JFM's allegations of criminal misconduct: a "progress" report

[The two documents reproduced below are (1) a history of the official response to Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial; and (2) an account of a meeting held on 2 April between representatives of Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland.]

1.  Chronology of events, from 13th September 2012 to 20th February 2014, covering the police investigation of the Justice for Megrahi allegations levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials

1. On 13 September 2012, JFM submitted a private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill in which we lodged 6 outline allegations against Crown, police and forensic officials involved in the Lockerbie investigation and the Zeist trial of Mr al-Megrahi for the downing of Pan Am 103. We added that he give ‘serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority that’ he appoint, and that any such authority should be someone from ‘outwith Scotland who [had] no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications’. Furthermore, we stated that a document detailing the evidence to support our allegations would be supplied to whomsoever was appointed as investigator.

2. On 25 September 2012, before any reply had been forthcoming from the Justice Directorate to our private and confidential letter to Mr MacAskill, The Scotsman newspaper published a response from the Crown Office in which we were pilloried for having made “defamatory and entirely unfounded … deliberately false and misleading allegations” and suggested that we had accused “police officers [and] officials [of fabricating] evidence”. At no time have we accused anyone involved in the Lockerbie investigation or any subsequent legal process of fabricating any evidence.

3. On 8 October 2012, Mr Neil Rennick, Deputy Director of the Criminal Law and Licensing Division of the Justice Directorate, responded to our letter on behalf of Mr MacAskill. This response afforded us one choice, namely: to submit our allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and, by dint of that, to COPFS for investigation. In other words, to two of the bodies that our allegations were being levelled against.

4. On 9 November 2012, we handed over our detailed evidence for the, by then 8, allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary for the attention of Chief Constable Patrick Shearer, SIO for the case.

5. Accompanying a letter dated 19 March 2013, an updated and expanded addendum to the allegations, which covered luggage positioning in container AVE4041, was received by Mr Shearer.

6. On 21 December 2012, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland gave an interview with Mr Magnus Linklater in The Times (Scotland edition) in which he reiterated the COPFS criticisms of JFM published in The Scotsman (25 September 2012) adding that we had levelled criminal accusations against the Judges and/or the Lord Advocate involved in the Zeist process. It is plain from both our submission to Mr MacAskill and our subsequent detailed evidence that we had done no such thing.

7. It took until 16th April 2013, 5 months later, before we were invited to a preliminary meeting with Mr Shearer (DCC of Police Scotland by then). This meeting went no further than outlining the basic procedures that would be involved in the course of the investigation, ie: reading the evidence presented by JFM, information gathering, interviews etc. DCC Shearer also stated that we would not be privy to any report submitted by him to COPFS. For ourselves, we made it clear that whilst we would cooperate at all times with his investigation, we would be doing so under protest since we did not feel that the Police Scotland could be seen as a disinterested and independent authority in this matter. Moreover, we requested that we be supplied with regular updates on the progress of the investigation.

8. It took a further 4 months, with no intervening updates, before we received a second invitation to attend Cornwall Mount from DCC Shearer. The purpose on this occasion was to interview those of our membership who spoke to the individual allegations. These interviews were conducted on 16 and 19 August 2013. On 16 August, DCC Shearer told us that having identified a possible conflict between our allegations 5, 6 and 7 and the Crown's 'live and on-going' investigation, he had consulted the Crown Office on the matter and received authorisation to drop them from our investigation for the time being. When we asked him what the apparent conflict was, he refused to provide this information. He was then asked who the SIO for the Crown's investigation was: he also refused to provide an answer to this question. JFM provided him with answers to the questions he posed regarding the evidence for our other 5 allegations.

9. In a letter to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, dated 24 September 2013, for a Justice Committee being convened to consider JFM Petition PE1370 held on the same date, DCC Shearer stated that he was “confident that the deferment [of JFM allegations 5, 6 and 7] [would] only be a matter of weeks as [he then understood] that the point of conflict with the live investigation [would] then be resolved”. 

10. In early October 2013, DCC Shearer retired from Police Scotland.

11. On 4 November 2013, DCC Richardson informed the Justice Committee: “I have to advise you that the Senior Investigating Officer has confirmed to me that the conflict between the two investigations still exists and whilst no definite date can be provided when that situation will change, it is assessed as still being in weeks rather than months. The only undertaking that I can provide at this time therefore is to update you accordingly as and when that conflict has been resolved.”

12. From the date of Mr Shearer’s retirement until 14 January 2014, when JFM telephoned Chief Inspector Sturgeon of the Professional Standards Department of Police Scotland to ascertain who had been appointed as Mr Shearer’s replacement as SIO, we received no updates from Police Scotland. At the time of the phone call, Mr Sturgeon was unable to confirm who had been appointed and that a meeting was due to take place the following day, 15 January, to discuss such an appointment.

