follows:]
Kenny MacAskill's "compassionate" release of Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, will always be shrouded in suspicion because it negated any appeal which might implicate the US and UK governments of playing a part in what many people see as a possible miscarriage of justice.
This is bad for Scotland's beleaguered judicial system and must be addressed. Although I disagree with Cardinal Keith O'Brien on many issues, he has shown great courage by going against the Establishment by supporting the call for an independent inquiry into this highly questionable conviction.
Mr Megrahi should have been released for only one reason; because he was innocent. This will never be proved or disproved, however, unless there is an independent inquiry which would have to be transparent, unlike the usual whitewashes that have passed for inquiries recently.
The SNP and its followers must reinstate the party's failing credibility on this issue by campaigning rigorously to persuade the Scottish Parliament into doing the right thing by holding such an inquiry.
Kenny MacAskill's "compassionate" release of Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, will always be shrouded in suspicion because it negated any appeal which might implicate the US and UK governments of playing a part in what many people see as a possible miscarriage of justice.
This is bad for Scotland's beleaguered judicial system and must be addressed. Although I disagree with Cardinal Keith O'Brien on many issues, he has shown great courage by going against the Establishment by supporting the call for an independent inquiry into this highly questionable conviction.
Mr Megrahi should have been released for only one reason; because he was innocent. This will never be proved or disproved, however, unless there is an independent inquiry which would have to be transparent, unlike the usual whitewashes that have passed for inquiries recently.
The SNP and its followers must reinstate the party's failing credibility on this issue by campaigning rigorously to persuade the Scottish Parliament into doing the right thing by holding such an inquiry.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Megrahi motion likely to be debated in Scottish Parliament
The motion tabled earlier this week in the Scottish Parliament by Christine Grahame MSP to the effect that Parliament, noting the Justice for Megrahi petition and the SCCRC findings "would welcome the establishment of an independent inquiry in Scotland to consider all the circumstances that led to the conviction" has now been signed by MSPs from the SNP, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. The fact that the motion is supported by MSPs of more than one political party makes it likely that it will be selected for debate. It is noteworthy that no Labour Party MSP has yet signed the motion.
Susan Lindauer's book published in USA
Susan Lindauer's book Extreme Prejudice, an account of her travails at the hands of the US criminal justice system, has just been published. On her website, the book is described as follows:
"What if the government decided to invent a great lie to sell a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the Assets who know the truth?
"Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government’s lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of “black budget” betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, Extreme Prejudice reveals one Asset’s desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Extreme Prejudice delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation. For the first time, it discloses the existence of a comprehensive peace framework before the War, which would have accomplished all major U.S. objectives in Baghdad without a single casualty. A true life spy thriller that goes inside the Iraqi Embassy and prison on a Texas military base, Extreme Prejudice reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a questionable image of their successful anti-terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality used to suppress the truth of their failures from the American people and the world community."
There are chapters in the book that relate to Pan Am 103 and the Lockerbie disaster. I provided a blurb which reads:
“Susan Lindauer deserves unreserved admiration for this brave and moving account of her steadfast refusal to crumble under the shameful abuses to which she was subjected. She has provided us with an overdue exposure of the depths to which governments are all too prepared to descend to prevent disclosure of their dishonesty and malfeasance, her knowledge having been gained through bitter personal experience.”
The book is available through the US Amazon website.
"What if the government decided to invent a great lie to sell a disastrous war and a questionable anti-terrorism policy? What would happen to the Assets who know the truth?
"Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government’s lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of “black budget” betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, Extreme Prejudice reveals one Asset’s desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Extreme Prejudice delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation. For the first time, it discloses the existence of a comprehensive peace framework before the War, which would have accomplished all major U.S. objectives in Baghdad without a single casualty. A true life spy thriller that goes inside the Iraqi Embassy and prison on a Texas military base, Extreme Prejudice reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a questionable image of their successful anti-terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality used to suppress the truth of their failures from the American people and the world community."
There are chapters in the book that relate to Pan Am 103 and the Lockerbie disaster. I provided a blurb which reads:
“Susan Lindauer deserves unreserved admiration for this brave and moving account of her steadfast refusal to crumble under the shameful abuses to which she was subjected. She has provided us with an overdue exposure of the depths to which governments are all too prepared to descend to prevent disclosure of their dishonesty and malfeasance, her knowledge having been gained through bitter personal experience.”
