[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman.]
There is a clear message for all voters in Scotland in May. It is a bedrock of any civilised society that it offers its people a justice system that is impartial and seen to be impartial by them.
A substantial tranche of people, including some of the UK's most respected lawyers, together with a UN official observer of the Lockerbie trial (Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna), and so many others, including myself, the committee of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group and all the signatories to its petition, question the safety of the verdict at Zeist convicting Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing. Our number grows and grows.
On top of that, and more important to Scottish voters, our Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, after three years work, decided that the verdict might be a miscarriage of justice. As things stand, we cannot be sure we got that verdict right.
I urge therefore that voters ask of any candidate for office, no matter which party he or she belongs to: "What action do you propose to take over the Lockerbie verdict if elected?" Afterwards hold him or her to the answer.
If the answer does not include a fully empowered review of the verdict, then your vote may contribute to appalling consequences for all of us in Scotland.
Our legal system may become confirmed in putting its own reputation above delivering justice impartially to the rest of us, as already seen so clearly in the McKie fingerprint case.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
What we ignore about Megrahi
[This is the headline over a section in Richard Ingrams's column in today's edition of The Independent. I am grateful to Caustic Logic for drawing it to my attention. The section reads as follows:]
In accordance with my campaign for the more widespread use of inverted commas, I am pleased to note that some papers are now putting the word marriage, as in the expression gay marriage, in inverted commas.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the expression Lockerbie bomber, as it is applied to Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is still the subject of fierce controversy following his return to Libya. There is indignation in some quarters that Mr Megrahi is still alive and scarcely veiled suggestions that he may not have been suffering from cancer at all – though most of us know how difficult it is for doctors to predict life expectancy in cancer patients.
What is extraordinary is how little attention has been given to the strong grounds for thinking that Mr Megrahi is not only innocent, but that he was framed with the connivance of the British and American governments. The chief witness for the prosecution, the highly unreliable and inconsistent Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, was subsequently paid millions of dollars by the CIA and forensic evidence against Mr Megrahi was provided by two scientists working for the British government who had been previously discredited in trials of IRA suspects falsely accused of bomb-making. Anyone interested should read campaigning lawyer Gareth Peirce's long account of the story, now reprinted in a little book, Dispatches From The Dark Side (Verso).
In accordance with my campaign for the more widespread use of inverted commas, I am pleased to note that some papers are now putting the word marriage, as in the expression gay marriage, in inverted commas.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the expression Lockerbie bomber, as it is applied to Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is still the subject of fierce controversy following his return to Libya. There is indignation in some quarters that Mr Megrahi is still alive and scarcely veiled suggestions that he may not have been suffering from cancer at all – though most of us know how difficult it is for doctors to predict life expectancy in cancer patients.
What is extraordinary is how little attention has been given to the strong grounds for thinking that Mr Megrahi is not only innocent, but that he was framed with the connivance of the British and American governments. The chief witness for the prosecution, the highly unreliable and inconsistent Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, was subsequently paid millions of dollars by the CIA and forensic evidence against Mr Megrahi was provided by two scientists working for the British government who had been previously discredited in trials of IRA suspects falsely accused of bomb-making. Anyone interested should read campaigning lawyer Gareth Peirce's long account of the story, now reprinted in a little book, Dispatches From The Dark Side (Verso).
Friday, 18 February 2011
Parliament urged to undertake immediate investigation into Lord Advocate's “misinformation” and “serious flaws” in advice to Government
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Parliament has been urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
In a lengthy and detailed response to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, the Justice for Megrahi Committee have issued a devastating critique of the Lord Advocate’s handling of the case, highlighting errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and have challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
The committee includes emeritus professor of law Robert Black QC, whose advice was sought in the preparation of the trial of the two men accused in the Pan Am 103 case.
The concerns are articulated in the JFM committee’s response to the submissions placed before the Parliament’s petitions committee, in which they respond in particular to statements lodged by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government outlining why they oppose the convening of an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 fiasco.
In her submission, the Lord Advocate mistakenly claims that both the original trial panel of three judges, together with the five judge appeal bench “subjected the evidence to rigorous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr al-Megrahi was responsible…"
The JFM committee state that this is "simply not the case."
The Scottish Government, advised by the Lord Advocate, asserts in its submission that it “does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi,” contrary to the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
“The central question therefore becomes: how much did the Lord Advocate’s erroneous advice that the evidence which led to the conviction had being ‘rigorously’ examined by two courts affect their judgement,” the JFM committee said.
“It is our submission that the effect would have been considerable and might even have swayed the Government in its belief in the conviction and subsequent statement.
“On a more general point, Elish Angiolini is Scotland’s senior law officer and legal advisor to the government. What is certain is that her fingerprints can be seen all over the Government’s refusal of the JFM Petition to have an inquiry carried out. That the Lord Advocate should have played such a central role in the decision making and yet should issue such patently inaccurate and false information is extremely worrying and in our opinion demands an immediate investigation."
The committee's response goes on at length to narrate further "errors" in the Lord Advocate's submissions which they say call into question the quality and accuracy of the advice given to the Scottish Government.
"If, however, this was the only information error emanating from the Lord Advocate it would be bad enough but it is not," the group said.
"In our initial response to the Scottish Government, 13 January 2011, we pointed out how the Government had erroneously stated that it did not have the power to establish a public enquiry.
“We commented:‘It is difficult to understand these errors given the Crown Office and civil service assistance that was available to the Scottish Government. At best this points to grossly inaccurate research and at worst to a deliberate effort to muddy the waters.’
“Yet again we are forced to draw attention to the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer. That there might have been serious flaws in the briefings the Scottish Government was receiving prior to our petition being turned down and also possibly prior to the release of Mr. Megrahi is, we believe, a matter of great concern.
“An important question to be asked is to what extent did this misinformation affect the Scottish Government’s decision making process?
The committee go on to further challenge the competence of the Lord Advocate, and claim she “has delivered inaccurate and confusing information.”
Angiolini announced in September that she would be stepping down from her post at the Scottish elections taking place in May.
The Committee adds that the attitude of the Crown Office -whose conduct has been consistently criticised by the UK Families Flight 103 Group, whose spokesman Dr Jim Swire is on the JFM committee, “is symptomatic of a culture of self-interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest.”
“We believe that the Lord Advocate, in her briefing of the Scottish Government in relation to our petition for a public inquiry, has delivered inaccurate and confusing information,” the group said.
“Firstly she was wrong in advising that the Government did not have the power to hold such an inquiry and also wrong in suggesting that all of the evidence heard at Mr Megrahi’s Zeist trial had been ‘rigorously’ re-examined by the appeal court. This of course begs the question to what extent this misinformation has affected the Government response.
“It is stretching credibility to believe that such misinformation did not colour this most critical of decisions, and of course once made, it colours everything including their latest response.
“It is clear to the JFM Committee that the misinformation from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to the Scottish Government, which we refer to above, is symptomatic of a culture of self interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest. It is against this background that the Government and Lord Advocate responses should be judged.
“We would go further than this and suggest that in the light of these two errors how can we be confident that other misinformation has not been supplied regarding our petition and perhaps even in respect of the wider matter of Mr. Megrahi's release and other issues related to Lockerbie?
“We believe that these question marks over the accuracy of the Lord Advocate’s information and her motivation in issuing it have potentially serious implications for our justice system." (...)
The petitions committee will debate the submission when it reconvenes on 1 March.
The Scottish Parliament has been urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
In a lengthy and detailed response to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, the Justice for Megrahi Committee have issued a devastating critique of the Lord Advocate’s handling of the case, highlighting errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and have challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
The committee includes emeritus professor of law Robert Black QC, whose advice was sought in the preparation of the trial of the two men accused in the Pan Am 103 case.
The concerns are articulated in the JFM committee’s response to the submissions placed before the Parliament’s petitions committee, in which they respond in particular to statements lodged by the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government outlining why they oppose the convening of an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 fiasco.
In her submission, the Lord Advocate mistakenly claims that both the original trial panel of three judges, together with the five judge appeal bench “subjected the evidence to rigorous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr al-Megrahi was responsible…"
The JFM committee state that this is "simply not the case."
The Scottish Government, advised by the Lord Advocate, asserts in its submission that it “does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi,” contrary to the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
“The central question therefore becomes: how much did the Lord Advocate’s erroneous advice that the evidence which led to the conviction had being ‘rigorously’ examined by two courts affect their judgement,” the JFM committee said.
“It is our submission that the effect would have been considerable and might even have swayed the Government in its belief in the conviction and subsequent statement.
“On a more general point, Elish Angiolini is Scotland’s senior law officer and legal advisor to the government. What is certain is that her fingerprints can be seen all over the Government’s refusal of the JFM Petition to have an inquiry carried out. That the Lord Advocate should have played such a central role in the decision making and yet should issue such patently inaccurate and false information is extremely worrying and in our opinion demands an immediate investigation."
The committee's response goes on at length to narrate further "errors" in the Lord Advocate's submissions which they say call into question the quality and accuracy of the advice given to the Scottish Government.
"If, however, this was the only information error emanating from the Lord Advocate it would be bad enough but it is not," the group said.
"In our initial response to the Scottish Government, 13 January 2011, we pointed out how the Government had erroneously stated that it did not have the power to establish a public enquiry.
“We commented:‘It is difficult to understand these errors given the Crown Office and civil service assistance that was available to the Scottish Government. At best this points to grossly inaccurate research and at worst to a deliberate effort to muddy the waters.’
“Yet again we are forced to draw attention to the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer. That there might have been serious flaws in the briefings the Scottish Government was receiving prior to our petition being turned down and also possibly prior to the release of Mr. Megrahi is, we believe, a matter of great concern.
“An important question to be asked is to what extent did this misinformation affect the Scottish Government’s decision making process?
The committee go on to further challenge the competence of the Lord Advocate, and claim she “has delivered inaccurate and confusing information.”
Angiolini announced in September that she would be stepping down from her post at the Scottish elections taking place in May.
The Committee adds that the attitude of the Crown Office -whose conduct has been consistently criticised by the UK Families Flight 103 Group, whose spokesman Dr Jim Swire is on the JFM committee, “is symptomatic of a culture of self-interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest.”
“We believe that the Lord Advocate, in her briefing of the Scottish Government in relation to our petition for a public inquiry, has delivered inaccurate and confusing information,” the group said.
“Firstly she was wrong in advising that the Government did not have the power to hold such an inquiry and also wrong in suggesting that all of the evidence heard at Mr Megrahi’s Zeist trial had been ‘rigorously’ re-examined by the appeal court. This of course begs the question to what extent this misinformation has affected the Government response.