13. On 31 January, Chief Inspector Sturgeon received a ninth allegation and an addendum for allegation 8.

14. On 17 February 2014, JFM received notification from Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone that he had been appointed SIO of the JFM allegations. This he also submitted to the Justice Committee for the consideration of PE1370 to be held the following day, 18 January 2014. In his communication, he stated: “With regards to your [JFM’s] question as to whether there has been any change in relation to allegations 5, 6 and 7, I can advise that recent developments in the live investigation have resulted in the conflict previously highlighted by former Deputy Chief Constable Shearer remaining unresolved for longer than expected. It is currently anticipated the conflict will be resolved before the end of March.” Detective Superintendent Johnstone was also unable to supply any information regarding how many officers were currently working on the case or what stage the investigation was at. Nor was he confident of being able to provide us with definitive updates on these questions in the near future since these matters were under review.

15. In a letter to the Justice Committee from Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House dated 20 February 2014, Sir Stephen stressed that the current estimate for a resolution of the conflict between allegations 5, 6 and 7 and the live investigation was “still an estimate based on current information and may be impacted on depending on what further developments emerge in the case.” He also stated that, in relation to how many officers [had] been working on the allegations since Mr Shearer retired “the reality is that no further investigation could take place because of the conflict with the live investigation.”

2.  Tulliallan meeting between JFM representatives and Police Scotland.

In September 2012 JFM made eight criminal allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Police and on 1 April 2013 Police Scotland took over responsibility for their investigation. In January 2014 they were in receipt of a ninth allegation.

At various times over the 18 month period since the original report JFM has expressed dissatisfaction at the apparent lack of progress by the police in carrying out the investigation and the lack of feedback from them.

Police explanation for the delay indicated that certain of the allegations were in ‘conflict’ with an ongoing Crown Office/Police enquiry seeking evidence against Abdelbaset al Megrahi and possible others in relation to the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Unfulfilled promises that these difficulties would shortly be resolved were made at various times to JFM and the Justice Committee at the Scottish Parliament in relation to their ongoing consideration of a JFM petition for a public Lockerbie inquiry.

A meeting to examine JFM’s concerns and facilitate better liaison was held at Tulliallan Police College on 2 April 2014 between a JFM Liaison Group consisting of Len Murray, James Robertson and Iain McKie and Police Scotland Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone and Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone.

In a full and frank discussion JFM expressed concern at the lack of progress of the investigation into their allegations and stated that they had no faith in the Crown Office to ensure an open and effective investigation. If mutual confidence was to be restored and maintained then there should be the opportunity for regular liaison. JFM undertook to be available as required to assist the ongoing investigation.

Police Scotland underlined the Chief Constable’s commitment to the investigation. Although there had been a hiatus in the enquiry they had taken the decision to establish major incident procedures with immediate effect. An enquiry team of selected officers is being appointed under Detective Superintendent Johnstone, whose full-time remit and responsibility is now the investigation into the allegations. Procedures, independent of the police, are in place to monitor, advise and validate procedures as the investigation proceeds. Close liaison would be maintained with the ongoing Crown Office/Police murder enquiry in relation to the downing of Pan Am 103 and it was anticipated that this co-ordination would increase. While the police would ultimately report to them, the Crown Office was neither party to nor being kept informed about the progress of the investigations which would be conducted robustly, in good faith and in an open and accountable way.

The JFM Liaison Group agreed to a Police Scotland proposal for a series of regular meetings where there would be an opportunity to meet and review. While offering their full co-operation JFM made it clear that as an organisation with a specific aim (ie ‘justice for Megrahi’) it reserved the right to challenge the police if it deemed this ongoing liaison to be obstructive rather than constructive, and that given the length of time that had already passed further unexplained or unreasonable delays in the investigation would not be acceptable.

The Liaison Group will provide updates for members as and when available.

"Our justice system is not in safe hands"

[Today’s edition of The Herald carries an editorial which is highly critical of the performance of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill.  It reads in part:]

The Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has few friends in the legal profession right now, not least because of his determination to abolish the centuries-old requirement of corroboration in rape cases. [RB: The proposal is to abolish the requirement of corroboration in all criminal cases, not just rape cases. The debate has been bedevilled by the concentration of the media and others on sexual offences.]

Now MSPs on the influential Holyrood Justice Committee have poured scorn on his handling of the merger of Scottish police forces. (...)

There is every indication that the Scottish Government has been seeking to sweep the problems of Police Scotland under the carpet so that they do not interfere with the referendum campaign.

