Lockerbie: Report questions credibility of Maltese witnesses

[This is the headline over a report by Kurt Sansone in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times.  It reads as follows:]

Sliema shopkeeper Tony Gauci was always going to be the prosecution’s most important asset in pinning guilt for the Lockerbie bombing on Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

He was the only one to directly link Mr Megrahi to shards of clothing found at the bombing scene by identifying him as “the Libyan man” who went to buy clothes from his shop at around 6.30 p.m. on December 7, 1988.

Lockerbie investigators had concluded that the bomb on Pan-Am flight 103 was placed in a suitcase that contained clothing produced by Yorkie, a clothes manufacturer in Malta, and sold by Mary’s House in Sliema, which belonged to Mr Gauci and his brother Paul.

And Mr Gauci’s testimony proved to be the single most important element at the Lockerbie trial in Camp Zeist, The Netherlands, to help judges deliver a guilty verdict in January 2001.

But a fresh investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, has shed serious doubts on the credibility of Mr Gauci’s testimony.

The report, published for the first time in Scotland on the Sunday Herald’s website, provides an in-depth analysis of the evidence produced in Mr Megrahi’s trial and information that was withheld from the defence that could have been used to challenge Mr Gauci’s credibility.

The report also confirms media reports over the years, which were never challenged, that Mr Gauci and his brother Paul were compensated by the US State Department for the evidence that helped bring Mr Megrahi to justice.

It highlights excerpts of entries in a diary by Scottish police inspector Harry Bell, who took charge of the investigations in Malta, noting Mr Gauci’s interest in monetary compensation.

The commission found that none of the diary entries and memorandums Mr Bell authored, in which witness compensation was mentioned, were ever passed on to the defence.

Of particular interest was a memorandum Mr Bell drew up on February 21, 1991 for his superiors, six days after Mr Gauci had, for the first time, positively identified Mr Megrahi from a photo.

“During recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported in the press,” Mr Bell wrote.

In a statement to the commission in 2006, Mr Gauci denied ever discussing compensation with the police, although he did admit awareness of the US reward money. He also alleged that former Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi had also offered him a handsome reward, which he refused.

But the compensation issue also cropped up in 1999 in an assessment report by the Scottish police on including Mr Gauci and his brother Paul in a witness protection programme. It speaks of Mr Gauci’s “frustration” and Paul’s pushiness to get some form of compensation for the troubles they endured.

Without delving into the merits of whether talk of compensation could have influenced Mr Gauci’s testimony, the review commission said the information should have been disclosed to the defence. It concluded that the information could have been used to question Mr Gauci’s credibility and put into serious difficulty the prosecution’s case against Mr Megrahi.

But it is in Mr Gauci’s confusion over Mr Megrahi’s identification where the commission feels “a miscarriage of justice” may have occurred.

Pinpointing December 7, 1988 as the day when the clothes sale happened was crucial for the prosecution because it placed Mr Megrahi in Malta. Any other day before this would have exonerated the Libyan.

Mr Gauci’s testimony in this regard is anything but clear. The only consistent recollection is that on the day he was alone at the shop because his brother Paul was at home watching football.

The only football matches on TV at the time would have been transmitted on RAI, the Italian state television, and would possibly have been linked to European club football matches, putting the day down to a Wednesday.

The prosecution was dilly-dallying between December 7, a Wednesday, and a second day, November 23 – also a Wednesday. But Mr Gauci had also spoken of seeing Christmas decorations “being put up” in the street “a fortnight before Christmas”.

Subsequent research by the defence team, which was never used in the appeal for tactical reasons, revealed that in that year Christmas lights were lit up by then Tourism Minister Michael Refalo on December 6, which means the lights had been “put up” in the preceding weeks.

The court had believed Mr Gauci’s version, even if not solid, as pointing towards December 7 and so incriminating Mr Megrahi.

However, after considering all the evidence before the court on this matter, the review commission concluded there was “no reasonable basis” for the conclusion that the purchase took place on December 7.

The only evidence which favours that date over November 23, the commission said, was Mr Gauci’s account that the purchase must have been about a fortnight before Christmas and his confused description of the Christmas lights going up at the time.

“In light of the difficulties with those two pieces of evidence the commission does not consider that a reasonable court, properly directed, could have placed greater weight upon them than upon evidence of the weather conditions and of Mr Gauci’s statements – in which he said that the purchase had taken place in “November, December 1988”, “November or December 1988” and “at the end of November”. In the commission’s view, those factors taken together point, if anything, to a purchase date of November 23.”

