[The German news magazine Der Spiegel reports as follows on a WikiLeaks cable relating to Megrahi's repatriation:]
Die US-Abgesandten protokollieren Gaddafis Absonderlichkeiten, die Allüren seiner Söhne und die Furcht seiner Berater vor Gaddafis Zorn. Sie verfolgten, wie er aus gekränktem Stolz zwei Schweizer als Geiseln nahm und ihre Regierung erniedrigte, wie er die Kanadier fast auf die Knie zwang, indem er die Verstaatlichung von PetroCanada androhte, und wie er den Briten die Auslieferung des Lockerbie-Bombers Abd al-Bassit al-Mikrahi abpresste. "Der britische Botschafter war erleichtert, dass Mikrahi wahrscheinlich im Rahmen einer humanitären Freilassung nach Libyen zurückkehren könnte. Er bemerkte, dass eine Verweigerung desaströse Folgen für britische Interessen in Libyen nach sich hätte ziehen können. 'Sie hätten uns fertiggemacht, genau wie die Schweizer.'"
[I have been unable to find the cable(s) in question, but here is a rough translation of the Der Spiegel paragraph:]
The US envoys log Gaddafi's peculiarities, the affectations of his sons and the fear of his advisers before Gaddafi's anger. They detailed how he took two Swiss hostages out of injured pride and humbled their government; how the Canadians were almost forced to their knees, when he threatened the nationalization of Petro Canada; and how he forced the British handover of the Lockerbie bomber, Abd al-Bassit al-Megrahi. "The British ambassador was relieved that Megrahi could probably return to Libya under a humanitarian release. He noted that a refusal would have entailed disastrous consequences for British interests in Libya. 'They would have closed us down, just like the Swiss.'"
[The above passage now appears on Der Spiegel's English language website. Their English version reads as follows:]
Americans dispatched to Libya report in great detail on Gadhafi's peculiarities, the airs and graces of his sons and the degree to which his advisers fear his wrath. For example, they closely monitored how wounded pride led him to take two Swiss citizens hostage and humiliate the Swiss government, how he almost forced Canada to its knees by threatening to nationalize the assets of PetroCanada and how he more or less compelled the British to extradite Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, most of them Americans.
As one dispatch explained: "The British ambassador expressed relief that Megrahi likely would be returned to Libya under the compassionate release program. He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees, just like the Swiss.'"
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Lockerbie truth might be revealed at last if Libya sues Britain for false imprisonment of Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
The Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has told students at the London School of Economics that, upon the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, his country will sue the British Government for falsely imprisoning him.
How strange that, if true, those who seek the truth over Lockerbie may find the colonel providing the pathway they need to have the legal case against Megrahi reviewed, following the withdrawal of Libya’s appeal.
This unfortunate man was convicted as having been an active member of the Libyan intelligence service. Many now believe the verdict was fatally flawed.
In view of continuing obstruction from those governments of those in the west who still seek the truth, what could be more appropriate than that the Libyan government should now pursue the issue?
How sad that success would only come after Megrahi’s death. But at least it would lift the weight from the shoulders of his wife, Aisha, and the family.
One cannot at present see how the difficulties can be overcome, and if pursued, the timescale may still be lengthy. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Libyan state, which seemed to have resolved the post-Lockerbie situation to its satisfaction by gaining the return of its convicted citizen and the resurrection of its oil industry, should now be taking the lead in an action which would, at its centre, require the overturning of the verdict against Megrahi.
All one can add is that while the Colonel Gaddafi is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and has made it clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming it had been reached under improper political pressure.
If such an action were to succeed, it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the WikiLeaks documents put together.
The world must hope that justice and truth, not violence and vengeance, win the day.
[The same newspaper has an article on the Gaddafi litigation suggestion. It reads in part:]
The family of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will lose any compensation claim for his alleged neglect in a Scottish jail, a leading expert said last night.
Professor Robert Black, who helped create the Scottish court in the Netherlands that convicted Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing, said a claim for neglect or false imprisonment would be a legal “non-starter”.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was yesterday reported to have said Megrahi’s family was set to sue over the terminally-ill former intelligence officer’s treatment in Greenock Prison.
The dictator, who is prone to controversial but cryptic comments, was said to have used a video link to tell students and staff at the London School of Economics Megrahi was “released because he was considered dead, and yet he is still alive”.
Colonel Gaddafi reportedly added: “His health was not looked after during his time in prison. He didn’t have any periodic examination. After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison.”
Mr Black – who has backed calls for a public inquiry into the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988 – last night said he could see no legal grounds for an action for damages.
The retired Edinburgh University law professor said: “While the conviction stands, any thought of a successful action for false imprisonment is really, really not a starter.
“The family theoretically could sue in the Scottish courts if the treatment or lack of treatment that he received while in Greenock exacerbated his condition. But that would be very, very difficult.
“They would have to prove that his condition is worse because ot the treatment or lack of treatment in Greenock. I honestly don’t think that would get anywhere.
