[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Herald by Ian Bell, probably the most consistently interesting columnist writing in the print media in Scotland today. The article reads in part:]
Monday morning was enlivened by the sight of Tony Blair on the BBC advising Egyptians as to the proper handling of the democracy thing.
He has a certain panache, our former prime minister, and a certain – what shall we say? – psychological resilience where truth and reputation are concerned.
Tuesday sparked up with another WikiLeak. Once more, it fell into the broad category of things-you-guessed. It slotted into the existing record, however. It also filled the gaps left open by the persistent refusal of innumerable freedom of information requests, north and south of the border. It left Mr Blair – deja vu has a familiar ring, doesn’t it? – with questions to answer.
So: he cuts a prisoner transfer deal, ignoring the Scottish jurisdiction, with Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. There is only one relevant prisoner, and a single atrocity at issue.
So: a big energy deal follows. Atrocities are negotiable.
So: American diplomats record that a junior Foreign Office minister, Bill Rammell, has tutored the Libyans in Scots law, with particular reference to section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act (1993), and the notion of compassionate release. A civil servant, Rob Dixon, has meanwhile joined the dots for the American friends.
The Libyans catch on quick. They follow this FO advice – denied and deniable – to the letter. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, “the Lockerbie Bomber”, certainly has cancer, and will certainly die because of it, sooner or later. Mr Gaddafi’s tame patriots also issue the usual threats to British interests. Ergo: “compassion” suits everyone. But it also suits Whitehall to have a Scottish patsy when – says the WikiLeak – (Alex) “Salmond told” (Jack, then Justice Secretary) “Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds”. That’s not how the story was spun. American ire, Hillary Clinton’s ire, was directed at Edinburgh when Washington and London certainly knew better. Much better.
Still, a Union is a reassuring thing, isn’t it?
Despite anything US senators might say, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill played it straight. Despite anything the American bereaved have been told, Edinburgh did not spring Megrahi to placate Libya, facilitate oil deals, “pick a fight with Westminster” or obscure the truth of Lockerbie. That, like all the back-channel work, was London’s doing. Mr MacAskill allowed a dying man to go home.
In some quarters, even that is nefarious. Al-Megrahi has had the impertinence to go on living. That mass murderer, feted yet gasping, has escaped the horrors he visited upon his victims. This is, for many, intolerable. How so?
First up, the idea that our dull devolution settlement is, in American eyes, just a perfidious British thing. Edinburgh did London’s dirty work to hide a dirtier deal, they think. But how does that fit with the second charge? Namely: why didn’t Gordon Brown “order” Mr Salmond to pursue justice, when foreign policy is Westminster’s preserve?
One possibility: because the US Consulate in leafy Edinburgh did its job, and explained the Alex and Gordon relationship?
So why was Megrahi given his liberty when other terminally ill prisoners of the Crown in Scotland have enjoyed far fewer courtesies? “Compassion” is not a notable feature of Scottish justice. And Al-Megrahi wasn’t just any prisoner. The fact that he was obliged to abandon his appeal against conviction in order to – a legalism – get free, wasn’t trivial. How come? (...)
Why was it so important, for so long, to so many people, that Megrahi should be dead, or at least out of the way?
He didn’t do it. That statement suits no-one. The important thing to remember, in Scotland, is that Megrahi abandoned his appeal. Such was the price of his liberty.
No-one has dealt with the fact that the US Department of Justice sanctioned payments of $3 million to a pair of Maltese “witnesses” – Tony and Paul Gauci, for their “crucial evidence” over clothes and a suitcase – or whether a Scottish court, even one in a foreign country, allows bribery.
No-one has dealt, for that matter, with the evidentiary status of a bit of plastic, a fragment of the alleged timer on the bomb that killed so many people. There is not a forensic expert in the world, given freedom of contract, who buys it.
Yet the Scottish Government, otherwise defamed, will not entertain the idea that Megrahi’s conviction was unsound. I find that fact more interesting than all the predictable WikiStuff about Mr Blair’s ministers and their devious memos. When did that fix go in? If we insist, as we must, that Scotland’s justice system is inviolable, and fundamental to the Union, we had better ensure that our system is as good as it gets. Refusing to carry the can for Mr Blair’s games is one thing. How – dispassionately – did a Scottish court convict Megrahi, and why does Scotland juridico-political establishment go on calling the conviction safe?
WikiLeaks reminds journalists that paper is rationed, when it matters. Where Megrahi is concerned, numerous questions are literally, actually, rigorously, unanswered. I do know, however, that the government of Scotland entertains no doubts as to the Libyan’s conviction for the worst terrorist massacre ever perpetrated on these islands. I’m also aware of distinguished Scots lawyers who don’t give that idea the time of day.
It’s a thought. There should be a means to examine such a thought. Instead, we insinuate and speculate endlessly. We can say that noble Scottish judges and a Scottish Government have been cleared of double-dealing, thanks to indefatigable WikiLeaks. What’s the score on single dealing, then?
