[This is the headline over a report (labelled "exclusive") in today's edition of the Sunday Mail. It picks up (without acknowledgment, of course) this blog post. The report reads as follows:]
The Lockerbie bomber would have to be awarded a UK visa before he could ever return to Scotland.
Supporters of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - convinced of his innocence - believe Britain could be a safe haven from US Special Forces planning to capture him in Libya.
But, in Parliament, Foreign Office minister Lord Howell stressed any visa application would take into account "the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted".
Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives. He was released from Greenock Prison in August 2009 after being given three months to live with cancer.
But he was spotted alive and well at a pro-Gaddafi rally last month.
US senators have demanded he face a fresh trial there and there is a plot to capture him.
Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the process which led to his conviction, said: "The Foreign Office seems to be saying that, even if the Scottish Government revoked the licence, the UK government could deny him a visa."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Megrahi is being monitored by East Renfrewshire Council and he is not leaving."
[Here is the full text of an e-mail that I sent to the writer of the report when he contacted me for a reaction to the FCO written answer:
"I have to say that I'm a bit surprised. Megrahi was released on licence, which permitted him to return to Libya. That licence could be revoked (eg if he broke the conditions attached to it or if the Scottish authorities thought his safety required his return to Scotland). However, the FCO seems to be saying that even if the licence were revoked by the Scottish Government, the UK government could deny him a visa. I wonder what the Scottish government would have to say about that. And it doesn't seem to say much for joined-up government."]
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Megrahi return would be subject to UK immigration rules
[I am grateful to Robert Forrester for drawing my attention to the following House of Lords written question and answer from 21 June 2011.]
Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether reports on the whereabouts of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi are still being transmitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from Libya, and those on his health to East Renfrewshire Council; and whether they will detain him if he returns to the United Kingdom. [HL9768]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not monitor the location or health of Abdel Baset Ali Al Megrahi. East Renfrewshire was designated as the local authority responsible for monitoring Al Megrahi's health and location because his family lived in Newton Mearns during his imprisonment in Greenock prison. The Scottish Government have informed us that East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is maintaining regular contact with Al Megrahi as required by the conditions of his release licence. It would not be appropriate for the FCO to ask the council for this confidential information.
Should Al Megrahi wish to return to the UK then he would be subject to UK immigration law and therefore be required to apply for an entry visa. Any such application for a visa from Al Megrahi would be considered in the appropriate way including consideration of the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted.
[A news report based on this written answer can now be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The editor, Steven Raeburn, cynically asks on Twitter @TheFirmOnline "Does this permit 'plausible deniability' to be argued by the UK Gov in the event of a stray missile landing on him...?"]
Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether reports on the whereabouts of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi are still being transmitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from Libya, and those on his health to East Renfrewshire Council; and whether they will detain him if he returns to the United Kingdom. [HL9768]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not monitor the location or health of Abdel Baset Ali Al Megrahi. East Renfrewshire was designated as the local authority responsible for monitoring Al Megrahi's health and location because his family lived in Newton Mearns during his imprisonment in Greenock prison. The Scottish Government have informed us that East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is maintaining regular contact with Al Megrahi as required by the conditions of his release licence. It would not be appropriate for the FCO to ask the council for this confidential information.
Should Al Megrahi wish to return to the UK then he would be subject to UK immigration law and therefore be required to apply for an entry visa. Any such application for a visa from Al Megrahi would be considered in the appropriate way including consideration of the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted.
[A news report based on this written answer can now be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The editor, Steven Raeburn, cynically asks on Twitter @TheFirmOnline "Does this permit 'plausible deniability' to be argued by the UK Gov in the event of a stray missile landing on him...?"]
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business at Edinburgh Festival Fringe
David Benson will be giving a single performance of his award-winning one-man play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on Monday, 8 August 2011 at 4pm at St John's Church, corner of Princes Street and Lothian Road, Edinburgh (venue 127). Members of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, including Dr Jim Swire, will be taking part in the post-show discussion. Details can be found here.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Lockerbie bomb lawyer’s Borders fiscal post
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Southern Reporter, a newspaper circulating in the Scottish Borders. It reads in part:]
A solicitor involved in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been appointed new area procurator fiscal for the Borders.
John Logue was part of the Crown Office’s Lockerbie team from 1998 to 2002 when Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty of murdering 270 people and during his first appeal.
Mr Logue will now oversee proceedings at Duns, Jedburgh, Peebles and Selkirk courts, as well as covering the Lothians. (...)