“Megrahi has lasted a year longer than was anticipated so it would be difficult to prove the lack of treatment he received in Scotland reduced his lifespan.
“Indeed, being back in the bosom of his family may well have given him a boost.” (...)
The Scottish Government yesterday rejected any claim that the Libyan, who had his own “suite” in Greenock Prison, was neglected. A spokesman said: “He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner.” The Scottish Prisons Service gave a similar response.
Campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, believes the Libyans’ main priority would be overturning Megrahi’s guilty verdict.
Megrahi himself withdrew his appeal against conviction – which was sparked by an investigation from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission that found he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In a letter in today’s Herald, Dr Swire writes: “While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal, and he made it very clear in early September this year that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
“If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK Governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister last night said any action by the Megrahi family would be a matter for the Scottish Government given that it decided to release the Libyan.
He said: “The Prime Minister’s personal views on Megrahi’s release are well known – he believed it was wrong. That has not changed. But the decision to release Megrahi was a matter for the Scottish Government, as would any legal case concerning his detention.”
[Dr Swire also has a letter published in today's edition of The Scotsman. An article in the same newspaper contains the following:]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, said Col Gadaffi's intervention was "remarkable" after the North African leader appeared "satisfied" following the release of Megrahi.
Mr Swire said that any move for compensation "would at its centre require the overturning of the verdict" against Mr Megrahi.
"While the Colonel is a man whose views may easily change, he does have virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal," Mr Swire added.
"He made it very clear in early September [when Dr Swire had a meeting with him] that he did wish to see the verdict overturned, claiming that it had only been reached under improper political pressure.
"If such an action were to succeed it might do more harm to the reputation of the US and UK governments than all the Wikileaks documents put together."
The Rev John Mosey, the father of a victim of the bombing, said he could not imagine the Scottish authorities "being deliberately neglectful".
He added: "On a physical level it would seem he was very well catered for - possibly above the average."
Friday, 3 December 2010
Megrahi's family "to sue for false imprisonment"
The family of released Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is preparing to sue Britain for false imprisonment, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi claimed last night.
The Libyan leader said Megrahi remained “very ill” with prostate cancer following his controversial release by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds in August last year, and blamed his poor health on intentional “neglect” he suffered in prison.
Col Gaddafi said his family will mount a compensation claim once the 58-year-old dies.
“After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison,” he said.
“His health was not looked after in prison, and he didn’t have any periodic examinations. I wish him a long life. He was released because he was considered dead, and yet he was still alive.”
Col Gaddafi made the claims during a speech to students and staff at the London School of Economics (LSE) via a live video-link, which is understood to have been organised through his son Saif Al-Gaddafi who has a doctorate from the university.
The compensation claim could run into several million pounds, according to Libyan diplomatic officials who attended the talk.
Col Gaddafi alleged that the case against the former intelligence agent had “been fabricated and created by” former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.
He even suggested that CIA agents had been behind the 1988 terrorist atrocity, in which 270 people were killed after a Pan Am airline blew up over Scotland.
“These are the people who created this conspiracy,” said Col Gaddafi, referring to Lady Thatcher’s and Mr Reagan’s alleged role in a Megrahi's murder conviction and life sentence over the attack.
“The charges directed towards Libya were based on unfounded evidence in an attempt to weaken the Libyan Revolution and limit its resources and abilities.” (...)
The theory about the CIA’s alleged involvement in the Lockerbie disaster has already been advanced in a controversial documentary film and a number of books.
The Maltese Double Cross — Lockerbie a 1994 documentary produced by the late US director Allan Francovich, alleges that a bomb was introduced onto the ill-fated flight in a CIA-protected suitcase, and had nothing to do with Megrahi.
“Everybody considers him [Megrahi] to be innocent,” Col Gaddafi added.
[The above is from a report just published on The Telegraph website.
There is a similar report in The Scotsman. The report in The Sun contains the following quotes from relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster:]
But last night Susan Cohen, 72 - who lost her only daughter Theo, 20, in the 1988 Pan Am disaster - branded the threat of legal action "outrageous and insulting".
Susan, of New Jersey, US, said: "If this legal action were to go ahead - and we have no reason to think that it will not - then it would be an absolute outrage.
"Megrahi was found guilty at trial, and all this bluster from Gaddafi is designed to do one thing - to one day get a not guilty verdict for that man.
"The families of those killed who live in the US will be horrified to learn of what he has said."
Peter Lowenstein, 75, of New York, whose son Alexander, 21, was killed in the atrocity, claimed Megrahi was "a lunatic". He added: "There was a trial, the man was found guilty.
"The evidence, although circumstantial, was overwhelming.
"I see no reason and no rationale for suing the British government for unlawful imprisonment - that is absurd." (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora also perished in the bombing, welcomed the news that Megrahi's relatives could sue.
Dr Swire - who believes Megrahi to be innocent - said: "This might offer a chance to review the legal case against Megrahi.