What’s the score on a Union that defers each choice, almost sublimely, to a higher power, in another country? Asymmetric is only the first of the ugly words. Scottish justice, Scottish traditions of jurisprudence, were supposed to be guaranteed under the old deal, and in writing.
Perhaps some forensic examination is in order.
[A version of this article also appears on Ian Bell's blog.]
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Secret papers on Lockerbie bomber to be made public
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly, the papers in question are not those in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary asserted public interest immunity in the course of Abdelbaset Megrahi's recent appeal although their non-disclosed existence and contents formed one of the grounds on which the SCCRC decided that his conviction at the Zeist trial might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. No, the documents being referred to relate to the side-issue of the UK Government's role in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation. The article reads in part:]
The UK government is set to publish more official documents on the Lockerbie bomber, after American families reacted with fury to revelations that ministers had advised Libya on his release.
Prime Minister David Cameron has asked Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to review government papers on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's case, with a view to publishing them "shortly".
The UK government signalled it would act after the publication of WikiLeaks' documents that suggested Labour's then foreign minister Bill Rammell wrote to his counterpart in Libya in October 2008 to advise on how Megrahi could be freed from a Scottish prison.
Mr Rammell's letter was sent about a week after Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and it advised the Libyans that this could lead to his release on compassionate grounds. The disclosure of the letter has led to claims that its existence undermines the previous Labour government's insistence that it was not complicit in the release of Megrahi. (...)
In the House of Commons yesterday, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sir Gus would look at past papers on the issue and his report would be published soon. He also emphasised that Mr Cameron had opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. (...)
Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer who is representing US families, said the politicians' behaviour had been "disgusting". Mr Duggan renewed his attack on Mr MacAskill for releasing Megrahi but said his conduct had not been as bad as the UK government representatives.
"It was some but not all of the Scottish politicians who let everyone down," Mr Duggan said.
"As devious and manipulative as they were, however, they were not as bad as the British diplomats and officials who claimed to have no part in this decision but are now shown to be advisers to the Libyans one year before the actual release of the murderer. It is disgusting but not unanticipated." (...)
Details of Mr Rammell's letter came to light in an official US memo recording a meeting that saw Rob Dixon, a Foreign Office official, brief the US ambassador on the document.
The memo said the letter gave details of the 1993 act, which, under Scots law, enables terminally ill prisoners to apply for compassionate release.
The memo claimed Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, had spoken to First Minister Alex Salmond. According to the memo's account of the conversation, the exchange had been interpreted as a signal that Mr Salmond would release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The minute of the meeting said Mr Salmond would take the "final decision" and added: "Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds."
The note added: "Dixon told us HMG [Her Majesty's Government] has interpreted this to mean that Salmond is inclined to grant the request."
But this version of events was disputed vigorously by Mr Salmond, who maintains the decision was taken solely by Mr MacAskill. His spokesman released a letter sent by Mr Salmond to Libyan representatives on 5 November, 2008 – about three weeks after Mr Rammell's letter. The contents indicate that Scottish ministers had not yet considered compassionate grounds.
Mr Salmond's letter confirms that Scottish Prison Service guidance was that a life expectancy of less than three months was an appropriate period for compassionate release. But it added: "No formal consideration has been given to this matter as yet, but clearly the best advice on Mr al-Megrahi's health does not conform to the guidance on life expectancy for release on compassionate grounds."
The First Minister's spokesman said the letter showed "beyond doubt" the Scottish Government had not been considering compassionate release at that time and it was only when the disease later became "hormone resistant" that he was freed.
[A letter in The Scotsman from Ray Newton reads as follows:
"The WikiLeaks exposure of the collusion of the UK and the US in connection with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release is no surprise. The cancer diagnosis was a golden opportunity to have the appeal stopped with its new evidence of planted material used to convict Megrahi and Libya instead of Iran via Syria. Ironically, the political situation changed. Hence the green light for Scottish law to take its course."
A similar, but less detailed, report in The Herald can be read here.]
The UK government is set to publish more official documents on the Lockerbie bomber, after American families reacted with fury to revelations that ministers had advised Libya on his release.
Prime Minister David Cameron has asked Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to review government papers on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's case, with a view to publishing them "shortly".
The UK government signalled it would act after the publication of WikiLeaks' documents that suggested Labour's then foreign minister Bill Rammell wrote to his counterpart in Libya in October 2008 to advise on how Megrahi could be freed from a Scottish prison.
Mr Rammell's letter was sent about a week after Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and it advised the Libyans that this could lead to his release on compassionate grounds. The disclosure of the letter has led to claims that its existence undermines the previous Labour government's insistence that it was not complicit in the release of Megrahi. (...)
In the House of Commons yesterday, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sir Gus would look at past papers on the issue and his report would be published soon. He also emphasised that Mr Cameron had opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. (...)
Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer who is representing US families, said the politicians' behaviour had been "disgusting". Mr Duggan renewed his attack on Mr MacAskill for releasing Megrahi but said his conduct had not been as bad as the UK government representatives.