The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, said: “John has been pivotal in shaping the policy and management agenda of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service in recent years. He also played a crucial role at the Lockerbie trial and continues to work on the case. [RB: I suspect that the only real work still being done on the case is a rearguard action to defend the indefensible -- viz the conviction -- and to prevent an independent inquiry ever being instituted into it.]
“He has a lengthy track record in operational casework.
“I have every confidence that the Lothian and Borders team will continue to go from strength to strength under his leadership.”
[The chief procurator fiscal working on the Lockerbie case at the time of the Zeist trial and appeal is now a sheriff (a local judge in the Scottish system) as is the then principal solicitor for Abdelbaset Megrahi. The two leading advocates-depute (Crown prosecutors) at the trial are now both judges of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.]
A solicitor involved in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been appointed new area procurator fiscal for the Borders.
John Logue was part of the Crown Office’s Lockerbie team from 1998 to 2002 when Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty of murdering 270 people and during his first appeal.
Mr Logue will now oversee proceedings at Duns, Jedburgh, Peebles and Selkirk courts, as well as covering the Lothians. (...)
The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, said: “John has been pivotal in shaping the policy and management agenda of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service in recent years. He also played a crucial role at the Lockerbie trial and continues to work on the case. [RB: I suspect that the only real work still being done on the case is a rearguard action to defend the indefensible -- viz the conviction -- and to prevent an independent inquiry ever being instituted into it.]
“He has a lengthy track record in operational casework.
“I have every confidence that the Lothian and Borders team will continue to go from strength to strength under his leadership.”
[The chief procurator fiscal working on the Lockerbie case at the time of the Zeist trial and appeal is now a sheriff (a local judge in the Scottish system) as is the then principal solicitor for Abdelbaset Megrahi. The two leading advocates-depute (Crown prosecutors) at the trial are now both judges of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.]
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Secret report on Lockerbie bomber to be made public
[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of the Dumfries & Galloway Standard, one of the local newspapers covering the Lockerbie area, several days after other media featured the story. The report reads in part:]
A confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber could be made public.
Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi’s case back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
Speaking this week, First Minister Mr Salmond said: “I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC.
“It hasn’t been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties before you can publish the full statement. It hasn’t been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
“However, we believe we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do.”
[This article, like all of the others, fails to mention that it was the Scottish Government that chose to impose the consent requirement in the 2009 Statutory Instrument that first allowed publication. It also fails to mention that the consent requirement could, and should, be removed by Statutory Instrument without requiring primary legislation to be piloted through the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has signally failed to address the question why it is choosing to remove the restrictive requirement in this cumbersome and wholly unnecessary way.]
A confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber could be made public.
Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi’s case back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
Speaking this week, First Minister Mr Salmond said: “I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC.
“It hasn’t been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties before you can publish the full statement. It hasn’t been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
“However, we believe we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do.”
[This article, like all of the others, fails to mention that it was the Scottish Government that chose to impose the consent requirement in the 2009 Statutory Instrument that first allowed publication. It also fails to mention that the consent requirement could, and should, be removed by Statutory Instrument without requiring primary legislation to be piloted through the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has signally failed to address the question why it is choosing to remove the restrictive requirement in this cumbersome and wholly unnecessary way.]
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
MacAskill reply to Forrester
[At the end of July, Justice for Megrahi's secretary Robert Forrester wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to inquire whether the Scottish authorities had offered Abdelbaset Megrahi an opportunity to return to Scotland given the circumstances currently obtaining in Libya. The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just published a report based on Kenny MacAskill's reply. It reads as follows:]
The Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has swept aside a query from the Justice for Megrahi campaign group asking whether Scotland maintained a duty of care to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi following the threats to his life under the newly recognised Libyan regime.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, had prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
The answer appears to be none.
Answering on behalf of all organisations, MacAskill said : “The Council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr Al Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence.”
“No request has been made to the Council by Mr Al Megrahi to change any of his licence conditions, including his place of residency,” he added.
The issue of the existing duty of care was not addressed in Mr MacAskill’s reply.
Mr Megrahi’s release licence (...) does not oblige Megrahi to remain at any fixed address. His obligation extends to notifying his supervising officer “in advance of any change in [your] place of residence”.
The Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has swept aside a query from the Justice for Megrahi campaign group asking whether Scotland maintained a duty of care to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi following the threats to his life under the newly recognised Libyan regime.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, had prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
The answer appears to be none.