"I think those of us who still seek the truth of what happened at Lockerbie would welcome that course of action."
And a Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government do not doubt the conviction of al-Megrahi.
"He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner within the Scottish prison system."
[Further reaction from the Scottish Government and others is to be found in this report on the BBC News website. What the Scottish Conservatives think about it can be read here. Is it any wonder that the party is dying on its feet in Scotland?
Any action for false imprisonment or for inadequate medical treatment while in prison would have to be brought against the Scottish, not the British, Government. While Megrahi's conviction remains in place, any action for false imprisonment would be doomed to almost inevitable failure. In an action based on neglect or inadequate medical care by the Scottish Prison Service, his family would have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, (a) that there was such neglect and (b) that the neglect caused or materially contributed to his death. I see no realistic prospect of success in this.
A better course of action for the Megrahi family would be a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the hope that they could surmount the hurdles recently erected by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]
The Libyan leader said Megrahi remained “very ill” with prostate cancer following his controversial release by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds in August last year, and blamed his poor health on intentional “neglect” he suffered in prison.
Col Gaddafi said his family will mount a compensation claim once the 58-year-old dies.
“After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison,” he said.
“His health was not looked after in prison, and he didn’t have any periodic examinations. I wish him a long life. He was released because he was considered dead, and yet he was still alive.”
Col Gaddafi made the claims during a speech to students and staff at the London School of Economics (LSE) via a live video-link, which is understood to have been organised through his son Saif Al-Gaddafi who has a doctorate from the university.
The compensation claim could run into several million pounds, according to Libyan diplomatic officials who attended the talk.
Col Gaddafi alleged that the case against the former intelligence agent had “been fabricated and created by” former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.
He even suggested that CIA agents had been behind the 1988 terrorist atrocity, in which 270 people were killed after a Pan Am airline blew up over Scotland.
“These are the people who created this conspiracy,” said Col Gaddafi, referring to Lady Thatcher’s and Mr Reagan’s alleged role in a Megrahi's murder conviction and life sentence over the attack.
“The charges directed towards Libya were based on unfounded evidence in an attempt to weaken the Libyan Revolution and limit its resources and abilities.” (...)
The theory about the CIA’s alleged involvement in the Lockerbie disaster has already been advanced in a controversial documentary film and a number of books.
The Maltese Double Cross — Lockerbie a 1994 documentary produced by the late US director Allan Francovich, alleges that a bomb was introduced onto the ill-fated flight in a CIA-protected suitcase, and had nothing to do with Megrahi.
“Everybody considers him [Megrahi] to be innocent,” Col Gaddafi added.
[The above is from a report just published on The Telegraph website.
There is a similar report in The Scotsman. The report in The Sun contains the following quotes from relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster:]
But last night Susan Cohen, 72 - who lost her only daughter Theo, 20, in the 1988 Pan Am disaster - branded the threat of legal action "outrageous and insulting".
Susan, of New Jersey, US, said: "If this legal action were to go ahead - and we have no reason to think that it will not - then it would be an absolute outrage.
"Megrahi was found guilty at trial, and all this bluster from Gaddafi is designed to do one thing - to one day get a not guilty verdict for that man.
"The families of those killed who live in the US will be horrified to learn of what he has said."
Peter Lowenstein, 75, of New York, whose son Alexander, 21, was killed in the atrocity, claimed Megrahi was "a lunatic". He added: "There was a trial, the man was found guilty.
"The evidence, although circumstantial, was overwhelming.
"I see no reason and no rationale for suing the British government for unlawful imprisonment - that is absurd." (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora also perished in the bombing, welcomed the news that Megrahi's relatives could sue.
Dr Swire - who believes Megrahi to be innocent - said: "This might offer a chance to review the legal case against Megrahi.
"I think those of us who still seek the truth of what happened at Lockerbie would welcome that course of action."
And a Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government do not doubt the conviction of al-Megrahi.
"He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner within the Scottish prison system."
[Further reaction from the Scottish Government and others is to be found in this report on the BBC News website. What the Scottish Conservatives think about it can be read here. Is it any wonder that the party is dying on its feet in Scotland?
Any action for false imprisonment or for inadequate medical treatment while in prison would have to be brought against the Scottish, not the British, Government. While Megrahi's conviction remains in place, any action for false imprisonment would be doomed to almost inevitable failure. In an action based on neglect or inadequate medical care by the Scottish Prison Service, his family would have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, (a) that there was such neglect and (b) that the neglect caused or materially contributed to his death. I see no realistic prospect of success in this.
A better course of action for the Megrahi family would be a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the hope that they could surmount the hurdles recently erected by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
The perception filter
[This is the headline over a long and detailed article about the Lockerbie case by Steven Raeburn just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The first few paragraphs read as follows:]
“Lockerbie”, whatever that word now means, is a stain on Scotland, its justice system, and its institutions. Since the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, “Lockerbie” has allowed Scotland to bear the scorn of US senators, the angst, bloodlust and ire of bereaved families who feel they have been denied justice, and has become both a hot potato and a political football between Edinburgh and London. Governments around the world are prepared to condemn Scotland for the international embarrassment of Lockerbie.