"It was some but not all of the Scottish politicians who let everyone down," Mr Duggan said.
"As devious and manipulative as they were, however, they were not as bad as the British diplomats and officials who claimed to have no part in this decision but are now shown to be advisers to the Libyans one year before the actual release of the murderer. It is disgusting but not unanticipated." (...)
Details of Mr Rammell's letter came to light in an official US memo recording a meeting that saw Rob Dixon, a Foreign Office official, brief the US ambassador on the document.
The memo said the letter gave details of the 1993 act, which, under Scots law, enables terminally ill prisoners to apply for compassionate release.
The memo claimed Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, had spoken to First Minister Alex Salmond. According to the memo's account of the conversation, the exchange had been interpreted as a signal that Mr Salmond would release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The minute of the meeting said Mr Salmond would take the "final decision" and added: "Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds."
The note added: "Dixon told us HMG [Her Majesty's Government] has interpreted this to mean that Salmond is inclined to grant the request."
But this version of events was disputed vigorously by Mr Salmond, who maintains the decision was taken solely by Mr MacAskill. His spokesman released a letter sent by Mr Salmond to Libyan representatives on 5 November, 2008 – about three weeks after Mr Rammell's letter. The contents indicate that Scottish ministers had not yet considered compassionate grounds.
Mr Salmond's letter confirms that Scottish Prison Service guidance was that a life expectancy of less than three months was an appropriate period for compassionate release. But it added: "No formal consideration has been given to this matter as yet, but clearly the best advice on Mr al-Megrahi's health does not conform to the guidance on life expectancy for release on compassionate grounds."
The First Minister's spokesman said the letter showed "beyond doubt" the Scottish Government had not been considering compassionate release at that time and it was only when the disease later became "hormone resistant" that he was freed.
[A letter in The Scotsman from Ray Newton reads as follows:
"The WikiLeaks exposure of the collusion of the UK and the US in connection with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release is no surprise. The cancer diagnosis was a golden opportunity to have the appeal stopped with its new evidence of planted material used to convict Megrahi and Libya instead of Iran via Syria. Ironically, the political situation changed. Hence the green light for Scottish law to take its course."
A similar, but less detailed, report in The Herald can be read here.]
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
MacAskill's answers to Christine Grahame's questions
[On 14 January 2011 Christine Grahame MSP submitted three written questions relating to the Statutory Instrument permitting (subject to a consent requirement) the release of the full SCCRC report on the Megrahi conviction. Answers have now been received from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities would have to be taken into account whether the order were amended by primary legislation or by statutory instrument. (S3W-38797)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Yes, the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations would apply.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it can confirm that considerations in relation to data protection legislation are not relevant in this case given that section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ensures that, where Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission disclosure is permitted by means of a statutory order, “the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.” (S3W-38798)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: No, considerations in relation to data protection legislation are relevant in this case. [RB: In the light of the statutory provision quoted by Christine Grahame in her question, it would be interesting to find out on what legal basis Mr MacAskill contends that data protection considerations are relevant in this case.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it intends to bring forward primary legislation and, if so, whether it will specify the reasons for so doing rather than amending the order by means of a new statutory instrument. (S3W-38799)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Primary legislation is needed for full flexibility to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is put in place. The proposed legislation will facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned. In doing so, it will also maintain appropriate provision for such matters as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. [RB: It would be interesting to discover Mr MacAskill's reasons for believing that the objectives specified by him could not equally well be achieved in an appropriately drafted statutory instrument.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities would have to be taken into account whether the order were amended by primary legislation or by statutory instrument. (S3W-38797)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Yes, the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations would apply.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it can confirm that considerations in relation to data protection legislation are not relevant in this case given that section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ensures that, where Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission disclosure is permitted by means of a statutory order, “the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.” (S3W-38798)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: No, considerations in relation to data protection legislation are relevant in this case. [RB: In the light of the statutory provision quoted by Christine Grahame in her question, it would be interesting to find out on what legal basis Mr MacAskill contends that data protection considerations are relevant in this case.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it intends to bring forward primary legislation and, if so, whether it will specify the reasons for so doing rather than amending the order by means of a new statutory instrument. (S3W-38799)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Primary legislation is needed for full flexibility to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is put in place. The proposed legislation will facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned. In doing so, it will also maintain appropriate provision for such matters as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. [RB: It would be interesting to discover Mr MacAskill's reasons for believing that the objectives specified by him could not equally well be achieved in an appropriately drafted statutory instrument.]
WikiLeaks: Britain secretly advised Libya how to secure release of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Ministers secretly advised Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime how to secure the successful early release of the Lockerbie bomber, documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph have disclosed.
A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered. (...)
The documents disclose in detail how British ministers and officials were desperate not to allow Libyan anger over the ongoing imprisonment of Megrahi to derail the growing commercial relationship between the two countries. (...)