“It is stretching credibility to believe that such misinformation did not colour this most critical of decisions, and of course once made, it colours everything including their latest response.
“It is clear to the JFM Committee that the misinformation from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to the Scottish Government, which we refer to above, is symptomatic of a culture of self interest where openness and accountability is seen as threatening that interest. It is against this background that the Government and Lord Advocate responses should be judged.
“We would go further than this and suggest that in the light of these two errors how can we be confident that other misinformation has not been supplied regarding our petition and perhaps even in respect of the wider matter of Mr. Megrahi's release and other issues related to Lockerbie?
“We believe that these question marks over the accuracy of the Lord Advocate’s information and her motivation in issuing it have potentially serious implications for our justice system." (...)
The petitions committee will debate the submission when it reconvenes on 1 March.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Blair's desert deal with Libya broke UN resolution on Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
A former British ambassador has accused the previous Labour government of "flagrantly contravening" United Nations resolutions over its decision to allow the Lockerbie bomber to apply for release back to Libya.
Sir Brian Barder, who served as British High Commissioner to Australia, writes in The Scotsman today [RB: article available only to subscribers] that the so-called "deal in the desert" between the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1997 was a clear breach of a UN resolution which stipulated the bomber should see out his sentence in the UK.
At the meeting, Mr Blair agreed to a Libyan request to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) for Libyan prisoners in the UK. At the time, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, was the only Libyan in a UK jail.
But Sir Brian points out that this decision was "in obvious breach" of UN resolution 1192, signed in 1998, which had endorsed a UK-United States initiative to keep anyone convicted of the bombing in the UK.
Sir Brian suggests that the UK government signed the deal first and only then gave lawyers instructions on how to devise a justification for the breach.
He describes those justifications, released in letters over the past two years, as "feeble".
The diplomat, who also led the UK's diplomatic mission in Ethiopia, Poland and Nigeria in a 30-year career in the Foreign Office, said the Scottish Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi was "fully consistent" with the UN resolution, because it had been taken on compassionate grounds. (...)
[It is comforting to have this belated diplomatic recognition of the accuracy of what I have been saying repeatedly on this blog since at least 29 August 2009.]
A former British ambassador has accused the previous Labour government of "flagrantly contravening" United Nations resolutions over its decision to allow the Lockerbie bomber to apply for release back to Libya.
Sir Brian Barder, who served as British High Commissioner to Australia, writes in The Scotsman today [RB: article available only to subscribers] that the so-called "deal in the desert" between the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1997 was a clear breach of a UN resolution which stipulated the bomber should see out his sentence in the UK.
At the meeting, Mr Blair agreed to a Libyan request to sign a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) for Libyan prisoners in the UK. At the time, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity, was the only Libyan in a UK jail.
But Sir Brian points out that this decision was "in obvious breach" of UN resolution 1192, signed in 1998, which had endorsed a UK-United States initiative to keep anyone convicted of the bombing in the UK.
Sir Brian suggests that the UK government signed the deal first and only then gave lawyers instructions on how to devise a justification for the breach.
He describes those justifications, released in letters over the past two years, as "feeble".
The diplomat, who also led the UK's diplomatic mission in Ethiopia, Poland and Nigeria in a 30-year career in the Foreign Office, said the Scottish Government's decision to release Mr Megrahi was "fully consistent" with the UN resolution, because it had been taken on compassionate grounds. (...)
[It is comforting to have this belated diplomatic recognition of the accuracy of what I have been saying repeatedly on this blog since at least 29 August 2009.]
SCCRC clear the way for resurrection of Megrahi's dropped appeal
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed in correspondence (...) that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's dropped appeal could be picked up and heard once again by the High Court, paving the way for an unprecedented continuation of his case.
The Commission added that the case could once again be referred back to the High Court by them after the death of Megrahi. [RB: The appeal which was started by Mr Megrahi but abandoned just before his repatriation in August 2009 cannot be revived or resurrected or continued. But a NEW appeal could be heard following a fresh reference by the SCCRC.]
The confirmation comes in correspondence issued in reply to the Parliament's public petitions committee, which is presently considering a petition from the Justice For Megrahi committee, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC and Iain Mckie, asking the Parliament to hold an inquiry into the debacle.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer a case to the High Court in which a previous appeal was abandoned," the letter from Chief Executive Gerard Sinclair to the committee says.
"If the Commission were to receive an application in respect of a case in which a previous appeal had been abandoned, before accepting the case for review the Commission would first consider the reasons for the abandonment of the appeal. Having considered those reasons, and any other relevant circumstances, the Commission would accept the case for review only if it was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so. This is because, in terms of the Commission’s statutory test, before the Commission may refer a case to the High Court, it must believe not only that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case but also that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer to the High Court the conviction of a person who is deceased, provided the Commission believes that the grounds...are met."
However, under a provision inserted into the emergency legislation issued as a result of the Cadder fiasco, the High Court now has to factor an additional consideration into its decision making process; the "finality" of the legal proceedings.
The provision was criticised for being introduced without consultation, nor any imperative from the legal profession, any political party, the Law Commission or any judicial pressure or perceived failing of the SCCRC.
The provision, unrelated to the Cadder scenario, has been widely perceived as a covert attempt by the civil service to defeat the resurrection of Megrahi's appeal and deny the court the opportunity to further scrutinise the case. Parliamentarians told The Firm privately they had no opportunity to scrutinise the measure, and were attempting to comprehend its import whilst the debate was underway in the chamber. (...)
The SCCRC letter is part of a series of responses solicited by the petitions committee, which also includes replies from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government.
The response from the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini states in error the common misapprehension that both the specially convened Zeist court and the later appeal court "subjected the evidence to rigourous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was responsible."
In fact the appeal court specifically did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to secure Megrahi's conviction.
"In this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment," the appeal court stated.
"We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The distinction is explained more fully by trial "architect" Professor Robert Black QC, here.
The SCCRC letter can be read here, and the other responses can be viewed here.
[The response of the petitioners, dated 16 February 2011, to the letters from the Crown Office, the Scottish Government and the SCCRC is now available on the Public Petitions Committee website and can be viewed here.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed in correspondence (...) that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's dropped appeal could be picked up and heard once again by the High Court, paving the way for an unprecedented continuation of his case.
The Commission added that the case could once again be referred back to the High Court by them after the death of Megrahi. [RB: The appeal which was started by Mr Megrahi but abandoned just before his repatriation in August 2009 cannot be revived or resurrected or continued. But a NEW appeal could be heard following a fresh reference by the SCCRC.]
The confirmation comes in correspondence issued in reply to the Parliament's public petitions committee, which is presently considering a petition from the Justice For Megrahi committee, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC and Iain Mckie, asking the Parliament to hold an inquiry into the debacle.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer a case to the High Court in which a previous appeal was abandoned," the letter from Chief Executive Gerard Sinclair to the committee says.
"If the Commission were to receive an application in respect of a case in which a previous appeal had been abandoned, before accepting the case for review the Commission would first consider the reasons for the abandonment of the appeal. Having considered those reasons, and any other relevant circumstances, the Commission would accept the case for review only if it was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so. This is because, in terms of the Commission’s statutory test, before the Commission may refer a case to the High Court, it must believe not only that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the case but also that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made.
"It is competent for the Commission to refer to the High Court the conviction of a person who is deceased, provided the Commission believes that the grounds...are met."
However, under a provision inserted into the emergency legislation issued as a result of the Cadder fiasco, the High Court now has to factor an additional consideration into its decision making process; the "finality" of the legal proceedings.
The provision was criticised for being introduced without consultation, nor any imperative from the legal profession, any political party, the Law Commission or any judicial pressure or perceived failing of the SCCRC.
The provision, unrelated to the Cadder scenario, has been widely perceived as a covert attempt by the civil service to defeat the resurrection of Megrahi's appeal and deny the court the opportunity to further scrutinise the case. Parliamentarians told The Firm privately they had no opportunity to scrutinise the measure, and were attempting to comprehend its import whilst the debate was underway in the chamber. (...)
The SCCRC letter is part of a series of responses solicited by the petitions committee, which also includes replies from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government.
The response from the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini states in error the common misapprehension that both the specially convened Zeist court and the later appeal court "subjected the evidence to rigourous examination and concluded that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was responsible."
In fact the appeal court specifically did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to secure Megrahi's conviction.
"In this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment," the appeal court stated.
"We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The distinction is explained more fully by trial "architect" Professor Robert Black QC, here.
The SCCRC letter can be read here, and the other responses can be viewed here.
[The response of the petitioners, dated 16 February 2011, to the letters from the Crown Office, the Scottish Government and the SCCRC is now available on the Public Petitions Committee website and can be viewed here.]
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Responses to Petitions Committee's queries
At its meeting on 25 January 2011, the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission with queries arising out of the Scottish Government's earlier response to the Justice for Megrahi petition and the petitioners' comments thereon. The answers from these bodies have been received by the committee and can be read here. At the invitation of the committee, the petitioners have prepared a written response to these answers. These documents will be considered by the committee at its meeting on 1 March.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Lockerbie row escalates after amnesia accusations
[This is the headline over a report in yesterday's edition of The Herald on the story featured in the previous day's Mail on Sunday on the spat between Jack Straw and the Scottish Government over the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement. The Herald's article reads in part:]
A war of words between Scottish ministers and the former Labour Government over the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing continued yesterday amid accusations of “selective amnesia”.
Labour ministers have claimed that prominent SNP politicians gave them assurances that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be released in return for concessions for Scotland.
These included to gain control over firearms legislation and to reduce the bill that the Scottish Government would have to pay to prisoners who had been forced to “slop out” while in jail.
Both Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill have denied the allegations outright.
Yesterday, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, accused the Scottish First Minister of “selective amnesia”.
“It does seem now that he has been suffering from selective amnesia,’ Mr Straw said.
“What he’s forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him to agree to a PTA (Prisoner Transfer Agreement) that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions – first to change the Scotland Act to make Scotland less vulnerable to paying compensation to prisoners for slopping out, and second to transfer responsibility for firearms from Westminster to Scotland.” (...)
Mr Salmond’s spokesman last night said: ‘We must agree to disagree with Mr Straw.’
He added that the documentary record held by the Scottish Government contained no evidence of any such deal, and that such a deal would have been irrelevant as Mr Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, not under the terms of a PTA.