Whatever that word now means.
I’ve been covering the Pan Am 103 debacle for a number of years now. A tragic event that became a 22 year long rolling news story. It’s a story that won’t go away, because the answers thus far yielded by due process satisfy no one.
For this reason, Scotland sadly deserves its shame, disgrace and international condemnation. But certainly not for the reasons offered and repeatedly churned.
The story of the Lockerbie events has been allowed to be drowned out by one version, promoted, if not manufactured, by US intelligence and repeated by our own prosecution service and our government, in denial of later revelation, who maintain even to this day that they "do not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” despite it being utterly discredited, in addition to adjudged a possible miscarriage by our Criminal Cases Review Commission. It continues to be upheld, with every opportunity to address it spurned or frustrated. Perhaps its last chance for resolution rests with the Scottish [Government], who have until 10 December to respond to the public petitions committee and advise if they will hold an inquiry that may bring some clarity to what has become an international scandal.
The scandal is not that Scotland released a mass murderer. It is that we allowed a man to be convicted as one in the first place, and have done nothing to erase the stain of what could be the greatest miscarriage of justice ever perpetrated by our courts.
[The full article can (and should) be read here.
Lockerbie trial UN observer Professor Hans Köchler and Justice for Megrahi signatory member Professor Noam Chomsky have written to Steven Raeburn to congratulate him on this article.]
“Lockerbie”, whatever that word now means, is a stain on Scotland, its justice system, and its institutions. Since the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, “Lockerbie” has allowed Scotland to bear the scorn of US senators, the angst, bloodlust and ire of bereaved families who feel they have been denied justice, and has become both a hot potato and a political football between Edinburgh and London. Governments around the world are prepared to condemn Scotland for the international embarrassment of Lockerbie.
Whatever that word now means.
I’ve been covering the Pan Am 103 debacle for a number of years now. A tragic event that became a 22 year long rolling news story. It’s a story that won’t go away, because the answers thus far yielded by due process satisfy no one.
For this reason, Scotland sadly deserves its shame, disgrace and international condemnation. But certainly not for the reasons offered and repeatedly churned.
The story of the Lockerbie events has been allowed to be drowned out by one version, promoted, if not manufactured, by US intelligence and repeated by our own prosecution service and our government, in denial of later revelation, who maintain even to this day that they "do not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” despite it being utterly discredited, in addition to adjudged a possible miscarriage by our Criminal Cases Review Commission. It continues to be upheld, with every opportunity to address it spurned or frustrated. Perhaps its last chance for resolution rests with the Scottish [Government], who have until 10 December to respond to the public petitions committee and advise if they will hold an inquiry that may bring some clarity to what has become an international scandal.
The scandal is not that Scotland released a mass murderer. It is that we allowed a man to be convicted as one in the first place, and have done nothing to erase the stain of what could be the greatest miscarriage of justice ever perpetrated by our courts.
[The full article can (and should) be read here.
Lockerbie trial UN observer Professor Hans Köchler and Justice for Megrahi signatory member Professor Noam Chomsky have written to Steven Raeburn to congratulate him on this article.]
Lockerbie in the House of Commons
30 Nov 2010 : Column 712W
Lockerbie: Bombings
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what level of (a) disclosure and (b) dissemination has been applied to information regarding Abdul Baset Al Megrahi held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. [26515]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: None. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not hold any information or material relating to Abdul Baset Al Megrahi. As he was convicted by the Scottish courts, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does not have the power to review his conviction or sentence. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can review the convictions or sentences of those convicted by the Scottish courts.
[The above is from the Written Answers section of Hansard. Guy Opperman is the Conservative MP for Hexham; Kenneth Clarke is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the UK Government.]
Lockerbie: Bombings
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what level of (a) disclosure and (b) dissemination has been applied to information regarding Abdul Baset Al Megrahi held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. [26515]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: None. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not hold any information or material relating to Abdul Baset Al Megrahi. As he was convicted by the Scottish courts, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does not have the power to review his conviction or sentence. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can review the convictions or sentences of those convicted by the Scottish courts.
[The above is from the Written Answers section of Hansard. Guy Opperman is the Conservative MP for Hexham; Kenneth Clarke is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the UK Government.]
US anger over Megrahi may have stopped McKinnon deal
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It follows up on yesterday's story in The Guardian speculating that US anger over the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi might have influenced the US Government to reject Gordon Brown's August 2009 proposal regarding hacker Gary McKinnon. The report reads in part:]
Politicians expressed fears last night that anger over the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had influenced America’s refusal to agree a deal over Gary McKinnon.
Leaked US diplomatic cables revealed for the first time that Gordon Brown had suggested such an agreement in August last year, which would have avoided McKinnon’s extradition.