In October 2008 – as negotiations on the prisoner transfer agreement were ongoing –Megrahi was diagnosed as suffering from cancer.
It can now be disclosed that within a week of the diagnosis, Bill Rammell, a junior Foreign Office minister, had written to his Libyan counterpart advising him on how this could be used as the grounds of securing al-Megrahi’s compassionate release from prison.
Rob Dixon, a senior Foreign Office official, met with the American Ambassador to brief him on the letter. An official American memo on the meeting states: “FCO Minister for the Middle East Bill Rammell sent Libyan Deputy FM Abdulati al-Obeidi a letter, which was cleared both by HMG and by the Scottish Executive, on October 17 outlining the procedure for obtaining compassionate release.
“It cites Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 as the basis for release of prisoners, on license, on compassionate grounds. Although the Scottish Crown informed the families of the Pan Am 103 victims in an email October 21 that the time frame for compassionate release is normally three months from time of death, Dixon stressed to us that the three month time frame is not codified in the law.” (...)
When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.
The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.
In September 2009, it emerged that Mr Rammell had told the Libyans that neither the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister wanted to see al-Megrahi die in prison. However, government ministers strenuously denied that they had become involved in the release.
David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, said that there had been “no double dealing”.
[That the United Kingdom Government was being economical with the truth in its public statements on the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi is well known to those who have followed the saga -- and was made very clear to me by senior Libyan Government officials personally involved in seeking to achieve that objective. But this is all entirely peripheral to the real issue: was Abdelbaset Megrahi properly convicted or is there substance in the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? Until that issue is properly addressed and resolved, the Scottish criminal justice system will remain an object of scorn both domestically and internationally.
The 480 just-released WikiLeaks cables relating to Libya can be accessed here.]
Ministers secretly advised Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime how to secure the successful early release of the Lockerbie bomber, documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph have disclosed.
A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered. (...)
The documents disclose in detail how British ministers and officials were desperate not to allow Libyan anger over the ongoing imprisonment of Megrahi to derail the growing commercial relationship between the two countries. (...)
In October 2008 – as negotiations on the prisoner transfer agreement were ongoing –Megrahi was diagnosed as suffering from cancer.
It can now be disclosed that within a week of the diagnosis, Bill Rammell, a junior Foreign Office minister, had written to his Libyan counterpart advising him on how this could be used as the grounds of securing al-Megrahi’s compassionate release from prison.
Rob Dixon, a senior Foreign Office official, met with the American Ambassador to brief him on the letter. An official American memo on the meeting states: “FCO Minister for the Middle East Bill Rammell sent Libyan Deputy FM Abdulati al-Obeidi a letter, which was cleared both by HMG and by the Scottish Executive, on October 17 outlining the procedure for obtaining compassionate release.
“It cites Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 as the basis for release of prisoners, on license, on compassionate grounds. Although the Scottish Crown informed the families of the Pan Am 103 victims in an email October 21 that the time frame for compassionate release is normally three months from time of death, Dixon stressed to us that the three month time frame is not codified in the law.” (...)
When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.
The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.
In September 2009, it emerged that Mr Rammell had told the Libyans that neither the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister wanted to see al-Megrahi die in prison. However, government ministers strenuously denied that they had become involved in the release.
David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, said that there had been “no double dealing”.
[That the United Kingdom Government was being economical with the truth in its public statements on the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi is well known to those who have followed the saga -- and was made very clear to me by senior Libyan Government officials personally involved in seeking to achieve that objective. But this is all entirely peripheral to the real issue: was Abdelbaset Megrahi properly convicted or is there substance in the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? Until that issue is properly addressed and resolved, the Scottish criminal justice system will remain an object of scorn both domestically and internationally.
The 480 just-released WikiLeaks cables relating to Libya can be accessed here.]
Monday, 31 January 2011
Public Petitions Committee minute
The minute of the meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on 25 January, at which the Justice for Megrahi petition was considered, can be read here. The relevant section is to be found at columns 3367 to 3372.
Ten years of injustice
It was ten years ago today that the judges of the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist delivered their verdict of Guilty against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (and Not Guilty against Lamin Fhima) for the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. The Opinion of the Court justifying the verdicts can be read here. In the version originally issued on 31 January 2001, in the very first sentence, their Lordships mis-stated the date of the disaster. This is symptomatic of the quality of the Opinion as a whole.
An article marking the anniversary appeared on page 8 of yesterday's edition of The Sunday Post but does not feature on the newspaper's vestigial website. Justice for Megrahi's secretary is quoted as follows:
"Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester admits their petition, still being considered by Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee, could run out of steam after the election.
"He said, 'This is far from the end of the story, though, as we have at least two contingency plans to take the matter further.'
"He said they were ready to go outwith Scotland to achieve their aim but he wouldn't give details.
"'If we have to, we will go to the next resort which will be very public and not Scottish.' he warned.
"'If it's successful, the Scottish authorities won't be able to say no -- they'll have to do what they're told.'