But another question mark hangs over Mr Gauci’s visual identification of the bombing suspect and his early description in police statements of the Libyan as a man, aged “about 50” and of a height that is “about six foot or more”.

In December 1988 Mr Megrahi was 36 years old and measured five feet eight inches, marked discrepancies from Mr Gauci’s man.

But Mr Gauci had consistently, on various occasions in 1989 and 1990, when shown photos of potential suspects by the police, identified two different people: Abo Talb and Mohammed Salem.

It was only in February 1991 that Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi as the man who bought clothes from his shop but the prosecution rested heavily on an identification parade held in April 1999, in the months before the trial, when Mr Megrahi was officially indicted.

In the Netherlands, Mr Gauci had pointed to Mr Megrahi and in broken English told investigators: “Not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who look a little bit like exactly is the number 5.”

The commission noted that an “extraordinary length of time” had passed between the date of purchase and the parade but of more significance was the fact that prior to the parade Mr Gauci was exposed to Mr Megrahi’s photograph in Focus magazine. This “raises doubts as to the reliability of Mr Gauci’s identification” of Mr Megrahi at that time, the commission said.

It did note though that in February 1991, there was no risk of Mr Gauci being influenced by media exposure of Mr Megrahi since no indictments had been issued yet.

“However, like those other identifications, the identification by photograph in 1991 was one of resemblance only and was qualified and equivocal.”

The commission concluded that in the absence of “a reasonable foundation for the date of purchase” and bearing in mind “the problems with Mr Gauci’s identification” of Mr Megrahi, it was of the view that “no reasonable trial court could have drawn the inference” that the Libyan was the buyer of the clothes.

The significance of this conclusion, the commission said, lay in the fact that such a finding “might be capable of undermining” the weight of other evidence against Mr Megrahi such as that relating to his presence at Luqa airport on the morning of December 21, 1988.

Investigators had argued that an unaccompanied suitcase carrying the bomb and containing the incriminating clothing was placed on board an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it eventually made it to Heathrow before being loaded on to the fatal Pan-Am flight.

[Accompanying articles in the same newspaper can be read here and here.


Because of my Gannaga Lodge responsibilities, it is likely that over the next few days posts to this blog will be at best sporadic.]

An e-mail from John Ashton to the Crown Office

[What follows is an item published this morning on John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury website:]

Below is the text of an email that I have sent to the Crown Office concerning the statement it issued in response to the publication of the SCCRC report.

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I am the author of the book Megrahi: You are my Jury and also wrote some of the recent articles in The Herald about the SCCRC report on Mr Megrahi’s conviction. 

In a statement issued yesterday, in response to the release of the SCCRC report, the Crown Office stated:

allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored.  In fact the commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies …

This gives the impression that Megrahi: You are my Jury and the previous reports in The Herald made unsubstantiated allegations against certain individuals and failed to report that the commission found no evidence that evidence was fabricated. In fact they did no such thing and were careful to report the commission’s findings on these matters. The allegations of evidence fabrication rest largely upon the claims of the witness known as ‘the Golfer’. You should note that the book states at p291:

[The Golfer’s] accounts were erratic, often inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and on one occasion he called the Commission from a bar when clearly drunk.

And at p306:

The Commission barely disguised its irritation at the other written submissions. It had had clearly spent a great deal of time investigating each one in detail, only to dismiss them all. It also wholly rejected the Golfer’s allegations that the police had covered up and fabricated evidence. Having interviewed him three times, it found ‘a vast array of inconsistencies’ within his various accounts, which gave rise to ‘serious misgivings’ as to his credibility and reliability.

Furthermore, in an article for The Herald published on 14 March, I wrote:

The Golfer was the cover name of a police officer who told Megrahi’s then legal team that key items of evidence had been manipulated to fit the prosecution case. Subsequent submissions to the SCCRC by the lawyers, MacKechnie & Associates, highlighted anomalies in police documentation, which appeared to support these claims. The Commission spent a long time investigating the allegations, and interviewed the Golfer three times, but found nothing to substantiate the claims. His accounts proved to be erratic and, according to the report, on one occasion he “telephoned a member of the enquiry team from a bar, apparently under the influence of alcohol.” The Commission did not consider the documentary anomalies to be sinister:

“while some of the allegations made in the submissions were based upon information said to have been provided by the Golfer, others were based purely on perceived irregularities in the recorded chain of evidence. The Commission’s approach to the latter was that in any police enquiry, let alone one as large scale and complex as the present one, human error is inevitable. Although apparent omissions, inconsistencies or mistakes in productions records may, after a long period of time, appear difficult to explain, or even suspicious, in the Commission’s view they do not, in themselves, support allegations of impropriety against those involved in the investigation.”