But around the same time separate secret cables reveal the depth of US anger over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also last August. (...) [RB: As far as I can see, no such "separate secret cables" feature among those so far published by WikiLeaks.]
Last night politicians expressed fears McKinnon, originally from Glasgow, had been treated as a “diplomatic pawn” between America and the UK.
David Burrowes, McKinnon’s MP, said he was concerned McKinnon was denied justice “for political reasons”.
He called on the Americans to review their decision, and added that when he heard Megrahi was to be released, “I thought it put paid to any hope that we had of America making a compassionate decision about Gary.” (...)
The cables show that, despite public claims by the UK Government that it could not intervene, the then prime minister suggested a deal during a meeting with the American ambassador to London. Under the proposal, McKinnon would plead guilty but serve any sentence in the UK.
The newly released cable, to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, says that request was passed on to the American attorney general, Eric Holder, and was written by the ambassador, Louis Susman.
Mr Susman told an influential Scottish audience earlier this year that Megrahi should never have been released. (...)
Last night Labour called for reassurances that the decision taken to release Megrahi, by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, had no influence on the case.
Elaine Murray, the Labour MSP for Dumfries, said: “There is no doubt that Kenny MacAskill’s flawed decision to release the Lockerbie bomber damaged our international relationships, but it is important to establish that it did not have an impact on other specific cases.” (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that it had not known about Mr Brown’s intervention in the case. However, he added that Scottish ministers believed that no external factors should influence such decisions.
“It is our view that justice decisions should be taken on justice grounds alone and no other factor, as certainly happened in the case of Megrahi,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Gordon Brown last night refused to comment. Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, is currently considering McKinnon’s case.
[There is a related opinion piece by Duncan Campbell on The Guardian website in which he refers to "the alleged Lockerbie bomber".
The following comment comes from columnist Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star:]
Speaking of thin-skinned nations that are intolerant of perceived criticism, the US refused to hear British pleas for the fate of Gary McKinnon, the young Brit with autism who hacked into Pentagon files in 2001 to search for proof of the existence of UFOs. The US is extraditing him, presumably to jail him for life. Why? Because the UK released the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. In fact, the independent Scottish judiciary [sic] released him, possibly just to annoy Downing Street, and also because, embarrassingly, he appeared to be a tiny bit “not guilty.”
Politicians expressed fears last night that anger over the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had influenced America’s refusal to agree a deal over Gary McKinnon.
Leaked US diplomatic cables revealed for the first time that Gordon Brown had suggested such an agreement in August last year, which would have avoided McKinnon’s extradition.
But around the same time separate secret cables reveal the depth of US anger over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also last August. (...) [RB: As far as I can see, no such "separate secret cables" feature among those so far published by WikiLeaks.]
Last night politicians expressed fears McKinnon, originally from Glasgow, had been treated as a “diplomatic pawn” between America and the UK.
David Burrowes, McKinnon’s MP, said he was concerned McKinnon was denied justice “for political reasons”.
He called on the Americans to review their decision, and added that when he heard Megrahi was to be released, “I thought it put paid to any hope that we had of America making a compassionate decision about Gary.” (...)
The cables show that, despite public claims by the UK Government that it could not intervene, the then prime minister suggested a deal during a meeting with the American ambassador to London. Under the proposal, McKinnon would plead guilty but serve any sentence in the UK.
The newly released cable, to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, says that request was passed on to the American attorney general, Eric Holder, and was written by the ambassador, Louis Susman.
Mr Susman told an influential Scottish audience earlier this year that Megrahi should never have been released. (...)
Last night Labour called for reassurances that the decision taken to release Megrahi, by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, had no influence on the case.
Elaine Murray, the Labour MSP for Dumfries, said: “There is no doubt that Kenny MacAskill’s flawed decision to release the Lockerbie bomber damaged our international relationships, but it is important to establish that it did not have an impact on other specific cases.” (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said that it had not known about Mr Brown’s intervention in the case. However, he added that Scottish ministers believed that no external factors should influence such decisions.
“It is our view that justice decisions should be taken on justice grounds alone and no other factor, as certainly happened in the case of Megrahi,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Gordon Brown last night refused to comment. Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, is currently considering McKinnon’s case.
[There is a related opinion piece by Duncan Campbell on The Guardian website in which he refers to "the alleged Lockerbie bomber".
The following comment comes from columnist Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star:]
Speaking of thin-skinned nations that are intolerant of perceived criticism, the US refused to hear British pleas for the fate of Gary McKinnon, the young Brit with autism who hacked into Pentagon files in 2001 to search for proof of the existence of UFOs. The US is extraditing him, presumably to jail him for life. Why? Because the UK released the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. In fact, the independent Scottish judiciary [sic] released him, possibly just to annoy Downing Street, and also because, embarrassingly, he appeared to be a tiny bit “not guilty.”