The book is available through the US Amazon website.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
New closing date for Megrahi petition
In order partially to compensate for the more than five sign-up days lost by the crash of the e-petitions website, the Justice for Megrahi petition will now remain open for signature until 1 November 2010 without losing its place in the Public Petitions Committee's pre-election programme.
Len Murray speaks out in support of Megrahi petition
[Len Murray, one of the most distinguished of Scotland's criminal court solicitors and a signatory of the Justice for Megrahi petition, has authorised me to publish the following statement:]
When I retired I was senior partner in the firm of Levy & McRae. I am a graduate of Glasgow University and I am a member of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland. I specialised in Litigation, both civil and criminal, and in media law. I was appointed the first ever media spokesman for the Law Society of Scotland in the late 60’s and some years later I became legal adviser news and current affairs for ITN and the Independent Television companies in Scotland, namely Scottish Television, Grampian Television and Borders Television.
I was a Justice of the Peace for the then districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and I was Vice-Chairman of the JP Advisory Committee for the district. Our function was to recommend appointments as Justices to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I served on many of the bodies involved in the conduct and running of my profession, including Glasgow Bar Association, the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and the Law Society of Scotland. Indeed, latterly I was Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee of the Law Society. My practice was very extensive and I think I might claim to have been one of the more experienced Court solicitors in the country.
I represented members of the Joint Branch Boards of the Scottish Police Federation in Strathclyde, Lothian & Borders, Tayside and Northen Constabulary in civil, criminal and Police disciplinary matters. This gave me a rather unique insight into the investigation and reporting of crime in Scotland. I also had experience as a Prosecutor, as a Temporary Sheriff and as a Chairman of Employment Tribunals.
I followed the trial as far as it was reported in the press at the time and I well remember thinking that the accused would not be convicted. I was not surprised that Al-Amin Khalifi Fhima was acquitted but equally I was surprised that Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi was.
I have had the benefit of reading Professor Black's lengthy submissions and I agree entirely with what he has written. Personally, I could not understand a number of things about the outcome of the case. Let me illustrate what I mean:
1. I could not and still cannot understand how the Court could hold, on the evidence of Gauci, that Megrahi made the purchase of the clothing. Without Gauci's evidence, which at its height was that Megrahi resembled the purchaser, there was no case.
2. Their finding that the purchase was made on 7 December bordered upon the perverse.
3. Their finding about the unaccompanied baggage fell within the same category.
Let me quote from Dickson on The Law of Evidence at Section 98. In speaking of inferences to be drawn in cases of circumstantial evidence he says: "It is not enough that his guilt [the accused] be a rational and probable inference as well as the most probable of several inferences from the circumstances. It must also be the only rational hypothesis which they will bear."
If that is still the law then how on earth could the Court have drawn so many adverse inferences against the accused when there were other explanations and explanations that were just as likely?
Megrahi was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That is frequently the strongest evidence that a court can hear. It may be likened to a chain - the more strands there are, the stronger is the chain. But just like a chain, if any link is broken, then that is the end of the matter. It seems to me that there were many broken links in that chain of evidnce upon which the Crown relied.
The other aspect relates to the Appeal. With the greatest respect to learned Senior Counsel who conducted the Appeal on behalf of Megrahi, in my respectful opinion two crucial errors were made, namely (i) a concession that there was sufficient evidence to convict; and (ii) a failure to argue s106(3)(b) of the Act. I would have thought that the outstanding ground of appeal was that based upon the Statutory provision to which I have just referred. Had I been the instructing solicitor then those would have been my instructions to Counsel.
It is fairly trite to say that the verdict of the Appeal Court did not "back up" the verdict of the Court of first instance. The appeal was taken on the wrong points and the refusal of the appeal came as little surprise. Had it been taken on the correct grounds then I would have expected a quite different result.
Apart from all these points, it respectfully seems to me that an enquiry is called for to investigate other matters. Was Gauci paid a huge sum of money by the CIA? Why? What was their interest? What was the evidence about the break in at Heathrow? To whom was that known? Why was that withheld from the defence and on whose instructions? The total impartiality of our prosecutors is fundamental to our system of prosecution and their duty to make available all the evidence is crucial.