Given the above, the Crown Office should issue a correction to its statement, making clear that neither the book, nor The Herald articles made the claims apparently attributed to them. If the Crown Office fails to do so, I shall make a formal complaint.

A clear signal ...

[The following opinion piece is published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It comes from the pen of the magazine’s editor, Steven Raeburn.]

The publication of the SCCRC’s report into the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the redundant term ‘Lockerbie bomber’ is clung onto now only by the vanishingly few) sheds valuable and useful light on few corners of the Pan Am 103 debacle. However, more revealing than the contents themselves are the manoeuvrings surrounding its release, and what they reveal about the tainted, corrupted justice system that stood in the way of its publication for five long, unnecessary and criminally culpable years. 

The calibre of the Crown Office and its personnel can be judged fairly by the equally odious Shirley McKie fingerprint case, in which the entire coordinated monolith of the police, Crown Office and Law Officers held the moral low ground over a sustained fourteen year period, until an inquiry forced apologies to be issued earlier this year. The Pan Am 103 case is depressingly similar. 

The Crown Office persistently and desperately clings to the manufactured fantasy of Megrahi’s guilt, a fabrication specifically designed to implicate Libya as a matter of geopolitical convenience. It has steadfastly opposed every opportunity to undertake its duty and apply justice in this case. The Crown has been conducting an elaborate charade almost from the outset, with the explicit, curiously coordinated support of the Scottish Government, and tacit consent of the Westminster Government, whose own malfeasance from Thatcher downwards is transparent and warrants investigation.

The UN appointed special observer to the Zeist proceedings, Hans Kochler, concluded that "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services," he observed at Megrahi’s trial were "criminal offences in any country." The Crown and Government efforts to suppress the SCCRC report between 2007 and now have sustained that criminality with disturbing consistency. 

Responsibility can be laid directly at the door of successive Lords Advocate from Fraser on. Elish Angiolini, who received the SCCRC report upon publication, was retained and inducted into Alex Salmond’s cabinet, voiding any possibility of judicial independence, creating a toxic blend in a case that - above all others - exemplifies the need for a separation of powers, a principle sadly lost in post-devolution Scotland. Under her watch, Crown Agent Norman McFadyen was reported to the police by MSP Christine Grahame, now head of the Justice Committee, for allegedly tampering with crucial evidence in this case. The machinery of justice was frozen into suspicious paralysis in response. 

A petition currently sits before Grahame’s Justice Committee calling for a wide ranging Pan Am 103 inquiry. In the second of his hurriedly released statements yesterday, Alex Salmond said the publication of the SCCRC report was “in many ways [..] far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be,” sending as clear a signal as could be telegraphed to Scotland’s close-knit judicial coven not to initiate one.

By publishing the SCCRC report, journalism has stepped in where Scotland’s justice system - poorly led and manifestly unfit for purpose - continues to fail. Pens need to continue to be mightier than the current limp judicial swords.

Former Lord Advocate ... seriously misled the Megrahi Court claims book author

[This is the headline over a report published today on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads in part:]

Former Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, has been accused of misleading the Court during the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

The claim, contained in the book Megrahi – You are my Jury, relates to the QC’s intervention in a matter involving secret CIA cables that contained details of discussions between the US agency and a Libyan ‘supergrass’ named Majid Giaka.

Giaka was a former work colleague of Mr Megrahi who had contacted the CIA claiming to have evidence linking the Libyan and his co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhima to the Lockerbie bombing.

Giaka was scheduled to give evidence to the Court in August 2000, but was delayed due to legal wrangling over the telex cables.

Demands by the Libyan’s defence team to see the cables in full led to the intervention by then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, an episode described by book author John Ashton as “one of the most disgraceful episodes in the Crown Office’s recent history”.