Answering on behalf of all organisations, MacAskill said : “The Council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr Al Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence.”
“No request has been made to the Council by Mr Al Megrahi to change any of his licence conditions, including his place of residency,” he added.
The issue of the existing duty of care was not addressed in Mr MacAskill’s reply.
Mr Megrahi’s release licence (...) does not oblige Megrahi to remain at any fixed address. His obligation extends to notifying his supervising officer “in advance of any change in [your] place of residence”.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Moussa Koussa "threatened" David Milliband
[What follows is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]
Meanwhile, it has emerged in a leaked Scottish Government document that Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister warned the UK Government that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s incarceration in Scotland would cause “severe difficulties” for bilateral relations.
The Libyan politician’s threat was made during a conversation with the UK’s then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in March 2009, five months before the Libyan man jailed for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was freed.
[It was already well known that Libya had let it be known to the UK government that failure to repatriate Megrahi would have consequences for UK-Libyan relations. It is interesting that this pressure was directed towards the UK government, in spite of the Libyan authorities having been informed, by me amongst others, that responsibility for deciding on prisoner transfer or compassionate release rested with the Scottish, not the UK, government. It would seem that the Libyans were still operating under the misapprehensions engendered by Tony Blair and his team during the "deal in the desert". Here is what I wrote in a blog post dated 14 September 2009:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
Some -- entirely predictable -- US press comments on the recent appearance of Megrahi at a rally in Tripoli can be read here and here and here.
A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman supporting the Justice Secretary's compassionate release decision can be read here.
My great trek from South Africa back to Edinburgh begins later today. It is unlikely that there will be further blog posts until Wednesday, 3 August at the earliest.]
Meanwhile, it has emerged in a leaked Scottish Government document that Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister warned the UK Government that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s incarceration in Scotland would cause “severe difficulties” for bilateral relations.
The Libyan politician’s threat was made during a conversation with the UK’s then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in March 2009, five months before the Libyan man jailed for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was freed.
[It was already well known that Libya had let it be known to the UK government that failure to repatriate Megrahi would have consequences for UK-Libyan relations. It is interesting that this pressure was directed towards the UK government, in spite of the Libyan authorities having been informed, by me amongst others, that responsibility for deciding on prisoner transfer or compassionate release rested with the Scottish, not the UK, government. It would seem that the Libyans were still operating under the misapprehensions engendered by Tony Blair and his team during the "deal in the desert". Here is what I wrote in a blog post dated 14 September 2009:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
Some -- entirely predictable -- US press comments on the recent appearance of Megrahi at a rally in Tripoli can be read here and here and here.
A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman supporting the Justice Secretary's compassionate release decision can be read here.
My great trek from South Africa back to Edinburgh begins later today. It is unlikely that there will be further blog posts until Wednesday, 3 August at the earliest.]
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Call for Megrahi to have 'open door' to Scotland
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber
[This is the headline over a feature just published on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
Allan Francovich's The Maltese Double Cross
Allan Francovich's 1994 film can be viewed here. For the avoidance of doubt, I provide the link simply to be helpful, not because I necessarily support the thesis that the film advances.
Al-Megrahi "could live for years"
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the News & Star, a newspaper circulating in the Carlisle area. It reads in part:]
A leading cancer specialist has predicted the convicted Lockerbie bomber could live for several more years.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison two years ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
He had served nearly eight years of a 27-year sentence after being convicted of killing 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, four days before Christmas in 1988.
But the Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live, prompting his release and return to Libya in 2009.
This week, following his appearance on Libyan television, foreign secretary William Hague labelled this move a “great mistake”.
Now Professor Roger Kirby, one of the world’s leading prostate surgeons and founder of The Prostate Centre, said he may have years left to live.
“I am not surprised that Mr Al-Megrahi is still alive as the decision to release him was based on flawed medical advice. It was always foolhardy to put a three-month prognosis on his survival, because advances in treatment, such as new chemotherapy and immunotherapy techniques that he is likely to be receiving, could keep him alive for a while yet, maybe even several more years.
“What used to be a hopeless situation for patients at advanced stages of prostate cancer is now more favourable. The silver lining to this story is that other patients with similarly advanced disease should not give up hope and should ask their doctor about the possibility of having these new treatments.”
Earlier this week Mr Hague claimed the footage – at what appeared to be a pro-government rally in Libya – demonstrated that the medical advice was “pretty much worthless”.