Perhaps I should add that I know Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean. Indeed I worked with each of them while they were at the Bar and I have the highest regard for them all. The point, however, must be made that while they all have considerable experience of presiding over trials and directing juries, they have never had to determine guilt or innocence of an accused person in the course of their careers.
When I retired I was senior partner in the firm of Levy & McRae. I am a graduate of Glasgow University and I am a member of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland. I specialised in Litigation, both civil and criminal, and in media law. I was appointed the first ever media spokesman for the Law Society of Scotland in the late 60’s and some years later I became legal adviser news and current affairs for ITN and the Independent Television companies in Scotland, namely Scottish Television, Grampian Television and Borders Television.
I was a Justice of the Peace for the then districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and I was Vice-Chairman of the JP Advisory Committee for the district. Our function was to recommend appointments as Justices to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I served on many of the bodies involved in the conduct and running of my profession, including Glasgow Bar Association, the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and the Law Society of Scotland. Indeed, latterly I was Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee of the Law Society. My practice was very extensive and I think I might claim to have been one of the more experienced Court solicitors in the country.
I represented members of the Joint Branch Boards of the Scottish Police Federation in Strathclyde, Lothian & Borders, Tayside and Northen Constabulary in civil, criminal and Police disciplinary matters. This gave me a rather unique insight into the investigation and reporting of crime in Scotland. I also had experience as a Prosecutor, as a Temporary Sheriff and as a Chairman of Employment Tribunals.
I followed the trial as far as it was reported in the press at the time and I well remember thinking that the accused would not be convicted. I was not surprised that Al-Amin Khalifi Fhima was acquitted but equally I was surprised that Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi was.
I have had the benefit of reading Professor Black's lengthy submissions and I agree entirely with what he has written. Personally, I could not understand a number of things about the outcome of the case. Let me illustrate what I mean:
1. I could not and still cannot understand how the Court could hold, on the evidence of Gauci, that Megrahi made the purchase of the clothing. Without Gauci's evidence, which at its height was that Megrahi resembled the purchaser, there was no case.
2. Their finding that the purchase was made on 7 December bordered upon the perverse.
3. Their finding about the unaccompanied baggage fell within the same category.
Let me quote from Dickson on The Law of Evidence at Section 98. In speaking of inferences to be drawn in cases of circumstantial evidence he says: "It is not enough that his guilt [the accused] be a rational and probable inference as well as the most probable of several inferences from the circumstances. It must also be the only rational hypothesis which they will bear."
If that is still the law then how on earth could the Court have drawn so many adverse inferences against the accused when there were other explanations and explanations that were just as likely?
Megrahi was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That is frequently the strongest evidence that a court can hear. It may be likened to a chain - the more strands there are, the stronger is the chain. But just like a chain, if any link is broken, then that is the end of the matter. It seems to me that there were many broken links in that chain of evidnce upon which the Crown relied.
The other aspect relates to the Appeal. With the greatest respect to learned Senior Counsel who conducted the Appeal on behalf of Megrahi, in my respectful opinion two crucial errors were made, namely (i) a concession that there was sufficient evidence to convict; and (ii) a failure to argue s106(3)(b) of the Act. I would have thought that the outstanding ground of appeal was that based upon the Statutory provision to which I have just referred. Had I been the instructing solicitor then those would have been my instructions to Counsel.
It is fairly trite to say that the verdict of the Appeal Court did not "back up" the verdict of the Court of first instance. The appeal was taken on the wrong points and the refusal of the appeal came as little surprise. Had it been taken on the correct grounds then I would have expected a quite different result.
Apart from all these points, it respectfully seems to me that an enquiry is called for to investigate other matters. Was Gauci paid a huge sum of money by the CIA? Why? What was their interest? What was the evidence about the break in at Heathrow? To whom was that known? Why was that withheld from the defence and on whose instructions? The total impartiality of our prosecutors is fundamental to our system of prosecution and their duty to make available all the evidence is crucial.
Perhaps I should add that I know Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean. Indeed I worked with each of them while they were at the Bar and I have the highest regard for them all. The point, however, must be made that while they all have considerable experience of presiding over trials and directing juries, they have never had to determine guilt or innocence of an accused person in the course of their careers.