Mr Megrahi’s defence team had requested full disclosure of the secret cables which had been heavily redacted for apparent security reasons.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the two Libyan’s were informed that the twenty five cables were all that existed and that the redacted areas covered general areas not relevant to the Lockerbie incident.

According to the book, Procurator Fiscal Norman McFadyen claimed that no-one from the Crown had seen the unedited cables and that the redacted material was irrelevant.

However it subsequently emerged that weeks earlier on 1st June 2000, members of the Crown Office had indeed seen the unedited cables, one of whom was Norman McFadyen and the other Alan Turnbull QC.

On 22 August on learning of this, Mr Megrahi’s legal team raised the issue with the Court, describing it as “a matter of some considerable importance”.

According to Ashton’s book, Bill Taylor QC argued that without access to the full cables, the defendants would be denied a fair trial, and said: “I emphatically do not accept that what lies behind the blanked out sections is of no interest to a cross examiner … Further, I challenge the right of the Crown to determine for the defence what is or is not of relevance to the defence case.”

Mr Taylor urged the Court to ask the Crown to obtain the complete copies of the cables from the CIA.

In a move, described as unusual by author John Ashcroft, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd then attended the Court in person and admitted that McFadyen and Turnbull had indeed seen the cables but repeated the Crown’s earlier assertions that the redacted areas had no bearing on the cables themselves or the case.

“While they may have been of significance to the Central Intelligence Agency, they had no significance whatsoever to the case” he said.

Mr Boyd explained that according to Crown QC Alan Turnbull: “that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special case.”

Mr Boyd also explained that he had no control over the documents that they resided in the USA under the control of US authorities.

Boyd ended by stating categorically: “there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters.”

Mr Ashton’s book though now reveals that the reason the Lord Advocate had no control over the documents was that Norman McFadyen had signed a non-disclosure agreement before viewing them.

According to Mr Ashton, the Crown had “secretly, ceded to the CIA the right to determine what information should, or should not, be disclosed in a Scottish Court”.

Also, further revelations contained in Mr Ashton’s book show that far from being of no significance to the case, the redacted sections of the cables were in fact highly significant.

The defence team eventually forced the Crown to hand over less redacted versions of the cables that contained, contrary to Boyd’s claims, crucial information about Giaka – including doubts about the value of his intelligence information.

Further sections detailed meetings with Giaka not included in the original documents.

Acting for the defence, Richard Keen QC, questioned claims by the Crown that the redacted sections were of no consequence

Pointing to their clear significance, he told the Court: “I frankly find it inconceivable that it could have been thought otherwise … Some of the material which is now disclosed goes to the very heart of material aspects of this case, not just to issues of credibility and reliability, but beyond”

According to author John Ashton, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd – now Lord Boyd – had “seriously misled the Court”.

[My own 2007 account in The Scotsman of this shameful and discreditable episode can be read here. What is surprising and deeply regrettable is that the trial judges in their judgement made no mention of this disgraceful Crown conduct.  Had it been a defence advocate who had been detected misleading the court in this way, the matter would certainly not have been overlooked and the consequences for the advocate in question would have been dire.]

Lockerbie inquiry calls grow

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads in part:]

Fresh calls for an inquiry into the Crown Office handling of the Lockerbie bombing trial were made after The Herald's sister paper [the Sunday Herald] published the full report of the legal grounds for the second appeal of the man convicted of the atrocity.

First Minister Alex Salmond praised the Sunday Herald for publishing the full 800-page report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, on our heraldscotland.com website.

The publication has sparked hopes of a new appeal in the name of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC's chief executive, said: "The commission has always been willing to allow for publication of the outcome of our inquiries into Mr Megrahi's conviction."

However, the Crown Office said some actions of those fighting to clear Megrahi were "to be deplored" while insisting they have "every confidence" of defending the conviction in the event of an appeal. (…)

The First Minister added: "This report provides valuable information, from an independent body acting without fear or favour, and while we cannot expect it to resolve all the issues, it does however lay the basis for narrowing the areas of dispute and in many ways is far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be."

Holyrood Justice Committee convener Christine Grahame said: "There are allegations in the report that the Crown Office withheld crucial evidence that might have been substantive evidence to assist the defence.

"Where we have an allegation, I would wish the Crown to be able to establish that this is unfounded." 