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Abdelbaset Megrahi and Gary McKinnon
Leaked US embassy cables reveal that Gordon Brown unsuccessfully put his reputation as prime minister on the line in a plea to Washington that the computer hacker Gary McKinnon be allowed to serve any sentence in the UK. (...)
Brown made his unsuccessful direct intervention in August 2009, according to a secret cable from the US ambassador in the UK, Louis Susman, to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
Susman wrote: "PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury if imprisoned in a US facility."
The ambassador says he sought to raise Brown's request in Washington with Obama's newly appointed attorney general, Eric Holder. But the plea got nowhere.
In October last year, the ambassador had to warn Clinton on a visit to the UK that the prime minister was likely to raise the McKinnon case again.
"McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending." he reported. "The case has also caused public criticism of the US-UK extradition treaty."
One reason for Brown's failure may have been barely contained US rage, spelled out in other secret cable traffic around the same time, that the UK was releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Ali Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to what turned out to be a hero's welcome in Libya.
[From a report published earlier today on The Guardian website. The "other secret cable traffic" relating to Megrahi's release does not seem to have yet been published.]
Brown made his unsuccessful direct intervention in August 2009, according to a secret cable from the US ambassador in the UK, Louis Susman, to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
Susman wrote: "PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury if imprisoned in a US facility."
The ambassador says he sought to raise Brown's request in Washington with Obama's newly appointed attorney general, Eric Holder. But the plea got nowhere.
In October last year, the ambassador had to warn Clinton on a visit to the UK that the prime minister was likely to raise the McKinnon case again.
"McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending." he reported. "The case has also caused public criticism of the US-UK extradition treaty."
One reason for Brown's failure may have been barely contained US rage, spelled out in other secret cable traffic around the same time, that the UK was releasing the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Ali Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to what turned out to be a hero's welcome in Libya.
[From a report published earlier today on The Guardian website. The "other secret cable traffic" relating to Megrahi's release does not seem to have yet been published.]
Another gripping snippet
American diplomats branded a Labour former minister a ‘hound dog where women are concerned’.
Political websites last night named him as Ivan Lewis, who served as the Foreign Office minister for Libya in the last Labour government.
The name, contained in a cable from the US embassy in London, was withheld by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained the full dispatch from WikiLeaks.
Mr Lewis – the Labour MP for Bury who is now his party’s culture spokesman – declined to comment last night. (...)
Mr Lewis would have angered the US because in 2009, when he was the Foreign Office minister responsible for Libya, he wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, giving him the green light to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement.
[From an article by Gerri Peev in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
Political websites last night named him as Ivan Lewis, who served as the Foreign Office minister for Libya in the last Labour government.
The name, contained in a cable from the US embassy in London, was withheld by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained the full dispatch from WikiLeaks.
Mr Lewis – the Labour MP for Bury who is now his party’s culture spokesman – declined to comment last night. (...)
Mr Lewis would have angered the US because in 2009, when he was the Foreign Office minister responsible for Libya, he wrote to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, giving him the green light to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement.
[From an article by Gerri Peev in today's edition of the Daily Mail.]
Monday, 29 November 2010
Isn't this exciting?
As far as I can discern from a preliminary trawl of The Guardian and The New York Times websites, the tranche of US State Department cables just released does not contain any Megrahi or Lockerbie material. However, this September 2009 assessment of Gaddafi by the US ambassador to Tripoli has some entertainment value.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Wikileaks data contains "significant Lockerbie material"
[This is the heading over a report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
The Firm has learned that "significant" case materials relating to the Pan Am 103 debacle are among the 3 million sensitive documents scheduled to be released by the Wikileaks site in the next 24 hours.
Sources close to the UK Government who have had access to the material have briefed The Firm ahead of their release, although the precise nature of the materials has not been disclosed.
On Friday the United States Government alerted its allies through diplomatic channels to forewarn them of the details of some of the materials that they anticipated would be amongst the leaked material. (...)
It is reported this morning that the UK government has issued a Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) to editors not to publish or broadcast extracts from leaks of sensitive US cables that relate to issues of national security, and that David Cameron’s office has confirmed that the US ambassador Louis Susman has briefed the government on what might be contained in the files.
[Given the period covered by the US State Department cables, I remain of the view that the only material in the documents relevant to Lockerbie will be material relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation to Libya. They will contain nothing relating to the circumstances of the investigation, prosecution and trial.
I like the following comment from the For Argyll website:]
And what will the coming Wikileaks revelations tell us about American conduct behind the scenes in the Al Megrahi affair? Will the pompous publicity hound, Senator Robert Menendez be discombobulated? We can’t wait.
Old wounds that need re-opened
This is the heading over a long post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. The post consists of a thoughtful discussion of Father Pat Keegans's recent letter to US Lockerbie families and of the reaction quoted in the original report in The Herald from one US relative, to the effect that an inquiry into the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi would "open old wounds".
The questions that Caustic Logic poses to the US relatives are questions that can equally be addressed to the Scottish Government which, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, continues to parrot the mantra that it does "not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.”