[Two bald men arguing over a comb. What matters is the scandal of Megrahi's conviction, not the circumstances of his release. I shall not in future regularly be posting on this blog articles and media comments about the repatriation. This is because (a) the issue bores me rigid and (b) my internet connection here in the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo is so unstable that it is a waste of scarce connection time to squander it on this peripheral issue.]
A war of words between Scottish ministers and the former Labour Government over the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing continued yesterday amid accusations of “selective amnesia”.
Labour ministers have claimed that prominent SNP politicians gave them assurances that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be released in return for concessions for Scotland.
These included to gain control over firearms legislation and to reduce the bill that the Scottish Government would have to pay to prisoners who had been forced to “slop out” while in jail.
Both Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill have denied the allegations outright.
Yesterday, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, accused the Scottish First Minister of “selective amnesia”.
“It does seem now that he has been suffering from selective amnesia,’ Mr Straw said.
“What he’s forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him to agree to a PTA (Prisoner Transfer Agreement) that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions – first to change the Scotland Act to make Scotland less vulnerable to paying compensation to prisoners for slopping out, and second to transfer responsibility for firearms from Westminster to Scotland.” (...)
Mr Salmond’s spokesman last night said: ‘We must agree to disagree with Mr Straw.’
He added that the documentary record held by the Scottish Government contained no evidence of any such deal, and that such a deal would have been irrelevant as Mr Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, not under the terms of a PTA.
[Two bald men arguing over a comb. What matters is the scandal of Megrahi's conviction, not the circumstances of his release. I shall not in future regularly be posting on this blog articles and media comments about the repatriation. This is because (a) the issue bores me rigid and (b) my internet connection here in the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo is so unstable that it is a waste of scarce connection time to squander it on this peripheral issue.]
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Kenny MacAskill: I stand by Lockerbie decision
[This is the headline over a report by Ben Borland in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
Kenny MacAskill yesterday broke his recent silence over the continuing Lockerbie saga and insisted he stood by his controversial decision to free the bomber.
In an exclusive hard-hitting interview with the Sunday Express, the defiant Justice Secretary insisted he was not involved in any “murky machinations” or deals and accused Scottish Labour of “astonishing hypocrisy”.
He also categorically denied that he had been swayed by “economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations” and said he acted in an “open and honest way” at all times.
And in a move designed to end conspiracy theories surrounding the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill said he planned to press ahead with changes to the law that would allow secret papers relating to Libyan’s appeal to be made public.
The Justice Secretary’s intervention in the on-going row puts his career on the line and comes amid mounting anger at the emergence of attempted back room deals ahead of Megrahi’s release in 2009.Documents released last week sparked accusations Holyrood ministers had brokered agreements with Westminster over air gun powers and legislative change to save millions in compensation for prisoners forced to ‘slop out’.
But Mr MacAskill told the Sunday Express yesterday: “The decision on Megrahi was mine to take and mine alone – and I did so according to the due process and practice of Scots Law, without regard to economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations.
“I rejected the prisoner transfer application, and granted compassionate release. Many people agree with that decision and many disagree, and I respect the views of all the relatives, in all of the 21 countries affected by the atrocity.
“But I hope that everyone accepts I took it in an open and honest way - in stark contrast to the murky machinations of the former UK Labour Government, who we now know changed their policy in secret and did everything they could to facilitate Megrahi’s release for commercial and political reasons.
"And the astonishing hypocrisy of Labour in Scotland who attacked a decision that their own government in London supported.”
Prime Minister David Cameron last week ruled out an inquiry despite a new report showing the previous Labour government had gone out of its way to help Libya in order to secure lucrative oil and military contracts. (...)
Mr MacAskill has now promised to publish full details of the 2007 Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) ruling Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The father-of-five was granted leave to appeal by the courts watchdog but was struck by illness and dropped the bid shortly before his release.
Mr MacAskill, who has rarely spoken publicly about the decision that will define his career, said: “We should be proud of our justice system in Scotland. We have nothing to hide – that is why I will publish a Bill soon in the new Parliament so that we can make this further report available.
“I believe that Megrahi was guilty, but I accept that many do not. We will never all agree on these matters, but I hope we can agree that no one in Scotland should have anything to fear from having the maximum possible information about this issue in the public domain.”
Campaigners described Mr Mac-Askill’s acknowledgment that many do not believe Megrahi was behind the 1988 disaster – in which 270 people were killed – as a significant development.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter, Flora, died in the bombing, said: “Both MacAskill and Salmond have always stuck to the mantra that they absolutely believe in the guilt of Megrahi, although I don’t understand how they can be so sure when the SCCRC has said there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
“This is a very welcome modification acknowledging perhaps for the first time that doubts exist in the community. I think the SCCRC rulings might well be intensely embarrassing to the office of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.”
[An interesting article headed Many shades of Gray as Megrahi row hypocrisy emerges appears in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It is by regular columnist Duncan Hamilton, one of my former students and a former SNP MSP. I wish he would now turn his journalistic talents towards the scandal of the Megrahi conviction and the shameful and incomprehensible failure of the SNP government to institute an independent inquiry.]
Kenny MacAskill yesterday broke his recent silence over the continuing Lockerbie saga and insisted he stood by his controversial decision to free the bomber.
In an exclusive hard-hitting interview with the Sunday Express, the defiant Justice Secretary insisted he was not involved in any “murky machinations” or deals and accused Scottish Labour of “astonishing hypocrisy”.
He also categorically denied that he had been swayed by “economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations” and said he acted in an “open and honest way” at all times.
And in a move designed to end conspiracy theories surrounding the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill said he planned to press ahead with changes to the law that would allow secret papers relating to Libyan’s appeal to be made public.
The Justice Secretary’s intervention in the on-going row puts his career on the line and comes amid mounting anger at the emergence of attempted back room deals ahead of Megrahi’s release in 2009.Documents released last week sparked accusations Holyrood ministers had brokered agreements with Westminster over air gun powers and legislative change to save millions in compensation for prisoners forced to ‘slop out’.
But Mr MacAskill told the Sunday Express yesterday: “The decision on Megrahi was mine to take and mine alone – and I did so according to the due process and practice of Scots Law, without regard to economic, diplomatic, or any other considerations.
“I rejected the prisoner transfer application, and granted compassionate release. Many people agree with that decision and many disagree, and I respect the views of all the relatives, in all of the 21 countries affected by the atrocity.
“But I hope that everyone accepts I took it in an open and honest way - in stark contrast to the murky machinations of the former UK Labour Government, who we now know changed their policy in secret and did everything they could to facilitate Megrahi’s release for commercial and political reasons.
"And the astonishing hypocrisy of Labour in Scotland who attacked a decision that their own government in London supported.”
Prime Minister David Cameron last week ruled out an inquiry despite a new report showing the previous Labour government had gone out of its way to help Libya in order to secure lucrative oil and military contracts. (...)
Mr MacAskill has now promised to publish full details of the 2007 Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) ruling Megrahi may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The father-of-five was granted leave to appeal by the courts watchdog but was struck by illness and dropped the bid shortly before his release.
Mr MacAskill, who has rarely spoken publicly about the decision that will define his career, said: “We should be proud of our justice system in Scotland. We have nothing to hide – that is why I will publish a Bill soon in the new Parliament so that we can make this further report available.
“I believe that Megrahi was guilty, but I accept that many do not. We will never all agree on these matters, but I hope we can agree that no one in Scotland should have anything to fear from having the maximum possible information about this issue in the public domain.”
Campaigners described Mr Mac-Askill’s acknowledgment that many do not believe Megrahi was behind the 1988 disaster – in which 270 people were killed – as a significant development.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter, Flora, died in the bombing, said: “Both MacAskill and Salmond have always stuck to the mantra that they absolutely believe in the guilt of Megrahi, although I don’t understand how they can be so sure when the SCCRC has said there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
“This is a very welcome modification acknowledging perhaps for the first time that doubts exist in the community. I think the SCCRC rulings might well be intensely embarrassing to the office of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.”
[An interesting article headed Many shades of Gray as Megrahi row hypocrisy emerges appears in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It is by regular columnist Duncan Hamilton, one of my former students and a former SNP MSP. I wish he would now turn his journalistic talents towards the scandal of the Megrahi conviction and the shameful and incomprehensible failure of the SNP government to institute an independent inquiry.]
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Full details of Megrahi appeal case promised
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's chief Scottish political correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. What is being referred to is, of course the SCCRC report on the Megrahi conviction, not Megrahi's appeal case. Details of the latter have already been published on Mr Megrahi's own website. The article reads as follows:]
Alex Salmond has personally pledged to change the law to allow publication of the details of the appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The First Minister insisted that while believing a full public inquiry would be of limited value because of devolution restrictions, he could ensure that the full “statement of reasons” by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) in its support for an appeal could be published. He said: “We will be introducing primary legislation to enable that report to be published in full.
“It was an investigation that took several years and I believe the full statement of reasons, if not answering every question about this affair, nonetheless will shed substantial light and give information that the families and indeed the general public are entitled to have.”
But Dr Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim who has been an outspoken critic of the Megrahi conviction, had doubts about the latest concession and believed the Scottish Government was continuing to stall.
He said: “I had a nasty shock when I discovered that the Government had made it more difficult to get at the material that the SCCRC had assembled – something they changed by secondary legislation that they are now proposing to change back by primary legislation.”
The Scottish Government insists that at every stage it has moved towards fuller disclosure, ending a legal bar on SCCRC publishing information and now looking to block any external veto on release.
The exchange comes at the end of a week when Labour has accused the SNP Government of “dealing” over the Megrahi release, and Mr Salmond has denied that, pointing to “hypocrisy” in Labour’s stance north and south of the Border.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame gave a “cautious welcome” to the First Minister’s announcement but questioned the necessity of primary legislation, a Bill which takes far longer to pass than an order. “I think this could be done by secondary legislation which could be done sooner but whatever happens I am told there will at least be fewer obstacles to full disclosure. I have been pushing to have impediments removed. There will be no closure on this until we have full disclosure of SCCRC evidence.”
Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who helped broker the Camp Zeist trial but came to believe the Megrahi conviction was unsound, has already expressed concern that even if the law is changed there could be data protection rules which continue to prevent full disclosure of SCCRC information. [RB: The view that I have consistently expressed, on this blog and in the media, is that if the Scottish Government proceeds by statutory instrument, then any relevant data protection rules are overridden (because that is what the enabling legislation, the UK Parliament's Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194K(4), specifically provides). The position is not quite so clear if the Scottish Government proceeds by Act of the Scottish Parliament. The cynic in me wonders whether that is precisely why the Scottish Government is choosing -- quite unnecessarily -- to proceed by the cumbersome method of primary legislation rather than by the much speedier and easier route of secondary legislation. It is yet another stalling, diversionary manoeuvre.]