Cardinal backs call for independent inquiry into conviction of Megrahi
[This is the headline over The Herald's report on yesterday's event at the Scottish Parliament. It reads in part:]
The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has said the “web of mystery” surrounding the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must be cleared up.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien was speaking as campaigners handed in a 1500-strong petition to the Scottish Parliament yesterday calling for an independent inquiry into the verdict on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Cardinal O’Brien said: “We’re living in the 21st century now and really it shouldn’t be beyond us, it shouldn’t be beyond the Scottish Government, to take this on. Or are we all eventually going to die in a web of mystery about what happened at the time of the horrible Lockerbie bombing?
“What I am concerned with is basic justice, to find out what exactly went on. I want to find out the truth and I think when I say that I am speaking for many, many people, not just religious people, people of no faiths at all are desperate to find out what went on that time.” (...)
Cardinal O’Brien said he wanted to see not only justice for Megrahi but also “justice for all the innocent people who died at that time, and their families and friends who are grieving and wanting to be able to draw a line under that horrible episode in the history of Scotland”.
The Cardinal’s support was welcomed by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity.
Dr Swire, speaking for the Justice For Megrahi campaign, said if the Scottish Government could not find the “get up and go to find a way to resolve this issue, then it’s a poor day for Scotland”.
He said there was a “need to sort out the uncertainty about this verdict sooner or later”. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said there was no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. He added: “The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government.”
[The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission -- an independent, expert, official body -- concluded, after a three-year investigation, that there were six grounds on which Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. How can the Scottish Government have the effrontery to parrot the mantra that there is "no doubt about the safety of Megrahi's conviction"?
The Scotsman's report on the Holyrood event can be read here; that in The Sun here; and that in the Morning Star here. A good report is also to be found on the website of The Courier and Advertiser, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Dundee and Fife; and a slightly less detailed report on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.]
The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has said the “web of mystery” surrounding the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must be cleared up.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien was speaking as campaigners handed in a 1500-strong petition to the Scottish Parliament yesterday calling for an independent inquiry into the verdict on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Cardinal O’Brien said: “We’re living in the 21st century now and really it shouldn’t be beyond us, it shouldn’t be beyond the Scottish Government, to take this on. Or are we all eventually going to die in a web of mystery about what happened at the time of the horrible Lockerbie bombing?
“What I am concerned with is basic justice, to find out what exactly went on. I want to find out the truth and I think when I say that I am speaking for many, many people, not just religious people, people of no faiths at all are desperate to find out what went on that time.” (...)
Cardinal O’Brien said he wanted to see not only justice for Megrahi but also “justice for all the innocent people who died at that time, and their families and friends who are grieving and wanting to be able to draw a line under that horrible episode in the history of Scotland”.
The Cardinal’s support was welcomed by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity.
Dr Swire, speaking for the Justice For Megrahi campaign, said if the Scottish Government could not find the “get up and go to find a way to resolve this issue, then it’s a poor day for Scotland”.
He said there was a “need to sort out the uncertainty about this verdict sooner or later”. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said there was no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. He added: “The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government.”
[The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission -- an independent, expert, official body -- concluded, after a three-year investigation, that there were six grounds on which Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. How can the Scottish Government have the effrontery to parrot the mantra that there is "no doubt about the safety of Megrahi's conviction"?
The Scotsman's report on the Holyrood event can be read here; that in The Sun here; and that in the Morning Star here. A good report is also to be found on the website of The Courier and Advertiser, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Dundee and Fife; and a slightly less detailed report on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.]
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Megrahi motion before Scottish Parliament
A motion in the following terms has today been submitted to the Scottish Parliament by Christine Grahame MSP:
*S3M-7251♦ Christine Grahame: Megrahi Petition—That the Parliament notes the lodging of a petition by the Justice for Megrahi Committee, led by Dr Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Robert Forrester and Professor Robert Black, urging the establishment of an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988; notes that the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which reported that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the case, have still to be tested in a legal forum; would welcome the establishment of an independent inquiry in Scotland to consider all the circumstances that led to the conviction, and considers that there should be widespread international co-operation with such an inquiry.
*S3M-7251♦ Christine Grahame: Megrahi Petition—That the Parliament notes the lodging of a petition by the Justice for Megrahi Committee, led by Dr Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Robert Forrester and Professor Robert Black, urging the establishment of an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988; notes that the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which reported that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the case, have still to be tested in a legal forum; would welcome the establishment of an independent inquiry in Scotland to consider all the circumstances that led to the conviction, and considers that there should be widespread international co-operation with such an inquiry.