A leading cancer specialist has predicted the convicted Lockerbie bomber could live for several more years.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison two years ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
He had served nearly eight years of a 27-year sentence after being convicted of killing 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, four days before Christmas in 1988.
But the Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live, prompting his release and return to Libya in 2009.
This week, following his appearance on Libyan television, foreign secretary William Hague labelled this move a “great mistake”.
Now Professor Roger Kirby, one of the world’s leading prostate surgeons and founder of The Prostate Centre, said he may have years left to live.
“I am not surprised that Mr Al-Megrahi is still alive as the decision to release him was based on flawed medical advice. It was always foolhardy to put a three-month prognosis on his survival, because advances in treatment, such as new chemotherapy and immunotherapy techniques that he is likely to be receiving, could keep him alive for a while yet, maybe even several more years.
“What used to be a hopeless situation for patients at advanced stages of prostate cancer is now more favourable. The silver lining to this story is that other patients with similarly advanced disease should not give up hope and should ask their doctor about the possibility of having these new treatments.”
Earlier this week Mr Hague claimed the footage – at what appeared to be a pro-government rally in Libya – demonstrated that the medical advice was “pretty much worthless”.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Salmond on the spot over Megrahi miscarriage report
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Professor Robert Black QC has challenged the First Minister Alex Salmond’s intention, repeated yesterday at Cabinet in Fort William, to introduce primary legislation to facilitate the publication of the report which ruled the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Black says that the matter can be dealt with by a simple statutory instrument, without resort to primary legislation, which must pass through the entire Parliamentary process.
“There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report.” Black said.
“It can, and should be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.”
The confidentiality condition imposed on them is being strictly construed by the SCCRC, who have interpreted Megrahi’s statement that the full report could be released with the agreement of other concerned parties, as conditional upon the disclosure of all material held by the commission
“I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties. It hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo,” Salmond said yesterday.
“However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
The First Minister has not addressed the issue of why primary legislation is preferred over a statutory instrument.
[For a fuller discussion of the primary v secondary legislation issue, see Scottish Government obfuscation over removal of SCCRC consent requirement.]
Professor Robert Black QC has challenged the First Minister Alex Salmond’s intention, repeated yesterday at Cabinet in Fort William, to introduce primary legislation to facilitate the publication of the report which ruled the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Black says that the matter can be dealt with by a simple statutory instrument, without resort to primary legislation, which must pass through the entire Parliamentary process.
“There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report.” Black said.
“It can, and should be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.”
The confidentiality condition imposed on them is being strictly construed by the SCCRC, who have interpreted Megrahi’s statement that the full report could be released with the agreement of other concerned parties, as conditional upon the disclosure of all material held by the commission
“I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties. It hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo,” Salmond said yesterday.
“However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
The First Minister has not addressed the issue of why primary legislation is preferred over a statutory instrument.
[For a fuller discussion of the primary v secondary legislation issue, see Scottish Government obfuscation over removal of SCCRC consent requirement.]
Decision to free Megrahi was right
[This is the heading over a letter from David McEwan Hill published in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is refusing to die on schedule makes no difference whatsoever to the decision to release him – based carefully and correctly on all the legal conditions required to justify this (“So daft to expect Gaddafi to retire to Dun-dictating, The Herald, July 28).
The trial of this man at Camp Zeist remains a blot on Scotland’s record. It cannot be described as a “fair trial”, as Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the court, observed. I find it painful to have it described as a Scottish trial.
[A letter from David Stevenson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads as follows:]
You say that "Megrahi is a living rebuke to (justice secretary, Kenny] MacAskill" (leader, 28 July).
MacAskill followed the rules and in my view should be commended for doing so and for showing common sense and compassion.
Along with many other Scots, I see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as a living rebuke to a legal system which condemned him on very shaky evidence and which has failed properly to re-examine his case and what really happened at Lockerbie. It is still not too late to do this.
The fact that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is refusing to die on schedule makes no difference whatsoever to the decision to release him – based carefully and correctly on all the legal conditions required to justify this (“So daft to expect Gaddafi to retire to Dun-dictating, The Herald, July 28).
The trial of this man at Camp Zeist remains a blot on Scotland’s record. It cannot be described as a “fair trial”, as Hans Koechler, the UN observer at the court, observed. I find it painful to have it described as a Scottish trial.