The questions that Caustic Logic poses to the US relatives are questions that can equally be addressed to the Scottish Government which, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, continues to parrot the mantra that it does "not doubt the safety of the verdict against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.”
Saturday, 27 November 2010
New WikiLeaks documents said to relate to Megrahi
[What follows is an excerpt from today's edition of The Sun.]
Defence chiefs last night warned national security will be put "at risk" by a devastating new leak of secret American files.
Controversial website WikiLeaks will this weekend publish more than two million US diplomatic messages. Senior defence official Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance urged the British media not to publish the classified documents.
He said: "Aspects of national security might be put at risk if a major UK news outlet brought such information into obvious public prominence."
The documents were issued by the White House, the CIA and US embassies to allied governments around the world. The messages to British diplomats contain highly sensitive conversations that could reap huge damage.
The most compromising are believed to contain secret intelligence sources, as well as information about Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
[A much longer article appears in the Daily Mail (and The Sun's story is probably taken from this) which indicates that the documents relating to Megrahi concern discussions about his return to Libya, rather than how he came to be accused, tried and convicted.
Scotland on Sunday runs a short piece which contains the following:]
With governments across the world bracing themselves for the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified papers and cables last night, there was growing expectation that some of the material will relate to the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi last year.
A Scottish Government spokesman said they had received no contact from the US Consul in Edinburgh about any information relating to their own actions. However, it is understood that among the millions of pages to be put up on the web over coming days is more information detailing US views on the bomber's return to Libya last August.
Defence chiefs last night warned national security will be put "at risk" by a devastating new leak of secret American files.
Controversial website WikiLeaks will this weekend publish more than two million US diplomatic messages. Senior defence official Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance urged the British media not to publish the classified documents.
He said: "Aspects of national security might be put at risk if a major UK news outlet brought such information into obvious public prominence."
The documents were issued by the White House, the CIA and US embassies to allied governments around the world. The messages to British diplomats contain highly sensitive conversations that could reap huge damage.
The most compromising are believed to contain secret intelligence sources, as well as information about Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
[A much longer article appears in the Daily Mail (and The Sun's story is probably taken from this) which indicates that the documents relating to Megrahi concern discussions about his return to Libya, rather than how he came to be accused, tried and convicted.
Scotland on Sunday runs a short piece which contains the following:]
With governments across the world bracing themselves for the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified papers and cables last night, there was growing expectation that some of the material will relate to the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi last year.
A Scottish Government spokesman said they had received no contact from the US Consul in Edinburgh about any information relating to their own actions. However, it is understood that among the millions of pages to be put up on the web over coming days is more information detailing US views on the bomber's return to Libya last August.
Friday, 26 November 2010
So now we know
Even if profiling could detect every terrorist, it could not detect every terrorist plot. Remember Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland? That was accomplished without any terrorists aboard. An unsuspecting passenger was turned into a weapon of mass destruction when she carried on a bomb disguised as a radio. Profiling would not have stopped that plot.
[From an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer supporting the enhanced passenger screening procedures for anyone boarding a plane in America by Louis Lombardi, an attorney and former New York City police captain.]
[From an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer supporting the enhanced passenger screening procedures for anyone boarding a plane in America by Louis Lombardi, an attorney and former New York City police captain.]
Thursday, 25 November 2010
False memories?
[What follow are excerpts from an article published today on The Guardian website.]
In fact, many hundreds of people have been wrongfully convicted in the UK because juries and those involved in the legal system relied upon "common sense" in considering issues relating to memory. Several thousand case histories have been referred to the British False Memory Society and at least 672 of these are known to have involved the police or higher legal authorities.
It is imperative that those working in the legal system are familiar, at least in general terms, with the way that memory works. Experimental psychologists, following the initial controversy over the veracity of recovered memories back in the 1980s, have developed several reliable techniques to study factors that influence the formation and maintenance of false memories. The studies have proved beyond doubt that false memories can be produced quite readily in susceptible individuals.
Of course, false memories do not only arise in the context of sexual abuse allegations. As Professor Tim Valentine, an expert in psychology and the law at Goldsmiths, University of London, informs me:
"Witnesses' recall can be influenced by information acquired during an investigation. Just repeatedly questioning a witness tends to increase their confidence in both correct and mistaken answers. A shopkeeper who was a key witness in the Lockerbie bomb case was interviewed 20 times by the police, during which he was shown fragments of burnt clothing. He recalled a Libyan customer who had been in the shop nine months previously. Initially he said he did not sell the man any shirts. In court he described selling two shirts to the customer that were similar to fragments of clothing found in the suitcase that contained the bomb. Might this be a false memory induced by questioning about the shirts?"
In fact, many hundreds of people have been wrongfully convicted in the UK because juries and those involved in the legal system relied upon "common sense" in considering issues relating to memory. Several thousand case histories have been referred to the British False Memory Society and at least 672 of these are known to have involved the police or higher legal authorities.