"He said the group was waiting to see what answers the Petitions Committee gets to questions it's preparing to ask after a second meeting with the campaigners last week."
An article marking the anniversary appeared on page 8 of yesterday's edition of The Sunday Post but does not feature on the newspaper's vestigial website. Justice for Megrahi's secretary is quoted as follows:
"Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester admits their petition, still being considered by Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee, could run out of steam after the election.
"He said, 'This is far from the end of the story, though, as we have at least two contingency plans to take the matter further.'
"He said they were ready to go outwith Scotland to achieve their aim but he wouldn't give details.
"'If we have to, we will go to the next resort which will be very public and not Scottish.' he warned.
"'If it's successful, the Scottish authorities won't be able to say no -- they'll have to do what they're told.'
"He said the group was waiting to see what answers the Petitions Committee gets to questions it's preparing to ask after a second meeting with the campaigners last week."
Friday, 28 January 2011
Public Petitions Committee minute on Megrahi petition
[The minute of the meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on 25 January contains the following item on the Justice for Megrahi petition:]
PE1370 Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling 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.
The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.
[The Hansard report of the committee's deliberations is not due to be published until 31 January.]
PE1370 Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling 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.
The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.
[The Hansard report of the committee's deliberations is not due to be published until 31 January.]
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
New claim on Megrahi 'balderdash' says First Minister
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has described as "balderdash" claims published today that he placed the release of the Lockerbie bomber on the negotiating table with UK ministers.
The American magazine Vanity Fair alleges in its latest edition that the First Minister held private discussions with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw in which he offered to water down his opposition to release under the UK's Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
Quoting a UK official, the magazine says the "quid pro quo" was that Mr Straw would push through a change in the law to stem the glut of human rights cases being brought by prisoners against Scottish ministers over the practice of "slopping out".
That change, which puts a one-year time bar on cases, was agreed by the UK and Scottish governments in 2009 and is estimated to have saved the public purse as much as £50 million.
Mr Salmond yesterday hit back at the allegations, with a Scottish Government spokesperson describing the report as "complete and utter nonsense".
Scottish Government officials insist the decision to allow the bomber to go home was taken entirely in good faith.
It is now 17 months since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was allowed to return home to a hero's reception.
Yesterday, Mr Straw's office declined to comment on the claims. He is quoted by Vanity Fair saying his conversations with Mr Salmond were "private". (...)
Mr Straw's communications with Mr Salmond over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement took place in late 2007 and early 2008. He first agreed to exclude Megrahi from a PTA deal with Libya, only to reinstate him following pressure from the Libyans.
The agreement between the Scottish and UK governments on a one-year bar on slopping-out claims was announced in March 2009. Under the arrangement, the UK government agreed to push through legislation at Westminster.
Asked about the claims yesterday, Mr Salmond described it as a "daft suggestion", noting that the Scottish Government had consistently shown "trenchant opposition" to the prisoner transfer agreement.
[The report in The Press and Journal can be read here. The report in The Times contains the following paragraph:
'Last night, Mr Salmond’s spokesman angrily rejected any allegation of a quid pro quo, between the First Minister and Mr Straw. “The unsubstantiated assertion about the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about this issue will regard such a claim as farcical,” he said.'
The Vanity Fair article by David Rose can be read here.]
Alex Salmond has described as "balderdash" claims published today that he placed the release of the Lockerbie bomber on the negotiating table with UK ministers.
The American magazine Vanity Fair alleges in its latest edition that the First Minister held private discussions with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw in which he offered to water down his opposition to release under the UK's Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
Quoting a UK official, the magazine says the "quid pro quo" was that Mr Straw would push through a change in the law to stem the glut of human rights cases being brought by prisoners against Scottish ministers over the practice of "slopping out".
That change, which puts a one-year time bar on cases, was agreed by the UK and Scottish governments in 2009 and is estimated to have saved the public purse as much as £50 million.
Mr Salmond yesterday hit back at the allegations, with a Scottish Government spokesperson describing the report as "complete and utter nonsense".
Scottish Government officials insist the decision to allow the bomber to go home was taken entirely in good faith.
It is now 17 months since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was allowed to return home to a hero's reception.
Yesterday, Mr Straw's office declined to comment on the claims. He is quoted by Vanity Fair saying his conversations with Mr Salmond were "private". (...)
Mr Straw's communications with Mr Salmond over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement took place in late 2007 and early 2008. He first agreed to exclude Megrahi from a PTA deal with Libya, only to reinstate him following pressure from the Libyans.
The agreement between the Scottish and UK governments on a one-year bar on slopping-out claims was announced in March 2009. Under the arrangement, the UK government agreed to push through legislation at Westminster.
Asked about the claims yesterday, Mr Salmond described it as a "daft suggestion", noting that the Scottish Government had consistently shown "trenchant opposition" to the prisoner transfer agreement.