[A letter from David Stevenson in today's edition of The Scotsman reads as follows:]
You say that "Megrahi is a living rebuke to (justice secretary, Kenny] MacAskill" (leader, 28 July).
MacAskill followed the rules and in my view should be commended for doing so and for showing common sense and compassion.
Along with many other Scots, I see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as a living rebuke to a legal system which condemned him on very shaky evidence and which has failed properly to re-examine his case and what really happened at Lockerbie. It is still not too late to do this.
Should the Scottish government offer to bring al-Megrahi back to Scotland?
[This is the headline over an article by Robert Forrester published yesterday on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
When Mr al-Megrahi was repatriated, he returned to Libya in a climate of ‘back to the oil business as usual’. Once the Arab uprisings of North Africa and the Middle East had taken hold in Libya, the US and other NATO members promptly rode roughshod over the UN and converted a civil war into one of international dimensions.
For months now, we have been hearing wholly unsubstantiated claims from Mr Abdel-Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya, that Mr al-Megrahi carried out the Lockerbie bombing. The only time Mr Abdel-Jalil has come close to producing any evidence on this score was on the 1st of April 2011 when he said he knew what he was claiming was true as Colonel Gaddafi had provided financial and legal assistance to Mr al-Megrahi whilst the latter was incarcerated in Scotland.
It seems that Mr Abdel-Jalil was a judge in his previous employ. If this is the standard of evidence he used to find acceptable in courts where he was presiding, one dreads to think how many miscarriages of justice he has been responsible for.
The NTC has now been recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by the US, France and now the UK. There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr al-Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him.
It hardly requires to be pointed out that if this were to occur, it would be deeply embarrassing to Scotland, its government and the Crown Office. In short, it would be a diplomatic disaster for Scotland. Now that the US and others have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, the door will clearly be open for these countries to take a much more active role in bringing down Colonel Gaddafi, thus making Mr al-Megrahi's rendition to the US an ever more realistic proposition.
Mr al-Megrahi still falls under Scottish jurisdiction. He was convicted by the Kamp van Zeist Court under terms the US agreed to. In recent times, the US has demonstrated a complete disregard for the codes and conventions of international law to the extent that she has invaded countries, kidnapped and murdered individuals on foreign soil and transported 'undesirables' for the purposes of torture to locales where such practices are par of the course.
It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction.
Robert Forrester is the Secretary of the ‘Justice for Megrahi’ group
When Mr al-Megrahi was repatriated, he returned to Libya in a climate of ‘back to the oil business as usual’. Once the Arab uprisings of North Africa and the Middle East had taken hold in Libya, the US and other NATO members promptly rode roughshod over the UN and converted a civil war into one of international dimensions.
For months now, we have been hearing wholly unsubstantiated claims from Mr Abdel-Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya, that Mr al-Megrahi carried out the Lockerbie bombing. The only time Mr Abdel-Jalil has come close to producing any evidence on this score was on the 1st of April 2011 when he said he knew what he was claiming was true as Colonel Gaddafi had provided financial and legal assistance to Mr al-Megrahi whilst the latter was incarcerated in Scotland.
It seems that Mr Abdel-Jalil was a judge in his previous employ. If this is the standard of evidence he used to find acceptable in courts where he was presiding, one dreads to think how many miscarriages of justice he has been responsible for.
The NTC has now been recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by the US, France and now the UK. There is a strong likelihood that if members of the NTC lay their hands on Mr al-Megrahi, he may quickly find himself in possession of a one way ticket to the USA, with all the dire consequences that that could hold in store for him.
It hardly requires to be pointed out that if this were to occur, it would be deeply embarrassing to Scotland, its government and the Crown Office. In short, it would be a diplomatic disaster for Scotland. Now that the US and others have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, the door will clearly be open for these countries to take a much more active role in bringing down Colonel Gaddafi, thus making Mr al-Megrahi's rendition to the US an ever more realistic proposition.
Mr al-Megrahi still falls under Scottish jurisdiction. He was convicted by the Kamp van Zeist Court under terms the US agreed to. In recent times, the US has demonstrated a complete disregard for the codes and conventions of international law to the extent that she has invaded countries, kidnapped and murdered individuals on foreign soil and transported 'undesirables' for the purposes of torture to locales where such practices are par of the course.
It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction.