[A report in today’s edition of The Scotsman headlined Megrahi case report turns upheat on Crown Office contains the following:]

SNP MSP Christine Grahame, convenor of Holyrood’s justice committee, seized on the online publication of the report to demand an inquiry into the Crown Office’s handling of Megrahi’s last appeal case be called.

She said that the report was “highly significant” after the document contained allegations that the Crown Office had withheld crucial evidence about the case. (…)

Ms Grahame said: “The question now is where to go from here, and I would suggest there are routes to take,” she said.

“There are allegations in the report that the Crown Office withheld crucial evidence that might have been substantive evidence to assist the defence, and I think there is a question about how the Crown Office acted.”

The MSP claimed that it would be “quite possible” for his family, after Megrahi’s death, to “step into the dead man’s shoes and resuscitate the appeal with the leave of the court”. [RB: There is no legal mechanism for such resuscitation. What would have to happen is a fresh application to the SCCRC and, assuming it surmounted the "interests of justice" hurdle and a fresh appeal was allowed, the High Court could then refuse to hear the appeal under the powers conferred on it by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]

Meanwhile, Mr Salmond said that the publication of the report was “far more comprehensive” than any inquiry into the case would be.

He said: “I welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the Scottish Government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate.I especially welcome the fact that it offers a full account of the SCCRC’s deliberations rather than partial accounts which have appeared in the media.”


[In today’s Daily Record George Galloway’s column reads as follows:]

I've never believed the Lockerbie verdict that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

Now the long hushed-up, 800-page report on the case by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has concluded that a miscarriage of justice almost certainly occurred.

The contents of the report had been known to those in the know - the Scottish government, senior lawyers, the dogs in the street even - for more than five years.

It hasn't been published on the spurious grounds that there were data protection issues involved.

I ask, in passing, has anyone ever been convicted under the Data Protection Act?

The report details six different grounds on which Megrahi could have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. I prefer the words fitted-up.

The whole report is now available on various websites, but basically the conclusion is that crucial evidence was not disclosed to the defence.

This includes a cover-up of secret intelligence ­documents and uncertainty over the date on which Megrahi was supposed to have bought clothes in Malta.

And the fact that the key witnesses against him had been paid £1.9million to testify, and one of the two Maltese brothers had a seen picture of Megrahi stating he was the bomber before he picked him out at an identification parade.

It's right that the report should be belatedly published, the follow-up should be an investigation of those who conspired to have Megrahi scapegoated.

[A report in the Daily Mail can be read here; one in the Daily Express here; and one in The Times (behind the paywall) here, which contains the following:]


Gerard Sinclair, the SCCRC’s chief executive, said the commission had always been willing to publish the report, “subject to the appropriate protection of individuals’ rights, and to that end has been working for some time with the relevant parties, including the Crown Office and both the Scottish and UK Governments, to allow for publication of the outcome of our inquiries into Mr Megrahi’s conviction.”

Alison McInnes, the Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman, also welcomed the publication of report. She said: “It is vital for Scotland that our justice system is open and transparent.”

Salmond thinks again

[The most recent statement from First Minister Alex Salmond reads as follows:]

"I welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the Scottish government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate.

"I especially welcome the fact that it offers a full account of the SCCRC's deliberations rather than the partial accounts which have appeared in the media in recent weeks."

He added: "This report provides valuable information, from an independent body acting without fear or favour, and while we can not expect it to resolve all the issues in the Lockerbie case, it does however lay the basis for narrowing the areas of dispute and in many ways is far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be.

"The Lockerbie case of course remains an open criminal investigation, and while the only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law, the SCCRC is a valuable body which is itself part of the Scottish criminal justice system."

[Contrast this with his earlier statement:]

I welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the Scottish Government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate.

While the report shows that there were six grounds on which it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it also rejected 45 of the 48 grounds submitted by Megrahi, and in particular it upheld the forensic basis of the case leading to Malta and to Libyan involvement.

[One of the few recorded instances of the First Minister thinking better about something he said? Or is it just that BBC News saw the way the wind was blowing and decided eventually to provide a more even-handed quote?]

First Minister and Crown Office react to publication of SCCRC Megrahi report

[Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and the Crown Office have both commented on the publication today of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s Statement of Reasons in the Megrahi case.  The comments, along with John Ashton’s responses, are as follows:]

The First Minister

First minister Alex Salmond has just issued this statement. It appears that he is still desperately clinging to the fiction that Abdelbaset’s conviction is safe.  Maybe someone should tell him that appeals are not adjudicated according to the number of grounds the SCCRC accepted and rejected. [RB: Maybe someone should also draw his attention to Report fails to address crucial evidence.]

I welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the Scottish Government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate.

While the report shows that there were six grounds on which it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it also rejected 45 of the 48 grounds submitted by Megrahi, and in particular it upheld the forensic basis of the case leading to Malta and to Libyan involvement.

The Crown Office

The Crown Office has today issued the following statement in response to the Sunday Herald’s publication of the SCCRC report. It features in a BBC online article. In my view the statement is inaccurate and misleading. My comments are in normal typeface.

The commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights (articles two and eight) and issues of confidentiality.  The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law … [The Crown Office has] become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the statement of reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.

Publication was authorised by Abdelbaset, who is the person whose human rights are most affected by publication. Under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act, the media can publish in the public interest. The report does not required any sensationalising; it is sensational.

Persons referred to in the statement of reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored.  Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored.  In fact the commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies …

This gives the impression that Megrahi: You are my jury and the previous reports in the Herald made unsubstantiated allegations against certain individuals and failed to report that the commission found no evidence that evidence was fabricated. In fact they did no such thing and were careful to report the commission’s findings on these matters.

 … [It is] not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. Investigations will continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice. As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the case and on the statement of reasons.

It is entirely appropriate that the weaknesses in Abdelbaset’s conviction and the conduct of the Crown be explored in the media and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.


[The full text of the Crown Office press release reads as follows:]

LOCKERBIE STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Crown notes the publication today by the Sunday Herald of the Statement of Reasons of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the case against Megrahi.

The Commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights [articles 2 and 8] and issues of confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law.

We have become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the Statement of Reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.

Persons referred to in the Statement of Reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the Commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored. In fact the Commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.

Other matters of significance are:

1.      The SCCRC found nothing to undermine the trial court’s conclusions about the timer fragment, namely that it was part of a timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence services.

2.      The SCCRC report confirms that Tony Gauci was paid a reward by US authorities only after the first appeal.

3.      No inducements or promises of reward were made by US and Scottish Law enforcement prior to his evidence being given.

4.      At no stage was he offered any inducement or reward by Scottish authorities who acted with complete propriety throughout the case

5.      The SCCRC recognised that Tony Gauci was not motivated by money and that he had allegedly been made an offer to go to Tripoli and be rewarded “by Libyan Government officials”

With regard to the differing accounts by Megrahi the Commission noted that:

i.      There were inconsistencies and differences in account between his statements to an investigative journalist, his defence team and the SCCRC in matters of significance.

ii.     He had “personal relationships” with various members of the Libyan intelligence services, including Senussi and accepted that he had been seconded to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) and that Said Rashid was his superior in the JSO.

iii.    Senussi was involved in his secondment to Libyan intelligence services (JSO).

iv.     He had travelled with a Colonel in the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) on a false passport in 1987

v.      Megrahi gave the Commission conflicting accounts of his connection to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO)

vi.     Megrahi confirmed he had knowledge of a man in Spain who was assassinated because he was allegedly an American spy

vii.    Megrahi has given a number of different explanations to his lawyers and the Commission about his presence in Malta and use of a false passport on 21 December 1988

viii.   The SCCRC believed “there was a real risk that the trial court would have viewed his explanations … as weak or unconvincing” “In particular, the Commission notes the unsatisfactory nature of aspects of their (Megrahi and Fhimah) explanations and the various contradictions which are apparent both within and between their accounts. Although it is possible there are innocent reasons for these deficiencies, they do lead the Commission to have reservations about the credibility and reliability of both as witnesses.”

The commission's role is to conduct an investigation and determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. It does not follow that there was a miscarriage of justice, only the Appeal Court can decide that. It should be noted that not all referrals by the SCCRC result in convictions being overturned; less than half of convictions referred to the Appeal are overturned.

In preparing for Megrahi’s second appeal [which followed the Commission's report] the Crown had considered all the information in the Statement of Reasons and had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time. Although it is entirely a matter for the Commission if the case is referred again to the Appeal court the Crown will defend the conviction.

It is not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone.

Investigations will continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice.

As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the case and on the Statement of Reasons.


[John Ashton's response to each of the points raised in the Crown Office press release can be read here.]