[The report in The Press and Journal can be read here. The report in The Times contains the following paragraph:
'Last night, Mr Salmond’s spokesman angrily rejected any allegation of a quid pro quo, between the First Minister and Mr Straw. “The unsubstantiated assertion about the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about this issue will regard such a claim as farcical,” he said.'
The Vanity Fair article by David Rose can be read here.]
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Lockerbie inquiry petition 'remains open'
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.
It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.
The JFM group claimed it was "imperative" that the case be examined once more.
However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction". (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.
He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.
Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.
"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."
[A report on the Public Petitions Committee's proceedings from The Press Association news agency reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.
MSPs on Holyrood's Petitions Committee made the decision after discussing the request by pressure group Justice For Megrahi (JFM).
SNP MSP Christine Grahame backed the group's position, appealing to the committee that the petition should be kept alive.
She argued that recent changes to legislation had raised questions over the remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice.
She said: "I think the SCCRC has been neutered, in many respects. If I may say to the committee, I wish you to continue to pursue the inquiry route, not close this down."
[Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester was interviewed about the petition and the campaign on BBC Two's Newsnight Scotland. The interview can be seen here.]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.
It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.
The JFM group claimed it was "imperative" that the case be examined once more.
However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction". (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.
He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.
Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.
"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."
[A report on the Public Petitions Committee's proceedings from The Press Association news agency reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.
MSPs on Holyrood's Petitions Committee made the decision after discussing the request by pressure group Justice For Megrahi (JFM).
SNP MSP Christine Grahame backed the group's position, appealing to the committee that the petition should be kept alive.
She argued that recent changes to legislation had raised questions over the remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice.
She said: "I think the SCCRC has been neutered, in many respects. If I may say to the committee, I wish you to continue to pursue the inquiry route, not close this down."
[Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester was interviewed about the petition and the campaign on BBC Two's Newsnight Scotland. The interview can be seen here.]
Lockerbie inquiry call responses discussed at Holyrood
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A Holyrood committee is due to consider responses over a call for an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition seeking the action in October last year.
The petitions committee is to discuss submissions from the Scottish government and the JFM group.
Members of the group, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, are expected to attend.
About 1,500 people signed the petition [RB: actually 1646] seeking an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
They claim it is "imperative" that the case be examined once more.
However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction".
[The Public Petitions Committee meets today at 2pm, though the Megrahi petition may not be reached until about 4pm. Its proceedings can be viewed live on the Committees section of the Scottish Parliament's television service.]
A Holyrood committee is due to consider responses over a call for an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition seeking the action in October last year.
The petitions committee is to discuss submissions from the Scottish government and the JFM group.
Members of the group, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, are expected to attend.
About 1,500 people signed the petition [RB: actually 1646] seeking an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
They claim it is "imperative" that the case be examined once more.
However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction".
[The Public Petitions Committee meets today at 2pm, though the Megrahi petition may not be reached until about 4pm. Its proceedings can be viewed live on the Committees section of the Scottish Parliament's television service.]
Sunday, 23 January 2011
10,000 letters over Lockerbie move
[This is the headline over a report issued today by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government has received about 10,000 letters and emails about the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Labour Party revealed the Government has received the equivalent of 190 items of correspondence each week since terminally-ill Megrahi was freed in August 2009.
The Government said it did not have a comprehensive record of all communication received, and it is not known how many of the letters were against or in favour of the decision to release him.
Labour asserted much of the correspondence was in protest against the Government's decision to allow Megrahi to return to his native Libya, and called on ministers to produce a breakdown of the nature of the letters and e-mails.
The party's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "The decision to release Megrahi was flawed and this volume of complaint shows just how much offence has been caused. The medical evidence has been shown to be wanting and the sight of the Lockerbie bomber being hailed as a hero in Tripoli produced outrage across the world." (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said Labour's assertion of 10,000 complaints was "entirely misleading", adding: "Responses received were both supportive and unsupportive - for example a letter from the Nelson Mandela Foundation carried his support for the decision - and other issues have generated far greater levels of response, such as the consultation on the then-proposed smoking ban which attracted tens of thousands of responses."
[This story has now (Monday, 24 January) been picked up by The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.]
The Scottish Government has received about 10,000 letters and emails about the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Labour Party revealed the Government has received the equivalent of 190 items of correspondence each week since terminally-ill Megrahi was freed in August 2009.
The Government said it did not have a comprehensive record of all communication received, and it is not known how many of the letters were against or in favour of the decision to release him.
Labour asserted much of the correspondence was in protest against the Government's decision to allow Megrahi to return to his native Libya, and called on ministers to produce a breakdown of the nature of the letters and e-mails.
The party's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "The decision to release Megrahi was flawed and this volume of complaint shows just how much offence has been caused. The medical evidence has been shown to be wanting and the sight of the Lockerbie bomber being hailed as a hero in Tripoli produced outrage across the world." (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said Labour's assertion of 10,000 complaints was "entirely misleading", adding: "Responses received were both supportive and unsupportive - for example a letter from the Nelson Mandela Foundation carried his support for the decision - and other issues have generated far greater levels of response, such as the consultation on the then-proposed smoking ban which attracted tens of thousands of responses."