Copy of Megrahi petition handed to Petitions Committee
At a ceremony held in the Scottish Parliament at lunch time today, attended by a large number of print and broadcast media representatives, a paper copy of the Justice for Megrahi petition was handed over to members of the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. Dr Jim Swire spoke as follows:
"It has been evident since the completion of the original trial of Mr Baset al-Megrahi in the Zeist court in 2001 that there appeared to be flaws in the evidence led, in the sharing of evidence by the Crown Office with the defence, and in some of the decisions made by the court itself , which together call into question the fairness of the trial under Scots law.
"These questions were made public by one of the UN's appointed trial observers at once describing the verdict as 'incomprehensible', and after three years of research, Scotland's SCCRC found that the trial 'may have been a miscarriage of justice'. This finding opened the way for Mr Baset al-Megrahi to launch a new appeal in the Edinburgh High Court.
"Meanwhile many had reviewed the trial for themselves and concluded that the verdict had been subject to political pressure and was not justified. This has led to scathing comments concerning the quality of the Scottish court's proceedings and impartiality, which some would say has made Scots law a laughing stock, particularly outside Britain and America. Only Scotland herself could correct that view now.
"It had been hoped that Mr Baset al-Megrahi's appeal would settle these dire issues, both for him and for the reputation of Scots law in the future. However, following a desperately drawn out opening phase of his second appeal, and in the face of his illness, it was withdrawn, leaving Scotland with no obvious means whereby the verdict's validity could be reassessed.
"Aware of the difficulties surrounding use of the material assembled by the SCCRC, and in urgent search of the truth about Mr Megrahi's conviction, JFM, through this petition, now calls upon the Holyrood Parliament to request the Scottish government to find a route for the re-examination of this dreadful case.
"We believe that Mr Megrahi and his family are already long overdue a full review of this verdict and that the reputation of Scotland's judicial system demands it, while the relatives of the Lockerbie dead have an inalienable right to the whole truth, a right which some of them find to be obstructed by the uncertainty surrounding this verdict."
Cardinal Keith O'Brien thereupon signed the petition and it was then handed over. Questions from the press were answered by Dr Swire, by Cardinal O'Brien and by Justice for Megrahi committee members Iain McKie and Robert Black.
Border Television's coverage of the event can be viewed here; an Associated Press news agency report on the Fox News website can be read here.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.
"It has been evident since the completion of the original trial of Mr Baset al-Megrahi in the Zeist court in 2001 that there appeared to be flaws in the evidence led, in the sharing of evidence by the Crown Office with the defence, and in some of the decisions made by the court itself , which together call into question the fairness of the trial under Scots law.
"These questions were made public by one of the UN's appointed trial observers at once describing the verdict as 'incomprehensible', and after three years of research, Scotland's SCCRC found that the trial 'may have been a miscarriage of justice'. This finding opened the way for Mr Baset al-Megrahi to launch a new appeal in the Edinburgh High Court.
"Meanwhile many had reviewed the trial for themselves and concluded that the verdict had been subject to political pressure and was not justified. This has led to scathing comments concerning the quality of the Scottish court's proceedings and impartiality, which some would say has made Scots law a laughing stock, particularly outside Britain and America. Only Scotland herself could correct that view now.
"It had been hoped that Mr Baset al-Megrahi's appeal would settle these dire issues, both for him and for the reputation of Scots law in the future. However, following a desperately drawn out opening phase of his second appeal, and in the face of his illness, it was withdrawn, leaving Scotland with no obvious means whereby the verdict's validity could be reassessed.
"Aware of the difficulties surrounding use of the material assembled by the SCCRC, and in urgent search of the truth about Mr Megrahi's conviction, JFM, through this petition, now calls upon the Holyrood Parliament to request the Scottish government to find a route for the re-examination of this dreadful case.
"We believe that Mr Megrahi and his family are already long overdue a full review of this verdict and that the reputation of Scotland's judicial system demands it, while the relatives of the Lockerbie dead have an inalienable right to the whole truth, a right which some of them find to be obstructed by the uncertainty surrounding this verdict."
Cardinal Keith O'Brien thereupon signed the petition and it was then handed over. Questions from the press were answered by Dr Swire, by Cardinal O'Brien and by Justice for Megrahi committee members Iain McKie and Robert Black.
Border Television's coverage of the event can be viewed here; an Associated Press news agency report on the Fox News website can be read here.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)