A Government spokesman insisted they had been as open and transparent as possible, adding: “Following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions.”
Labour’s Richard Baker said: “The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi some 18 months ago and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the prisoner transfer agreement.”
For the Tories, John Lamont said: “Al Megrahi dropped his appeal and was convicted of Britain’s biggest mass murder. Alex Salmond is barking up the wrong tree and if he wants to treat the Lockerbie bomber as a special case then far better that he publishes all the medical advice.”
[The Herald also today publishes an editorial headed Lockerbie report must go public. It reads as follows:]
It is not known exactly who prevented publication of the report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the conviction of Adelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
Neither do we know why.
The SCCRC’s statement of reasons for reaching its conclusion that his conviction may have been unsafe, cannot be published without the “unqualified consent” of all key parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself. [RB: Megrahi's stance on disclosure is set out in a statement dated 30 June 2010 which can be read here.]
One or more of these parties has vetoed publication. It is yet another barrier in the way of a true understanding of the events which led up to the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 in 1988.
Now Alex Salmond has pledged to introduce new primary legislation to enable the SCCRC report to be published, should the SNP form a Government after the Holyrood elections in May.
The statement of reasons is a substantial document, although it is not clear whether Mr Salmond’s personal pledge includes the full 800-page dossier detailing Megrahi’s grounds for appeal, which formed part of the Commission’s four-year investigation into the case.
Nevertheless, Mr Salmond argues that its publication is the best way to satisfy some of the outstanding questions and “shed substantial light” on the case against Megrahi and the verdict that was reached.
He argues that a public inquiry – called for by relatives of some of the 270 people who died in the attack – would not be useful. Not least due to the international element of the case, such an inquiry would be “hugely” limited in its remit and powers, Mr Salmond argues, particularly in its ability to call witnesses and seek documents.
That may be true. [RB: It is not. An inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 has greater powers of compulsion than the SCCRC has. Still, the SCCRC managed to conduct a wide-ranging investigation -- domestic and international -- into the Megrahi conviction. The Scottish Government's claim is nothing more than a shabby pretext for inaction.] But the bereaved father Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing, questions the Scottish Government’s sincerity. Scottish Government ministers previously changed the rules to make publication harder, now they want to make it easier, he says.
So, is Mr Salmond’s announcement merely political posturing? Or stalling for time? Some opponents feel the SNP are more than happy to keep the issue in the spotlight, to highlight Labour’s acute embarrassment over a clear difference between Labour ministers’ private negotiations in London and Labour MSPs’ public criticisms of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds in 2009.
But as to posturing or electioneering, any electoral benefit from the pledge to legislate is likely to be little better than neutral.
There have also been reports that the SCCRC report could be more readily published, simply by changing the rules which allow others to veto publication. Even if Mr Salmond can pass a new law, some say the data protection act could make it very hard to publish, as the SCCRC deliberations contain considerable personal information. There are also concerns that the report may be uncomfortable for the Scottish legal establishment – but the possibility of embarrassment is no reason to block the information.
The Lockerbie bombing and the trial of the only man convicted of the outrage remain a lasting stain on the Scottish legal system and without greater openness, one which will not easily be removed – even when Megrahi dies. [RB: My emphasis.]
Practicalities aside, a way should be found to publish the SCCRC’s findings. Mr Salmond’s commitment to ensure they are brought into the open is a step forward towards transparency and openness, and as such, it should be welcomed.
[A pretty representative example of current US views on Megrahi is to be found in a column headed Lockerbie bomber having a good laugh by Roger Simon published today on the website of the Chicago Sun Times.]
Alex Salmond has personally pledged to change the law to allow publication of the details of the appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The First Minister insisted that while believing a full public inquiry would be of limited value because of devolution restrictions, he could ensure that the full “statement of reasons” by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) in its support for an appeal could be published. He said: “We will be introducing primary legislation to enable that report to be published in full.
“It was an investigation that took several years and I believe the full statement of reasons, if not answering every question about this affair, nonetheless will shed substantial light and give information that the families and indeed the general public are entitled to have.”
But Dr Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim who has been an outspoken critic of the Megrahi conviction, had doubts about the latest concession and believed the Scottish Government was continuing to stall.
He said: “I had a nasty shock when I discovered that the Government had made it more difficult to get at the material that the SCCRC had assembled – something they changed by secondary legislation that they are now proposing to change back by primary legislation.”
The Scottish Government insists that at every stage it has moved towards fuller disclosure, ending a legal bar on SCCRC publishing information and now looking to block any external veto on release.
The exchange comes at the end of a week when Labour has accused the SNP Government of “dealing” over the Megrahi release, and Mr Salmond has denied that, pointing to “hypocrisy” in Labour’s stance north and south of the Border.
SNP backbencher Christine Grahame gave a “cautious welcome” to the First Minister’s announcement but questioned the necessity of primary legislation, a Bill which takes far longer to pass than an order. “I think this could be done by secondary legislation which could be done sooner but whatever happens I am told there will at least be fewer obstacles to full disclosure. I have been pushing to have impediments removed. There will be no closure on this until we have full disclosure of SCCRC evidence.”
Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who helped broker the Camp Zeist trial but came to believe the Megrahi conviction was unsound, has already expressed concern that even if the law is changed there could be data protection rules which continue to prevent full disclosure of SCCRC information. [RB: The view that I have consistently expressed, on this blog and in the media, is that if the Scottish Government proceeds by statutory instrument, then any relevant data protection rules are overridden (because that is what the enabling legislation, the UK Parliament's Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194K(4), specifically provides). The position is not quite so clear if the Scottish Government proceeds by Act of the Scottish Parliament. The cynic in me wonders whether that is precisely why the Scottish Government is choosing -- quite unnecessarily -- to proceed by the cumbersome method of primary legislation rather than by the much speedier and easier route of secondary legislation. It is yet another stalling, diversionary manoeuvre.]
A Government spokesman insisted they had been as open and transparent as possible, adding: “Following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions.”
Labour’s Richard Baker said: “The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi some 18 months ago and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the prisoner transfer agreement.”
For the Tories, John Lamont said: “Al Megrahi dropped his appeal and was convicted of Britain’s biggest mass murder. Alex Salmond is barking up the wrong tree and if he wants to treat the Lockerbie bomber as a special case then far better that he publishes all the medical advice.”
[The Herald also today publishes an editorial headed Lockerbie report must go public. It reads as follows:]
It is not known exactly who prevented publication of the report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the conviction of Adelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
Neither do we know why.
The SCCRC’s statement of reasons for reaching its conclusion that his conviction may have been unsafe, cannot be published without the “unqualified consent” of all key parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself. [RB: Megrahi's stance on disclosure is set out in a statement dated 30 June 2010 which can be read here.]
One or more of these parties has vetoed publication. It is yet another barrier in the way of a true understanding of the events which led up to the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 in 1988.
Now Alex Salmond has pledged to introduce new primary legislation to enable the SCCRC report to be published, should the SNP form a Government after the Holyrood elections in May.
The statement of reasons is a substantial document, although it is not clear whether Mr Salmond’s personal pledge includes the full 800-page dossier detailing Megrahi’s grounds for appeal, which formed part of the Commission’s four-year investigation into the case.
Nevertheless, Mr Salmond argues that its publication is the best way to satisfy some of the outstanding questions and “shed substantial light” on the case against Megrahi and the verdict that was reached.
He argues that a public inquiry – called for by relatives of some of the 270 people who died in the attack – would not be useful. Not least due to the international element of the case, such an inquiry would be “hugely” limited in its remit and powers, Mr Salmond argues, particularly in its ability to call witnesses and seek documents.
That may be true. [RB: It is not. An inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 has greater powers of compulsion than the SCCRC has. Still, the SCCRC managed to conduct a wide-ranging investigation -- domestic and international -- into the Megrahi conviction. The Scottish Government's claim is nothing more than a shabby pretext for inaction.] But the bereaved father Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing, questions the Scottish Government’s sincerity. Scottish Government ministers previously changed the rules to make publication harder, now they want to make it easier, he says.
So, is Mr Salmond’s announcement merely political posturing? Or stalling for time? Some opponents feel the SNP are more than happy to keep the issue in the spotlight, to highlight Labour’s acute embarrassment over a clear difference between Labour ministers’ private negotiations in London and Labour MSPs’ public criticisms of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds in 2009.
But as to posturing or electioneering, any electoral benefit from the pledge to legislate is likely to be little better than neutral.
There have also been reports that the SCCRC report could be more readily published, simply by changing the rules which allow others to veto publication. Even if Mr Salmond can pass a new law, some say the data protection act could make it very hard to publish, as the SCCRC deliberations contain considerable personal information. There are also concerns that the report may be uncomfortable for the Scottish legal establishment – but the possibility of embarrassment is no reason to block the information.
The Lockerbie bombing and the trial of the only man convicted of the outrage remain a lasting stain on the Scottish legal system and without greater openness, one which will not easily be removed – even when Megrahi dies. [RB: My emphasis.]
Practicalities aside, a way should be found to publish the SCCRC’s findings. Mr Salmond’s commitment to ensure they are brought into the open is a step forward towards transparency and openness, and as such, it should be welcomed.
[A pretty representative example of current US views on Megrahi is to be found in a column headed Lockerbie bomber having a good laugh by Roger Simon published today on the website of the Chicago Sun Times.]
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Lockerbie: some shrapnel
[This is the heading over an article published today on Ian Bell's blog. It reads as follows:]
Something stuck in my mind. It came to me just after the wave of fatigue you get from the sort of approbation you neither need nor seek. Specifically, it was this: a brief comment in the Telegraph, that blunderbuss among reactionary snipers, on August 21, 2009.
On Wednesday night, I was still thinking about Lockerbie. We had just driven back and forth in a day and night to the Humber’s edge so that my wife could sit with her dying mother. But I’m a hack. In the car, coming back across the border, I thought: Fucking Brian Wilson. Must look it up.
I’m so old, I keep cuttings. Not just any old cuttings; only the important mounds. August 21, 2009.