[This story has now (Monday, 24 January) been picked up by The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.]
Lockerbie bomber inquiry rejected
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government has ruled out an official inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, campaigners have been told.
The Justice for Megrahi Committee last year lodged a petition with MSPs calling for an official probe into the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
But ministers have now written back to the committee ruling this out - even though they admit that the Scottish Government could hold such an inquiry. (...)
In their letter to campaigners on a potential probe into the bomber's conviction, ministers said: "The government has no plans to initiate an inquiry on this issue."
It added: "The wide-ranging and international nature of the issues involved, even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters, means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."
But the inquiry was ruled out because the government "does not doubt" the safety of Megrahi's conviction. Megrahi has already had one appeal against his 2001 conviction rejected.
A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Megrahi in 2009. Soon afterwards, he was freed on compassionate grounds due to terminal prostate cancer. He remains alive today at home in Libya.
A statement released by the Justice for Megrahi Committee said: "We have a Scottish Government with the power and resources to mount an inquiry that could provide at least some of the answers and it chooses to fall back on well-worn excuses and effectively abrogates responsibility for ascertaining the truth about one of the biggest terrorist outrages ever committed anywhere in the world."
The Scottish Government has ruled out an official inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, campaigners have been told.
The Justice for Megrahi Committee last year lodged a petition with MSPs calling for an official probe into the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
But ministers have now written back to the committee ruling this out - even though they admit that the Scottish Government could hold such an inquiry. (...)
In their letter to campaigners on a potential probe into the bomber's conviction, ministers said: "The government has no plans to initiate an inquiry on this issue."
It added: "The wide-ranging and international nature of the issues involved, even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters, means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."
But the inquiry was ruled out because the government "does not doubt" the safety of Megrahi's conviction. Megrahi has already had one appeal against his 2001 conviction rejected.
A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Megrahi in 2009. Soon afterwards, he was freed on compassionate grounds due to terminal prostate cancer. He remains alive today at home in Libya.
A statement released by the Justice for Megrahi Committee said: "We have a Scottish Government with the power and resources to mount an inquiry that could provide at least some of the answers and it chooses to fall back on well-worn excuses and effectively abrogates responsibility for ascertaining the truth about one of the biggest terrorist outrages ever committed anywhere in the world."
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Another opportunity to see Lockerbie - Unfinished Business
Actor and Justice for Megrahi supporter David Benson is to give a performance of his Edinburgh Festival Fringe award-winning play Lockerbie - Unfinished Business on 11 February at 7.30pm at Bedford School Theatre. An interview with David Benson about the play can be read here.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Further consideration of Justice for Megrahi petition
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee will consider the Scottish Government's response to the Justice for Megrahi petition and the petitioners' written observations on that response at its next meeting on Tuesday, 25 January. The meeting starts at 2pm, but this agenda item will probably be reached at around 4pm.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Despicable...
[This is the heading over a report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm recording Dr Jim Swire's personal reaction to the Scottish Government's letter to the Public Petitions Committee responding to the petition seeking an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads as follows:]
My first and personal reaction to the Scottish Government's (SG's) reply to the Holyrood Petitions Committee's presentation of JFM's petition to the SG is to feel shame.
Shame that we in Scotland should have been reduced to listening to reasoning which seems not to have any merit other than a blatant desire by deep and powerful groups within our body politic to try to protect themselves against exposure of the monstrous mistakes which seem to have been made in the past, chiefly surrounding the Zeist conviction of Baset Al-Megrahi.
The SG claims to have total faith in the verdict reached at Zeist despite our own SCCRC having no such confidence.
They seek to lay responsibility for the present impasse upon the shoulders of the man who they proclaim unquestioningly to believe to be the most brutal mass murderer ever to inflict his deeds upon our nation.
They even seek to blame the absence of successful appeals thus far, not upon the quality of the evidence and proceedings, but upon the decisions which the alleged mass murderer himself made, namely the decision not to speak for himself in court at Zeist, and later, in the face of a lingering and painful death (as well as subsequent representations by his own dictatorial government and a visit by the SG's own Justice Minister), to withdraw his second appeal.
How could a defendant from an alien culture be expected to ignore the advice of his own expert defence team of the day at Zeist, steeped as they supposedly were in the antecedents of Scottish law, and working as they must be presumed to have been for his advantage? The performance of his then defence team, and thus the advice not to speak in court, must itself be part of any inquiry into how this man came to be convicted, and the verdict reached, on such evidence.
As for the decision to withdraw his second appeal, this was reached following disgraceful and deliberate delaying tactics in the High Court by the Crown Office team, which knew that the appellant's time was running out in the face of an inexorable, painful and terminal medical condition. The Crown Office conduct of the second appeal, far from being a secure tool in justification of the validity of the original verdict is another aspect of the despicable way in which our nation has treated this man's case: it too should be added to any full inquiry into the verdict and its consequences.