Robert Forrester is the Secretary of the ‘Justice for Megrahi’ group
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Megrahi report 'will be published'
[This is the headline over a Press Association news agency report just published on the website of the Kirriemuir Herald. It reads as follows:]
The First Minister has reaffirmed his intention to publish a confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward early in the next Scottish Parliament to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction back to senior judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
The appeal was ultimately dropped before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds almost two years ago because of a prognosis that he had terminal cancer and may have had just three months to live.
Speaking after a summer meeting of the Cabinet in Fort William, Mr Salmond said: "I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties... it hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
"However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
He continued: "My own feeling is that this statement, insofar as anyone can ever have questions answered about this, will give more important information to people who have got a legitimate interest in the case."
He added: "If I paraphrase the issue, the SCCRC believe that the forensic evidence that Scottish investigators brought forward was sound. It was actually a triumph for forensic investigation. However, they raised question marks about the identification evidence that was brought forward during the trial, and they wanted this tested before a court of appeal."
The Scottish Government came under renewed criticism for releasing Megrahi by Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday when video footage of Megrahi attending a rally in war-torn Libya emerged.
Commenting on the footage, Mr Salmond said: "Let's be clear. I don't think Mr Megrahi should be out running rallies, but I think it's pretty evident from the pictures that this is somebody who's in a very severe medical condition.
"Mr Megrahi is going to die of terminal cancer. Are we meant to want to accelerate his death? I'm not quite certain where the question goes. If someone has got terminal cancer, he will die of that illness."
[This news agency report was posted as a comment to an earlier blog post by Grendal, to whom I am grateful. Rolfe responded to that comment as follows:]
Regarding that last post, perhaps somebody needs to point out to Alex Salmond that the forensic work of the Scottish officers contributed precisely nothing to the incrimination of Megrahi.
Harry Bell contributed a lot to the "lean on Tony Gauci till he says what we want to hear" effort, of course. And there was the bizarre assertion that Megrahi had somehow levitated an invisible suitcase on to KM180, all without actually going airside. But hey, that wasn't forensics either.
So if that's all he's worried about, let him have it. The Scottish forensics effort was stellar. Just acknowledge the rest of the dreck that happened afterwards.
[There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the SCCRC report. It can, and should, be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.]
The First Minister has reaffirmed his intention to publish a confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward early in the next Scottish Parliament to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction back to senior judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
The appeal was ultimately dropped before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds almost two years ago because of a prognosis that he had terminal cancer and may have had just three months to live.
Speaking after a summer meeting of the Cabinet in Fort William, Mr Salmond said: "I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC. It hasn't been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties... it hasn't been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
"However, we believe that we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do."
He continued: "My own feeling is that this statement, insofar as anyone can ever have questions answered about this, will give more important information to people who have got a legitimate interest in the case."
He added: "If I paraphrase the issue, the SCCRC believe that the forensic evidence that Scottish investigators brought forward was sound. It was actually a triumph for forensic investigation. However, they raised question marks about the identification evidence that was brought forward during the trial, and they wanted this tested before a court of appeal."
The Scottish Government came under renewed criticism for releasing Megrahi by Foreign Secretary William Hague on Wednesday when video footage of Megrahi attending a rally in war-torn Libya emerged.
Commenting on the footage, Mr Salmond said: "Let's be clear. I don't think Mr Megrahi should be out running rallies, but I think it's pretty evident from the pictures that this is somebody who's in a very severe medical condition.
"Mr Megrahi is going to die of terminal cancer. Are we meant to want to accelerate his death? I'm not quite certain where the question goes. If someone has got terminal cancer, he will die of that illness."
[This news agency report was posted as a comment to an earlier blog post by Grendal, to whom I am grateful. Rolfe responded to that comment as follows:]
Regarding that last post, perhaps somebody needs to point out to Alex Salmond that the forensic work of the Scottish officers contributed precisely nothing to the incrimination of Megrahi.
Harry Bell contributed a lot to the "lean on Tony Gauci till he says what we want to hear" effort, of course. And there was the bizarre assertion that Megrahi had somehow levitated an invisible suitcase on to KM180, all without actually going airside. But hey, that wasn't forensics either.
So if that's all he's worried about, let him have it. The Scottish forensics effort was stellar. Just acknowledge the rest of the dreck that happened afterwards.
[There is still no explanation given of why primary legislation is being resorted to in order to permit publication of the SCCRC report. It can, and should, be done by Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) just as the the Scottish Government did earlier when it permitted publication but only if those who supplied the information to the SCCRC consented. An unqualified permission to publish can be given through exactly the same legal mechanism as the earlier qualified permission.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)