Wilson is a hack, too, of long-standing, who surely won’t mind if I remind the world that he was locally-minded, once, and may even have made a youthful political gesture of nationalism (with a tiny n), and later gained some expertise as a minister with an energy brief, before he grew energetic, post-ministerially, for Energy. That stuff is none of Scotland’s concern, of course.
Anyhow, in the cutting Wilson’s sub stunted a cunning paraphrase: “The SNP’s Libya stunt has shamed my nation”. With a determination born of free West Highland localism, the writer began: “The Scottish Nationalists have never been too fussy about the international company they keep”.
He then excoriated Alex Salmond for opposing the bombing of Belgrade. This sally was in tribute to the late Robin “Ethical” – unless you happened to have met him – Cook. Apparently, Cookie was Wilson’s companion on the British parliamentary – sorry, I’m straining this joke – road to socialism.
Let the quote do some work instead. Wilson wrote – on August 21, 2009, mind you: “Rarely can so many decent Scottish stomachs have turned than at the sight of the Saltire being flourished in Tripoli as a centre-piece of the repulsive celebrations to welcome home the mass murderer Megrahi, courtesy of the SNP”.
Wilson judged the entire affair to have been a matter of self-aggrandisement. He wrote that, “The vast global audience for the rantings of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, could have been forgiven for assuming him to be the spokesman for a sovereign state, albeit a tinpot one with curious moral values”.
Bear that phrase in mind: “curious moral values”. History being slow but oddly quick on its feet sometimes, how are those turning stomachs now?
The net’s Nationalists will give you a quick answer. Labour’s multifarious duplicities stand exposed. MacAskill has been vindicated. I’d get the usual reflexive praise just for saying so, over and over.
The rantings of Brian Wilson were of a piece with each of Labour’s stitched-to-order lies levelled against the Justice Secretary. For some people, that’s better than enough. They’d like me to say nothing else from now until – My, is that the time? – May.
But here’s a problem: Kenny MacAskill is still Justice Secretary; al-Megrahi is still “a convicted mass-murderer”; and a government of Nationalists still refuses to attempt to make public the facts that each one of them, MacAskill in the van, understands.* To paraphrase that Telegraph sub-editor, someone is shaming my nation.
Labour have had their turn. Wilson’s siblings have been exposed. But they are not in government, currently, in Scotland, where the plane fell from the sky. That would be another party.
Nationalism’s bots course through the local web demanding that the MSM tell the truth. Good luck with that. But here’s weird: MacAskill has part of the truth about Lockerbie at his fingertips. He and Alex Salmond, his First Minister, could find out a great deal more with a full public – not parliamentary, please – inquiry into the massacre. The farrago of al-Megrahi's farcical conviction is a stain on Scotland’s honour: what greater cause for truth could there be?
What’s the worst that could happen? That Salmond and MacAskill could join the likes of Wilson in defending the conviction, yet again? Surely not. Surely it would take a mainstream media plot to make that smear true?
But it is true. Someone else is shaming my nation.
* I should have said that, in this, I exempt Christine Grahame MSP from criticism. Apologies.
[RB: Wow!]
Something stuck in my mind. It came to me just after the wave of fatigue you get from the sort of approbation you neither need nor seek. Specifically, it was this: a brief comment in the Telegraph, that blunderbuss among reactionary snipers, on August 21, 2009.
On Wednesday night, I was still thinking about Lockerbie. We had just driven back and forth in a day and night to the Humber’s edge so that my wife could sit with her dying mother. But I’m a hack. In the car, coming back across the border, I thought: Fucking Brian Wilson. Must look it up.
I’m so old, I keep cuttings. Not just any old cuttings; only the important mounds. August 21, 2009.
Wilson is a hack, too, of long-standing, who surely won’t mind if I remind the world that he was locally-minded, once, and may even have made a youthful political gesture of nationalism (with a tiny n), and later gained some expertise as a minister with an energy brief, before he grew energetic, post-ministerially, for Energy. That stuff is none of Scotland’s concern, of course.
Anyhow, in the cutting Wilson’s sub stunted a cunning paraphrase: “The SNP’s Libya stunt has shamed my nation”. With a determination born of free West Highland localism, the writer began: “The Scottish Nationalists have never been too fussy about the international company they keep”.
He then excoriated Alex Salmond for opposing the bombing of Belgrade. This sally was in tribute to the late Robin “Ethical” – unless you happened to have met him – Cook. Apparently, Cookie was Wilson’s companion on the British parliamentary – sorry, I’m straining this joke – road to socialism.
Let the quote do some work instead. Wilson wrote – on August 21, 2009, mind you: “Rarely can so many decent Scottish stomachs have turned than at the sight of the Saltire being flourished in Tripoli as a centre-piece of the repulsive celebrations to welcome home the mass murderer Megrahi, courtesy of the SNP”.
Wilson judged the entire affair to have been a matter of self-aggrandisement. He wrote that, “The vast global audience for the rantings of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, could have been forgiven for assuming him to be the spokesman for a sovereign state, albeit a tinpot one with curious moral values”.
Bear that phrase in mind: “curious moral values”. History being slow but oddly quick on its feet sometimes, how are those turning stomachs now?
The net’s Nationalists will give you a quick answer. Labour’s multifarious duplicities stand exposed. MacAskill has been vindicated. I’d get the usual reflexive praise just for saying so, over and over.
The rantings of Brian Wilson were of a piece with each of Labour’s stitched-to-order lies levelled against the Justice Secretary. For some people, that’s better than enough. They’d like me to say nothing else from now until – My, is that the time? – May.
But here’s a problem: Kenny MacAskill is still Justice Secretary; al-Megrahi is still “a convicted mass-murderer”; and a government of Nationalists still refuses to attempt to make public the facts that each one of them, MacAskill in the van, understands.* To paraphrase that Telegraph sub-editor, someone is shaming my nation.
Labour have had their turn. Wilson’s siblings have been exposed. But they are not in government, currently, in Scotland, where the plane fell from the sky. That would be another party.
Nationalism’s bots course through the local web demanding that the MSM tell the truth. Good luck with that. But here’s weird: MacAskill has part of the truth about Lockerbie at his fingertips. He and Alex Salmond, his First Minister, could find out a great deal more with a full public – not parliamentary, please – inquiry into the massacre. The farrago of al-Megrahi's farcical conviction is a stain on Scotland’s honour: what greater cause for truth could there be?
What’s the worst that could happen? That Salmond and MacAskill could join the likes of Wilson in defending the conviction, yet again? Surely not. Surely it would take a mainstream media plot to make that smear true?
But it is true. Someone else is shaming my nation.
* I should have said that, in this, I exempt Christine Grahame MSP from criticism. Apologies.
[RB: Wow!]
The Megrahi Scandal: Part 2
[The second part of Kenneth Roy's essay in the Scottish Review on the scandal of the Megrahi conviction has now been published. Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 reads as follows:]
Revealed: the fatal flaw that will go on obscuring the truth about Lockerbie
This week's political gamesmanship on the circumstances of Megrahi's release is a distraction from the main question – whether he should have been convicted and imprisoned in the first place. Only the publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's massive report on the case can determine the strength of the possibility that there was a colossal miscarriage of justice. Will this report ever be made public?
The last week has seen some remarkable developments with SR at the heart of them.
After part 1 of 'The Megrahi Scandal' in this magazine last week, the Scottish government issued a statement: "We have always been as open and transparent as possible which is why, following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provision.
"This will allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to publish a statement of reasons in cases where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities."
A bit of background may be helpful. A year ago this month, on the initiative of the Scottish ministers, a new order came into force. Before then, it would have been a criminal offence for the commission to publish information provided to it in the course of an investigation. The new order removed that restriction. The justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said at the time that the order allowed the commission to disclose information it holds; according to Mr MacAskill it was up to the commission to decide what, if anything, it released.
This was an over-simplification of the position. The commission's chief executive, Gerard Sinclair, pointed out that the order only permits the disclosure of such information with the consent of those who have, directly or indirectly, provided the information.
For nine months, Mr Sinclair attempted to obtain that consent from the main parties involved – including the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the police, Megrahi himself. 'It became obvious,' he said, 'that there was no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required.'
Late last year, the commission's board decided to discontinue the discussions. But it added a potentially significant rider: 'The commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.'
It is now 22 years since the Lockerbie disaster. It is now 10 years since the trial in the Netherlands produced a conviction for Megrahi that is widely believed to be suspect, if not downright unsafe.
Why did the Scottish government not act on this suggestion? Why did it, instead, decide to embark on the more cumbersome and time-consuming route of primary legislation? Professor Robert Black QC, the Lockerbie authority, told an audience in Glasgow a few weeks ago of his suspicion that the decision to legislate was simply another delaying tactic by the Scottish government. To vary the order, removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the parties, would take very little time. How long will legislation take? I asked the Scottish government. It replied that there is, as yet, no timetable.
Meanwhile, it is worth re-visiting the exact terms of the statement issued to SR. When I read it a second time, alarm bells started to ring. The qualifications seemed more than a little restrictive... "subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities."
Thoroughly perplexed by this stage, I decided to seek an opinion from the commission itself. I emailed Gerard Sinclair and asked him to confirm that he agrees with the Scottish government's view that the primary legislation, when it is eventually enacted, will enable the full statement of reasons to be published at last.
His answer to this SR inquiry was commendably frank.
He does not necessarily agree that the new law will clear the way for publication of the report. It seems I was right to be concerned about the Scottish government's list of qualifications. In Mr Sinclair's opinion, there is so much sensitive personal information in the report that the requirements of data protection law may well prevent its publication.
I then contacted Robert Black in South Africa. He told me that, if the Scottish government tries to empower the commission by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, 'it may well be' that data protection restrictions will continue to apply. In contrast, the Criminal Procedure Act of the UK parliament allows data protection considerations to be over-ridden.
Could the situation be any more bizarre than this? It is now 22 years since the Lockerbie disaster. It is now 10 years since the trial in the Netherlands produced a conviction for Megrahi that is widely believed to be suspect, if not downright unsafe. It is now three years since the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded that there were six grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is now almost 18 months since Megrahi dropped his second appeal and was sent home to die.
Yet it seems from all SR has been able to establish in the last week that we are no nearer to getting at the truth.
[It is my view that the Scottish Government is manufacturing difficulties where none need exist. Why? The simple answer is that the Scottish Government's legal advisers (if not the Scottish Ministers) are only too well aware of how much damage they themselves would suffer if the Lockerbie can of worms were allowed to be opened.]