Despicable!
The SG's Justice Secretary had responsibility for the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The SG cannot for one moment argue against the desperate situation he and they knew him to be in.
And what have they done to bolster this whole dishonest process? They have sought to isolate the material used by the SCCRC when evaluating the safety of the verdict, by introducing secondary legislation in February 2010, clearly designed to keep that material out of the reach of all who would challenge the propriety of their own position.
Through the SCCRC, the legal arm of government has told the political arm of Government and the rest of us as clearly as its constitution allows, that this verdict is considered unsafe. The SG knows that, yet in its desperation to conceal what looks like the failure of many of the servants of this State, the best it can do is to claim that the actions taken by a frightened and dying human being from a different culture justify it's own actions.
The SG has also now admitted that its original claim that it lacked the powers to mount an inquiry (such as that requested through petition by JFM), was untrue. Multiple 'reasons' seeking to justify avoiding taking an action inevitably become just excuses. When some of those 'reasons' turn out to have been untrue, any claim to integrity is also lost.
Whence then stems the SG's belief that the verdict is safe? Does it stem from Westminster? Or from Washington? It simply cannot stem from our own legal system. So much for Scotland's integrity and independence.
Oh! shame.
If ever there could be further reason to seek review of this case, it lies within this SG document. Any attempt to ascribe motivation for such behaviour points down the very same road as the McKie case and a number of others: the objective of Scotland's Government and some of those who work for it seems to have become to conceal the depths of failure into which we the electorate have, thus far, allowed them to sink.
My first and personal reaction to the Scottish Government's (SG's) reply to the Holyrood Petitions Committee's presentation of JFM's petition to the SG is to feel shame.
Shame that we in Scotland should have been reduced to listening to reasoning which seems not to have any merit other than a blatant desire by deep and powerful groups within our body politic to try to protect themselves against exposure of the monstrous mistakes which seem to have been made in the past, chiefly surrounding the Zeist conviction of Baset Al-Megrahi.
The SG claims to have total faith in the verdict reached at Zeist despite our own SCCRC having no such confidence.
They seek to lay responsibility for the present impasse upon the shoulders of the man who they proclaim unquestioningly to believe to be the most brutal mass murderer ever to inflict his deeds upon our nation.
They even seek to blame the absence of successful appeals thus far, not upon the quality of the evidence and proceedings, but upon the decisions which the alleged mass murderer himself made, namely the decision not to speak for himself in court at Zeist, and later, in the face of a lingering and painful death (as well as subsequent representations by his own dictatorial government and a visit by the SG's own Justice Minister), to withdraw his second appeal.
How could a defendant from an alien culture be expected to ignore the advice of his own expert defence team of the day at Zeist, steeped as they supposedly were in the antecedents of Scottish law, and working as they must be presumed to have been for his advantage? The performance of his then defence team, and thus the advice not to speak in court, must itself be part of any inquiry into how this man came to be convicted, and the verdict reached, on such evidence.
As for the decision to withdraw his second appeal, this was reached following disgraceful and deliberate delaying tactics in the High Court by the Crown Office team, which knew that the appellant's time was running out in the face of an inexorable, painful and terminal medical condition. The Crown Office conduct of the second appeal, far from being a secure tool in justification of the validity of the original verdict is another aspect of the despicable way in which our nation has treated this man's case: it too should be added to any full inquiry into the verdict and its consequences.
Despicable!
The SG's Justice Secretary had responsibility for the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The SG cannot for one moment argue against the desperate situation he and they knew him to be in.
And what have they done to bolster this whole dishonest process? They have sought to isolate the material used by the SCCRC when evaluating the safety of the verdict, by introducing secondary legislation in February 2010, clearly designed to keep that material out of the reach of all who would challenge the propriety of their own position.
Through the SCCRC, the legal arm of government has told the political arm of Government and the rest of us as clearly as its constitution allows, that this verdict is considered unsafe. The SG knows that, yet in its desperation to conceal what looks like the failure of many of the servants of this State, the best it can do is to claim that the actions taken by a frightened and dying human being from a different culture justify it's own actions.
The SG has also now admitted that its original claim that it lacked the powers to mount an inquiry (such as that requested through petition by JFM), was untrue. Multiple 'reasons' seeking to justify avoiding taking an action inevitably become just excuses. When some of those 'reasons' turn out to have been untrue, any claim to integrity is also lost.
Whence then stems the SG's belief that the verdict is safe? Does it stem from Westminster? Or from Washington? It simply cannot stem from our own legal system. So much for Scotland's integrity and independence.
Oh! shame.
If ever there could be further reason to seek review of this case, it lies within this SG document. Any attempt to ascribe motivation for such behaviour points down the very same road as the McKie case and a number of others: the objective of Scotland's Government and some of those who work for it seems to have become to conceal the depths of failure into which we the electorate have, thus far, allowed them to sink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)