It is imperative that those working in the legal system are familiar, at least in general terms, with the way that memory works. Experimental psychologists, following the initial controversy over the veracity of recovered memories back in the 1980s, have developed several reliable techniques to study factors that influence the formation and maintenance of false memories. The studies have proved beyond doubt that false memories can be produced quite readily in susceptible individuals.
Of course, false memories do not only arise in the context of sexual abuse allegations. As Professor Tim Valentine, an expert in psychology and the law at Goldsmiths, University of London, informs me:
"Witnesses' recall can be influenced by information acquired during an investigation. Just repeatedly questioning a witness tends to increase their confidence in both correct and mistaken answers. A shopkeeper who was a key witness in the Lockerbie bomb case was interviewed 20 times by the police, during which he was shown fragments of burnt clothing. He recalled a Libyan customer who had been in the shop nine months previously. Initially he said he did not sell the man any shirts. In court he described selling two shirts to the customer that were similar to fragments of clothing found in the suitcase that contained the bomb. Might this be a false memory induced by questioning about the shirts?"
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Good news regarding the Cadder emergency legislation
[The following is taken from a report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has joined the growing clamour of concern about section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, passed by the Scottish Parliament last month, with Commission chairman Jean Couper saying there is “no evidence” that the provisions in section 7 of the new Act were required.
She added that the new section was “a fundamental constitutional change in the role of the Commission and in its relationship with the appeal court in Scotland.”
She said the provision “risks undermining the role of the Commission as an independent arbiter of issues relating to alleged miscarriages of justice.”
However, Couper also said that following a meeting with Kenny MacAskill the new measures, which had been criticised for fundamentally changing the nature of SCCRC referrals, were temporary, and would be reviewed as part of Lord Carloway’s investigation into criminal procedure.
“Whilst the court has and will continue to refuse some appeals based upon a referral by the Commission and on occasion will comment upon our basis of referral, I have no evidence of any concern amongst the judiciary that the Commission is unable or unwilling to undertake its duties in a measured, considered and appropriate way,” she said.
“Section 7 of the new Act, and in particular the creation of a new section 194DA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, creates a fundamental change in the relationship between the court and the Commission.
“The new legislative framework that gives authority to the High Court to reject a reference from the Commission at the outset risks undermining the role of the Commission as an independent arbiter of issues relating to alleged miscarriages of justice. The appropriate remedy for any aggrieved party, whether this be the applicant or the Crown, to challenge a decision made by the Commission, after it has considered the matter and reached a determination, is by way of judicial review. This, we feel, is the correct forum for the Commission’s application of our statutory test to be considered and tested, and not by the High Court in terms of the new section 194DA(2).”
She said that Justice Minster Kenny MacAskill had visited the Commission after concerns were raised.
“He assured me at our meeting that the new legislation was intended to provide interim measures which will now be subject to full consultation as part of Lord Carloway`s review. The Commission has been asked to play an active part in the forthcoming consultation and review process and is pleased to do so.”
[The Herald also has a shorter report on the subject.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has joined the growing clamour of concern about section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, passed by the Scottish Parliament last month, with Commission chairman Jean Couper saying there is “no evidence” that the provisions in section 7 of the new Act were required.
She added that the new section was “a fundamental constitutional change in the role of the Commission and in its relationship with the appeal court in Scotland.”
She said the provision “risks undermining the role of the Commission as an independent arbiter of issues relating to alleged miscarriages of justice.”
However, Couper also said that following a meeting with Kenny MacAskill the new measures, which had been criticised for fundamentally changing the nature of SCCRC referrals, were temporary, and would be reviewed as part of Lord Carloway’s investigation into criminal procedure.
“Whilst the court has and will continue to refuse some appeals based upon a referral by the Commission and on occasion will comment upon our basis of referral, I have no evidence of any concern amongst the judiciary that the Commission is unable or unwilling to undertake its duties in a measured, considered and appropriate way,” she said.
“Section 7 of the new Act, and in particular the creation of a new section 194DA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, creates a fundamental change in the relationship between the court and the Commission.
“The new legislative framework that gives authority to the High Court to reject a reference from the Commission at the outset risks undermining the role of the Commission as an independent arbiter of issues relating to alleged miscarriages of justice. The appropriate remedy for any aggrieved party, whether this be the applicant or the Crown, to challenge a decision made by the Commission, after it has considered the matter and reached a determination, is by way of judicial review. This, we feel, is the correct forum for the Commission’s application of our statutory test to be considered and tested, and not by the High Court in terms of the new section 194DA(2).”
She said that Justice Minster Kenny MacAskill had visited the Commission after concerns were raised.
“He assured me at our meeting that the new legislation was intended to provide interim measures which will now be subject to full consultation as part of Lord Carloway`s review. The Commission has been asked to play an active part in the forthcoming consultation and review process and is pleased to do so.”
[The Herald also has a shorter report on the subject.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)