Revealed: the fatal flaw that will go on obscuring the truth about Lockerbie
This week's political gamesmanship on the circumstances of Megrahi's release is a distraction from the main question – whether he should have been convicted and imprisoned in the first place. Only the publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's massive report on the case can determine the strength of the possibility that there was a colossal miscarriage of justice. Will this report ever be made public?
The last week has seen some remarkable developments with SR at the heart of them.
After part 1 of 'The Megrahi Scandal' in this magazine last week, the Scottish government issued a statement: "We have always been as open and transparent as possible which is why, following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provision.
"This will allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to publish a statement of reasons in cases where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities."
A bit of background may be helpful. A year ago this month, on the initiative of the Scottish ministers, a new order came into force. Before then, it would have been a criminal offence for the commission to publish information provided to it in the course of an investigation. The new order removed that restriction. The justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said at the time that the order allowed the commission to disclose information it holds; according to Mr MacAskill it was up to the commission to decide what, if anything, it released.
This was an over-simplification of the position. The commission's chief executive, Gerard Sinclair, pointed out that the order only permits the disclosure of such information with the consent of those who have, directly or indirectly, provided the information.
For nine months, Mr Sinclair attempted to obtain that consent from the main parties involved – including the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the police, Megrahi himself. 'It became obvious,' he said, 'that there was no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required.'
Late last year, the commission's board decided to discontinue the discussions. But it added a potentially significant rider: 'The commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.'
It is now 22 years since the Lockerbie disaster. It is now 10 years since the trial in the Netherlands produced a conviction for Megrahi that is widely believed to be suspect, if not downright unsafe.
Why did the Scottish government not act on this suggestion? Why did it, instead, decide to embark on the more cumbersome and time-consuming route of primary legislation? Professor Robert Black QC, the Lockerbie authority, told an audience in Glasgow a few weeks ago of his suspicion that the decision to legislate was simply another delaying tactic by the Scottish government. To vary the order, removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the parties, would take very little time. How long will legislation take? I asked the Scottish government. It replied that there is, as yet, no timetable.
Meanwhile, it is worth re-visiting the exact terms of the statement issued to SR. When I read it a second time, alarm bells started to ring. The qualifications seemed more than a little restrictive... "subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities."
Thoroughly perplexed by this stage, I decided to seek an opinion from the commission itself. I emailed Gerard Sinclair and asked him to confirm that he agrees with the Scottish government's view that the primary legislation, when it is eventually enacted, will enable the full statement of reasons to be published at last.
His answer to this SR inquiry was commendably frank.
He does not necessarily agree that the new law will clear the way for publication of the report. It seems I was right to be concerned about the Scottish government's list of qualifications. In Mr Sinclair's opinion, there is so much sensitive personal information in the report that the requirements of data protection law may well prevent its publication.
I then contacted Robert Black in South Africa. He told me that, if the Scottish government tries to empower the commission by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, 'it may well be' that data protection restrictions will continue to apply. In contrast, the Criminal Procedure Act of the UK parliament allows data protection considerations to be over-ridden.
Could the situation be any more bizarre than this? It is now 22 years since the Lockerbie disaster. It is now 10 years since the trial in the Netherlands produced a conviction for Megrahi that is widely believed to be suspect, if not downright unsafe. It is now three years since the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded that there were six grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is now almost 18 months since Megrahi dropped his second appeal and was sent home to die.
Yet it seems from all SR has been able to establish in the last week that we are no nearer to getting at the truth.
[It is my view that the Scottish Government is manufacturing difficulties where none need exist. Why? The simple answer is that the Scottish Government's legal advisers (if not the Scottish Ministers) are only too well aware of how much damage they themselves would suffer if the Lockerbie can of worms were allowed to be opened.]
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Truth lies hidden beneath the blather about Megrahi
[This is the headline over Ian Bell's column in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Sir Gus O’Donnell’s trawl through certain documents relating to the Lockerbie bombing has become very bad news for Labour.
It is bad in London, bad in Edinburgh; bad for reputations, bad for careers. On both sides of the border, the charge is the same: saying one thing, doing another. The only difference is that some things were shouted in one place and whispered elsewhere.
David Cameron handled the report with a certain vicious elegance in the Commons, in his best more-in-sorrow-than-anger voice. Too many things, he pointed out, were left unsaid by Labour ministers. Whether he would have behaved any differently in their shoes was a point he was happy to leave moot. He had certain aims in mind, and he achieved them.
Thus: blame Labour, blame the SNP, placate America, exonerate BP, and remind us that he was always opposed to the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on any grounds. Better still, for the eternal interests of Her Majesty’s Government, nothing in O’Donnell’s document obliged Cameron to deal with a real question: what of profound doubts over the original conviction?
No-one in the Commons, as usual, had a word to say about that.
Labour was all over the place. Gordon Brown was forced into a statement that answered no questions. Jack Straw, England’s Justice Secretary in the period at issue, fell to parsing any phrase that might provide an excuse. Meanwhile, the Scottish party found itself in a truly hideous position.
Either its leading members knew about London’s efforts to “facilitate” a release deal with Libya, or they did not. If not, what does that tell us about relationships between Labour in Edinburgh and Labour in Westminster?
But if all was known, what excused the many, vehement accusations hurled at Kenny MacAskill, the SNP minister who freed Megrahi? Labour in Scotland was still at that game this week, even when it was beyond doubt that its colleagues in London had connived in Libyan efforts. Straw, O’Donnell tells us, even thought of supplying a supportive letter.
It’s possible, of course, that some Scottish Labour figures were “in the loop” and some were not. The Scotland Office, first under Des Browne, and by October 2008 in the charge of Jim Murphy, was under no illusions. The latter minister was certainly given the minutes of calls between Straw and Alex Salmond. So what about Holyrood?
But this means that some passionate opponents of Megrahi’s release were permitted – encouraged? – to go on conducting a campaign against MacAskill while the truth was otherwise kept hidden. Take your pick: scandal, shambles, or a bit of both?
None is easy to spin, but Labour has done its best. Supported by the – no doubt unprompted – right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes, a tale filtered into the London media this week to the effect that MacAskill was prepared, late in 2007, to amend the Scottish Government’s opposition to Labour’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. The alleged price: cash to pay off human rights claims over prison slopping out, and devolved control over airgun legislation. And how tawdry would that have been?
O’Donnell certainly relates – of exchanges in November, 2007 – that “it is clear that HMG’s understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions” – meaning Megrahi, the only Libyan in a British prison – “might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions...” (on slopping out and firearms law). The Cabinet Secretary’s footnotes then refer the reader to letters between Straw and Browne in which the two allude to that “understanding”.
But O’Donnell’s very next sentence in the body of his text records that, “Kenny MacAskill restated the Scottish Government’s position that any PTA should exclude anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a letter to Jack Straw on 6 December 2007”.
So much was already in the public domain, thanks to the Scottish Government’s website. Nor did the SNP deviate from that position.
Labour’s attempt to establish otherwise this week depends entirely on a “leaked” email from John McTernan, Brown’s adviser, who gleaned his “understanding” from unnamed “officials”.
You wouldn’t base a Scottish election campaign on that, I’d have thought. But what else does Iain Gray and his Holyrood party now possess? Continued demands for the release of Megrahi’s medical records? Such material is redacted even in O’Donnell’s report, on data protection grounds. An oncologist would tell you, meanwhile, that a prognosis is not a prediction, but add that prostate cancer treatments – and hence survival rates – are improving yearly.
Even given the horrific scale of Lockerbie, an attack on compassion is tricky. It’s also beside the point. As is O’Donnell’s report, and Cameron’s lofty satisfaction, and Brown’s floundering response.
The fact that Labour has been found guilty of monumental hypocrisy is important in its own right, no doubt, but it is only one part of a larger argument. In the matter of mass murder, the question of guilt is paramount. Unless it is settled, beyond doubt, every other “row” is chatter, and distracting chatter at that. In the case of Megrahi, despite anything politicians claim, there is no certainty.
We do know, though, of $3 million paid by US authorities to Maltese brothers, Toni and Paul Gauci, for the sake of identification evidence. We know that Lord Peter Fraser, then Lord Advocate, would later describe the former brother, supposedly a star witness, as less than the full shilling and “an apple short of a picnic”.
We know, furthermore, that the forensic “experts” on both sides of the Atlantic, providers of still more “key evidence” at Camp Zeist, were later discredited thoroughly. We know Professor Hans Koechler, Kofi Annan’s UN observer, damned the trial as an outrage and an abuse.
There’s more, much more. We don’t know, though, why Megrahi still fails to provide proof of his innocence. We don’t know why no political party – the SNP included – is prepared to entertain even an inquiry into the conviction.
Those rows over the compassionate release of “the Lockerbie bomber” will do instead, at least until some successor to Sir Gus cares to examine a few more of the papers salted away in the hidden record.
Sir Gus O’Donnell’s trawl through certain documents relating to the Lockerbie bombing has become very bad news for Labour.
It is bad in London, bad in Edinburgh; bad for reputations, bad for careers. On both sides of the border, the charge is the same: saying one thing, doing another. The only difference is that some things were shouted in one place and whispered elsewhere.
David Cameron handled the report with a certain vicious elegance in the Commons, in his best more-in-sorrow-than-anger voice. Too many things, he pointed out, were left unsaid by Labour ministers. Whether he would have behaved any differently in their shoes was a point he was happy to leave moot. He had certain aims in mind, and he achieved them.
Thus: blame Labour, blame the SNP, placate America, exonerate BP, and remind us that he was always opposed to the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on any grounds. Better still, for the eternal interests of Her Majesty’s Government, nothing in O’Donnell’s document obliged Cameron to deal with a real question: what of profound doubts over the original conviction?
No-one in the Commons, as usual, had a word to say about that.
Labour was all over the place. Gordon Brown was forced into a statement that answered no questions. Jack Straw, England’s Justice Secretary in the period at issue, fell to parsing any phrase that might provide an excuse. Meanwhile, the Scottish party found itself in a truly hideous position.
Either its leading members knew about London’s efforts to “facilitate” a release deal with Libya, or they did not. If not, what does that tell us about relationships between Labour in Edinburgh and Labour in Westminster?
But if all was known, what excused the many, vehement accusations hurled at Kenny MacAskill, the SNP minister who freed Megrahi? Labour in Scotland was still at that game this week, even when it was beyond doubt that its colleagues in London had connived in Libyan efforts. Straw, O’Donnell tells us, even thought of supplying a supportive letter.
It’s possible, of course, that some Scottish Labour figures were “in the loop” and some were not. The Scotland Office, first under Des Browne, and by October 2008 in the charge of Jim Murphy, was under no illusions. The latter minister was certainly given the minutes of calls between Straw and Alex Salmond. So what about Holyrood?
But this means that some passionate opponents of Megrahi’s release were permitted – encouraged? – to go on conducting a campaign against MacAskill while the truth was otherwise kept hidden. Take your pick: scandal, shambles, or a bit of both?
None is easy to spin, but Labour has done its best. Supported by the – no doubt unprompted – right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes, a tale filtered into the London media this week to the effect that MacAskill was prepared, late in 2007, to amend the Scottish Government’s opposition to Labour’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. The alleged price: cash to pay off human rights claims over prison slopping out, and devolved control over airgun legislation. And how tawdry would that have been?
O’Donnell certainly relates – of exchanges in November, 2007 – that “it is clear that HMG’s understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions” – meaning Megrahi, the only Libyan in a British prison – “might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions...” (on slopping out and firearms law). The Cabinet Secretary’s footnotes then refer the reader to letters between Straw and Browne in which the two allude to that “understanding”.
But O’Donnell’s very next sentence in the body of his text records that, “Kenny MacAskill restated the Scottish Government’s position that any PTA should exclude anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a letter to Jack Straw on 6 December 2007”.
So much was already in the public domain, thanks to the Scottish Government’s website. Nor did the SNP deviate from that position.
Labour’s attempt to establish otherwise this week depends entirely on a “leaked” email from John McTernan, Brown’s adviser, who gleaned his “understanding” from unnamed “officials”.
You wouldn’t base a Scottish election campaign on that, I’d have thought. But what else does Iain Gray and his Holyrood party now possess? Continued demands for the release of Megrahi’s medical records? Such material is redacted even in O’Donnell’s report, on data protection grounds. An oncologist would tell you, meanwhile, that a prognosis is not a prediction, but add that prostate cancer treatments – and hence survival rates – are improving yearly.
Even given the horrific scale of Lockerbie, an attack on compassion is tricky. It’s also beside the point. As is O’Donnell’s report, and Cameron’s lofty satisfaction, and Brown’s floundering response.
The fact that Labour has been found guilty of monumental hypocrisy is important in its own right, no doubt, but it is only one part of a larger argument. In the matter of mass murder, the question of guilt is paramount. Unless it is settled, beyond doubt, every other “row” is chatter, and distracting chatter at that. In the case of Megrahi, despite anything politicians claim, there is no certainty.
We do know, though, of $3 million paid by US authorities to Maltese brothers, Toni and Paul Gauci, for the sake of identification evidence. We know that Lord Peter Fraser, then Lord Advocate, would later describe the former brother, supposedly a star witness, as less than the full shilling and “an apple short of a picnic”.
We know, furthermore, that the forensic “experts” on both sides of the Atlantic, providers of still more “key evidence” at Camp Zeist, were later discredited thoroughly. We know Professor Hans Koechler, Kofi Annan’s UN observer, damned the trial as an outrage and an abuse.
There’s more, much more. We don’t know, though, why Megrahi still fails to provide proof of his innocence. We don’t know why no political party – the SNP included – is prepared to entertain even an inquiry into the conviction.
Those rows over the compassionate release of “the Lockerbie bomber” will do instead, at least until some successor to Sir Gus cares to examine a few more of the papers salted away in the hidden record.
Lockerbie questions
A letter in the following terms from Dr Jim Swire was published in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph:]
Those who wallow in questions of inter-party blame over the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (...) ignore more important questions. Our politicians continue to play to the American gallery, which has blind faith in Megrahi’s guilt.
The only body appropriate to re-examine the security of criminal verdicts in Scotland is the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC). It worked for three years on the Lockerbie verdict and found that it might have been a miscarriage of justice.
Westminster claims that only Scotland can review the verdict, Scotland that only England has access to the relevant information, despite the findings of its own SCCRC. America concentrates on whether BP might have gained through a “dirty deal” in the desert. A recent petition in Scotland has requested an inquiry into the verdict. So far this has been refused, and now an election looms.
As the father of Flora, aged 23, who was murdered on Pan Am flight 103, I have a different agenda, and it centres on Westminster.
A Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990 told us that the tragedy was preventable and that the aircraft had been under the host state protection of Britain at all relevant times. Only the consequences involve Scotland. The fate of the aircraft was sealed when the wheels left the runway of Heathrow airport.
We want to know why the aircraft was not protected, and everything that is known about who was really responsible for the atrocity. It may have occurred 22 years ago, but we must live out the rest of our lives bereft of our family members.
Every Prime Minister including Baroness Thatcher has refused an objective inquiry. We are not likely to go away without that knowledge.
[A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman from Jack Fraser reads as follows:]
Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released. (...)
Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.
However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: i.e. the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?
We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?
There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.
People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.
[An opinion piece in The Telegraph from Scottish Editor Alan Cochrane reads in part:]
Labour's attempts to hide what should be their acute embarrassment over what can only be described as their culpability over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by trying to drag the SNP into an elaborate conspiracy have largely failed.
Despite an energetic campaign to link Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, to a, frankly, fantastical deal involving prisoners' slopping out as well as the transfer of the mass murderer to a Libyan jail, all Labour succeeded in doing was looking even more silly than they had at the outset. And while we must take his word for it when Iain Gray, their Scottish leader, insists that if he had been First Minister he wouldn't have freed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, it does take a bit of believing.
After all, to read even a tenth of the 142 papers reviewed and released by Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, leads to the inescapable conclusion that everyone in the then Labour government from Prime Minister Gordon Brown to the Downing Street cat wanted Megrahi freed. And yet Mr Gray says he would have defied all of that and allowed the bomber to rot and die in Greenock Jail.
As I've already said, we must accept Mr Gray's word for what he'd do; all I can say is that defying Gordon Brown, then at the height of his powers and authority, is not an action I would have associated normally with any leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
Still, leave that to one side. The real issue is how this will play on May 5 at the elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Prior to the release of the Lockerbie papers, Scottish Labour strategists were confident that they'd get a huge bonus from the fact that it was an SNP minister who had released Megrahi. They reported widespread disgust with the Nats on the doorsteps.
For their part, the SNP were cock-a-hoop with the O'Donnell report, believing that with Labour being seen to be so keen on Megrahi's release – including newspaper photographs of Gordon Brown shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi – it would neutralise any detrimental effect that Mr MacAskill's decision had with the voters.
However, their joy may be short-lived because no matter what Labour at Westminster thought and said, it was still the Nats who freed the greatest mass murderer that this country has ever seen.
And, unfortunate though that may be for the SNP cause, it is that fact that will remain at the forefront of most voters' minds.
Those who wallow in questions of inter-party blame over the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (...) ignore more important questions. Our politicians continue to play to the American gallery, which has blind faith in Megrahi’s guilt.
The only body appropriate to re-examine the security of criminal verdicts in Scotland is the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC). It worked for three years on the Lockerbie verdict and found that it might have been a miscarriage of justice.
Westminster claims that only Scotland can review the verdict, Scotland that only England has access to the relevant information, despite the findings of its own SCCRC. America concentrates on whether BP might have gained through a “dirty deal” in the desert. A recent petition in Scotland has requested an inquiry into the verdict. So far this has been refused, and now an election looms.
As the father of Flora, aged 23, who was murdered on Pan Am flight 103, I have a different agenda, and it centres on Westminster.
A Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990 told us that the tragedy was preventable and that the aircraft had been under the host state protection of Britain at all relevant times. Only the consequences involve Scotland. The fate of the aircraft was sealed when the wheels left the runway of Heathrow airport.
We want to know why the aircraft was not protected, and everything that is known about who was really responsible for the atrocity. It may have occurred 22 years ago, but we must live out the rest of our lives bereft of our family members.
Every Prime Minister including Baroness Thatcher has refused an objective inquiry. We are not likely to go away without that knowledge.
[A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman from Jack Fraser reads as follows:]
Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released. (...)
Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.
However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: i.e. the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?
We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?
There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.
People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.
[An opinion piece in The Telegraph from Scottish Editor Alan Cochrane reads in part:]
Labour's attempts to hide what should be their acute embarrassment over what can only be described as their culpability over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by trying to drag the SNP into an elaborate conspiracy have largely failed.
Despite an energetic campaign to link Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, to a, frankly, fantastical deal involving prisoners' slopping out as well as the transfer of the mass murderer to a Libyan jail, all Labour succeeded in doing was looking even more silly than they had at the outset. And while we must take his word for it when Iain Gray, their Scottish leader, insists that if he had been First Minister he wouldn't have freed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, it does take a bit of believing.
After all, to read even a tenth of the 142 papers reviewed and released by Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, leads to the inescapable conclusion that everyone in the then Labour government from Prime Minister Gordon Brown to the Downing Street cat wanted Megrahi freed. And yet Mr Gray says he would have defied all of that and allowed the bomber to rot and die in Greenock Jail.
As I've already said, we must accept Mr Gray's word for what he'd do; all I can say is that defying Gordon Brown, then at the height of his powers and authority, is not an action I would have associated normally with any leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
Still, leave that to one side. The real issue is how this will play on May 5 at the elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Prior to the release of the Lockerbie papers, Scottish Labour strategists were confident that they'd get a huge bonus from the fact that it was an SNP minister who had released Megrahi. They reported widespread disgust with the Nats on the doorsteps.
For their part, the SNP were cock-a-hoop with the O'Donnell report, believing that with Labour being seen to be so keen on Megrahi's release – including newspaper photographs of Gordon Brown shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi – it would neutralise any detrimental effect that Mr MacAskill's decision had with the voters.
However, their joy may be short-lived because no matter what Labour at Westminster thought and said, it was still the Nats who freed the greatest mass murderer that this country has ever seen.
And, unfortunate though that may be for the SNP cause, it is that fact that will remain at the forefront of most voters' minds.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Can Ian Bell be cloned, please?
[The following is the text of a an article "Lockerbie: Muzzled, Toothless, Tamed" posted yesterday on Ian Bell's blog:]
A stirring piece of Westminster theatre, then. A judicious performance from David Cameron, mournfully deprecating a lack of clarity from his Labour predecessors. A fine display of righteous indignation on behalf of the dead from Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Some face-saving non-remarks – before his time, you understand – from Ed Miliband. And an intervention from Jack Straw that was feline, lawyerly, self-serving and utterly empty.
But there was a big, black, ugly dog in the shadows of the Commons chamber early yesterday afternoon, Sherlock. Once again, as so often before, that dog didn’t bark.
Britain’s politicians, some of them, are not fools. The Scots and the lawyers (often one and the same), in particular, have read all the articles, noted all the books, heard and seen the TV reports and documentaries. The ministers and former ministers among them have had access, confidentially, to more information than that.
They could each say – and such as Cameron certainly would – that the last Labour government’s efforts to “facilitate” Libyan attempts to secure the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi were wholly hypocritical, and morally indefensible. There’s no longer room for conjecture.
Oil; a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA); “bringing Gaddafi back into the fold”; Libyan threats and menaces; and a troublesome prisoner whose second appeal, likely to succeed despite every attempt to obstruct and undermine it, was looming: if the PTA wouldn’t stick, “compassion” would do instead. In the national interest.
Labour at least confessed that it did not wish to see al-Megrahi die in a British prison. The problem was two-fold: the Americans wanted exactly that, and there was no guarantee that the Nationalists in charge in Edinburgh could be relied upon to co-operate with a distrusted political rival. And did any party fancy facing the consequences if the dying man’s appeal succeeded? The tale told in all those articles and TV docs – effectively an international conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – had horrifying implications for very important people.
Hence our ugly, silent dog. Not a well-informed soul mentioned the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction in the Commons yesterday, even for the sake of invective. Taking a pop at the SNP was routine. Keeping BP clear of the mess was all-but a patriotic duty. Sticking to the tight brief that Cameron himself had handed to Sir Gus O’Donnell was simplicity itself. And venting anger against mass murder, covered up or not, was all in a political day’s work.
I don’t say that the O’Donnell exercise has added nothing to the stock of information surrounding Lockerbie. It could certainly be construed as grounds for the SNP government to demand a couple of apologies. Equally, you could define it as another reason to ask why that same administration still refuses to question the safety of the conviction. But no one at Westminster has any intention of approaching that territory, even to dismiss the very idea as unworthy and outrageous.
[Yet another article on the subject is due to appear in The Herald tomorrow. Mr Bell's blog version can be read here. I shall blog on the published version tomorrow, if my unstable internet connection permits.
There has been lots of media coverage of Sir Gus O'Donnell's report and David Cameron's House of Commons statement. But none of it that I have been able to access merits a reference here, except the editorial in The Herald headed Megrahi questions still unanswered.]
A stirring piece of Westminster theatre, then. A judicious performance from David Cameron, mournfully deprecating a lack of clarity from his Labour predecessors. A fine display of righteous indignation on behalf of the dead from Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Some face-saving non-remarks – before his time, you understand – from Ed Miliband. And an intervention from Jack Straw that was feline, lawyerly, self-serving and utterly empty.
But there was a big, black, ugly dog in the shadows of the Commons chamber early yesterday afternoon, Sherlock. Once again, as so often before, that dog didn’t bark.
Britain’s politicians, some of them, are not fools. The Scots and the lawyers (often one and the same), in particular, have read all the articles, noted all the books, heard and seen the TV reports and documentaries. The ministers and former ministers among them have had access, confidentially, to more information than that.
They could each say – and such as Cameron certainly would – that the last Labour government’s efforts to “facilitate” Libyan attempts to secure the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi were wholly hypocritical, and morally indefensible. There’s no longer room for conjecture.
Oil; a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA); “bringing Gaddafi back into the fold”; Libyan threats and menaces; and a troublesome prisoner whose second appeal, likely to succeed despite every attempt to obstruct and undermine it, was looming: if the PTA wouldn’t stick, “compassion” would do instead. In the national interest.
Labour at least confessed that it did not wish to see al-Megrahi die in a British prison. The problem was two-fold: the Americans wanted exactly that, and there was no guarantee that the Nationalists in charge in Edinburgh could be relied upon to co-operate with a distrusted political rival. And did any party fancy facing the consequences if the dying man’s appeal succeeded? The tale told in all those articles and TV docs – effectively an international conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – had horrifying implications for very important people.
Hence our ugly, silent dog. Not a well-informed soul mentioned the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction in the Commons yesterday, even for the sake of invective. Taking a pop at the SNP was routine. Keeping BP clear of the mess was all-but a patriotic duty. Sticking to the tight brief that Cameron himself had handed to Sir Gus O’Donnell was simplicity itself. And venting anger against mass murder, covered up or not, was all in a political day’s work.
I don’t say that the O’Donnell exercise has added nothing to the stock of information surrounding Lockerbie. It could certainly be construed as grounds for the SNP government to demand a couple of apologies. Equally, you could define it as another reason to ask why that same administration still refuses to question the safety of the conviction. But no one at Westminster has any intention of approaching that territory, even to dismiss the very idea as unworthy and outrageous.
[Yet another article on the subject is due to appear in The Herald tomorrow. Mr Bell's blog version can be read here. I shall blog on the published version tomorrow, if my unstable internet connection permits.
There has been lots of media coverage of Sir Gus O'Donnell's report and David Cameron's House of Commons statement. But none of it that I have been able to access merits a reference here, except the editorial in The Herald headed Megrahi questions still unanswered.]
Monday, 7 February 2011
UK ministers 'wanted Lockerbie bomber released'
[This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The previous UK government did "all it could" to help facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a report on the case says.
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the country's most senior civil servant, said there was an "underlying desire" to see Megrahi released before he died.
But his report concluded that it was made clear to Libya that the final decision was up to Scottish ministers.
And there was no evidence of Labour pressure on the Holyrood government.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who set up the investigation, said the release had been "profoundly wrong" but added there was no need for a fresh inquiry.
Labour's Gordon Brown, who was in Downing Street when Megrahi was freed in August 2009, said the decision had been made by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and "no-one else". (...)
The report by Sir Gus, the Cabinet Secretary, said the UK government had had an "underlying desire to see Mr Megrahi released before he died".
It added that, in 2008, the government developed a policy that it "should do all it could, whilst respecting devolved competences, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Mr Megrahi's transfer under the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) or release on compassionate grounds".
"This action amounted to: Proceeding with ratification of the PTA; explaining to Libya in factual terms the process for application for transfer under a PTA or for compassionate release, and informing the Scottish government that there was no legal barrier to transfer under the PTA," the report said.
But Sir Gus said he had "not seen any evidence" that the UK government had pressured or lobbied the Scottish government - run by the Scottish National Party - for the transfer or release of Megrahi.
He said the information showed UK ministers had changed their position on Megrahi due to commercial considerations, including lobbying by oil firm BP, in Libya.
In a statement to the UK Parliament, David Cameron dismissed claims, investigated by a recent US Congressional inquiry, that Megrahi's release may have been due to pressure by BP on UK ministers.
The prime minister told MPs he did not believe the documents justified calls for a new inquiry, adding: "The key point to me that emerges from reading the paperwork is this: Insufficient consideration was given to the most basic question of all.
"Was it really right for the British government to 'facilitate' an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government in the case of an individual who was convicted of murdering 270 people, including 43 British citizens and 190 Americans, and 19 other nationalities?
"That is, for me, the biggest lesson of this entire affair."
Mr Cameron added: "For my part, I repeat, I believe it was profoundly wrong. The fact that 18 months later the Lockerbie bomber is today living, at liberty, in Tripoli, only serves to underline that." (...)
[The Scottish Government has today also published a final set of documents relating to the release. The press release describing the documents and containing a link to the website on which they can be read in full can be accessed here.
There is more conspiracy theorising about the circumstances of Megrahi's release in this article in today's edition of the rabidly anti-SNP Daily Record.
How I wish that even a quarter of the journalistic time spent on, and space devoted to, the rights and wrongs of the Megrahi release were spent on and devoted to the rights and wrongs of the Megrahi conviction! A forlorn hope, I know.
I regret to report that my Middelpos internet connection is just as slow and unstable as I remembered. But there are compensations, like sunshine and warmth.]
The previous UK government did "all it could" to help facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a report on the case says.
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the country's most senior civil servant, said there was an "underlying desire" to see Megrahi released before he died.
But his report concluded that it was made clear to Libya that the final decision was up to Scottish ministers.
And there was no evidence of Labour pressure on the Holyrood government.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who set up the investigation, said the release had been "profoundly wrong" but added there was no need for a fresh inquiry.
Labour's Gordon Brown, who was in Downing Street when Megrahi was freed in August 2009, said the decision had been made by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and "no-one else". (...)
The report by Sir Gus, the Cabinet Secretary, said the UK government had had an "underlying desire to see Mr Megrahi released before he died".
It added that, in 2008, the government developed a policy that it "should do all it could, whilst respecting devolved competences, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Mr Megrahi's transfer under the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) or release on compassionate grounds".
"This action amounted to: Proceeding with ratification of the PTA; explaining to Libya in factual terms the process for application for transfer under a PTA or for compassionate release, and informing the Scottish government that there was no legal barrier to transfer under the PTA," the report said.
But Sir Gus said he had "not seen any evidence" that the UK government had pressured or lobbied the Scottish government - run by the Scottish National Party - for the transfer or release of Megrahi.
He said the information showed UK ministers had changed their position on Megrahi due to commercial considerations, including lobbying by oil firm BP, in Libya.
In a statement to the UK Parliament, David Cameron dismissed claims, investigated by a recent US Congressional inquiry, that Megrahi's release may have been due to pressure by BP on UK ministers.
The prime minister told MPs he did not believe the documents justified calls for a new inquiry, adding: "The key point to me that emerges from reading the paperwork is this: Insufficient consideration was given to the most basic question of all.
"Was it really right for the British government to 'facilitate' an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government in the case of an individual who was convicted of murdering 270 people, including 43 British citizens and 190 Americans, and 19 other nationalities?
"That is, for me, the biggest lesson of this entire affair."
Mr Cameron added: "For my part, I repeat, I believe it was profoundly wrong. The fact that 18 months later the Lockerbie bomber is today living, at liberty, in Tripoli, only serves to underline that." (...)
[The Scottish Government has today also published a final set of documents relating to the release. The press release describing the documents and containing a link to the website on which they can be read in full can be accessed here.
There is more conspiracy theorising about the circumstances of Megrahi's release in this article in today's edition of the rabidly anti-SNP Daily Record.
How I wish that even a quarter of the journalistic time spent on, and space devoted to, the rights and wrongs of the Megrahi release were spent on and devoted to the rights and wrongs of the Megrahi conviction! A forlorn hope, I know.
I regret to report that my Middelpos internet connection is just as slow and unstable as I remembered. But there are compensations, like sunshine and warmth.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)