However, the affair raises more troubling questions still about the handling of the justice brief by Mr MacAskill. His eye has not been on the ball. He is too keen on passionately promoting crowd-pleasing measures like the abolition of corroboration, which many lawyers and human rights campaigners fear could lead to miscarriages of justice. Mr MacAskill finally bowed to pressure last month and agreed a one-year review, which many hope will see corroboration reprieved. But even criticism from within his own party ranks has not shaken the Justice Secretary's dogmatic belief in this measure. (...)

Our justice system is not in safe hands. Mr MacAskill's headstrong and sometimes belligerent approach, most notably in his refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair, is damaging the credibility of Scottish law. It is time that he moved on to another, less high profile, Cabinet position.

[I am baffled by the reference to Kenny MacAskill’s refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair. If it is his release of Abdelbaset Megrahi that is being alluded to, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr MacAskill refused to heed the advice of those whom it was his legal duty to consult.  In other aspects of the Lockerbie affair (eg the refusal to institute an independent inquiry, the refusal to make arrangements for the Justice for Megrahi allegations of criminality in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial to be investigated otherwise that by the very police service that, amongst others, was being accused) the just criticism of Kenny MacAskill is that he too slavishly followed advice (from the Crown Office -- its own personnel amongst those accused of criminality -- and from his departmental civil servants).]

Let Lockerbie appeal go ahead

[This is the heading over a letter from Justice for Megrahi stalwart Mrs Jo Greenhorn published in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.

Why? Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans have denied us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie?

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to address the fact that Megrahi dropped his last appeal. I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that, for it has been claimed the Scottish authorities told the Libyan authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. He was a dying man. Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it. Dr Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal, is he ignorant of the situation in Libya? Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in? Is he aware of their financial position? So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal?

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as chief executive of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference", is justice. That should answer another question he posed, as to whether it was in the interests of justice to allow this appeal. The SCCRC had already found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since. 

[The above is the published version of the letter.  As submitted it read as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by public comments made by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdel Basset Al Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity. (...)   Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.  Why?  Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans denied all of us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie.

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to "address" the fact that Megahi dropped his last appeal.  I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that for it has been claimed the Scottish Authorities told the Libyan Authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. (This advice was given despite the fact that an existing appeal can continue even when a person has been released on compassionate grounds.  Why did the Scottish Authorities do that?)  He was a dying man.  Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it.   Jim Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.   I wonder what age Mr Sinclair is.   Jim Swire was in his early fifties when this terrible thing happened.   He has spent his life since going after justice and the truth.   Scots Law didn't deliver either.   It allowed itself to be caught up in dirty, filthy politics so that we really didn't get the truth about Lockerbie, or justice.  Scotland should be ashamed of that.   

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal is he ignorant of the situation in Libya?   Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in?  Is he aware of their financial position?  So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal? 

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as CE of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference" is justice.  That should answer another question he posed as to whether it was "in the interests of justice" to allow this appeal.  Why would it not be?  The SCCRC already had found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since.  Why would Mr Sinclair want the SCCRC to kill this new appeal? Why would he want to play down the significance of this new appeal and any hopes of taking it forward?   I think he should explain himself and soon.  The SCCRC, we are told, functions "without political or judicial interference". Maybe Mr Sinclair should therefore drop the politics. The dead at Lockerbie deserve better.

SCCRC review into Megrahi conviction

[This is the heading of a motion lodged in the Scottish Parliament today by John Finnie MSP. It reads as follows:]

Motion S4M-09989: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 08/05/2014

That the Parliament welcomes the announcement that a new application will be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) by 25 relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims for a review of the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi; understands that the application will focus on new evidence found since the original conviction and the six grounds that the SCCRC itself identified in 2007 as possible miscarriages of justice; understands that the application, which has had the approval of the family of Mr Megrahi, was written by Professor Robert Black, and believes that, for many, the conviction of Mr Megrahi remains deeply unsound and that this new review will allow all the evidence to be heard.

For the sake of the families, appeal over Megrahi's conviction should be expedited

[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann published in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

It is good that a group of British relatives of 25 victims of the Lockerbie disaster, led by Dr Jim Swire, have decided to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCR[C]) to instigate a further appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Fight 103 ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

After more than 25 years, it is high time a court was presented with all the relevant evidence.

The immediate response of the Crown Office was disappointing but entirely predictable. "We will vigorously defend the original trial verdict" shows it seems still to be more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system than in making sure that justice was done.

It is also disappointing that the Justice Minister and Scottish Government continue to take the same line. It is now clear that there are many justifiable doubts about the safety of the original verdict of the Camp Zeist trial. Surely it is essential that all the relevant evidence is available for consider­ation and challenge in a court of law?

In its comprehensive report some years ago the SCCR[C] identified no fewer than six possible reasons why there could have been a miscarriage of justice in the original verdict.

The trial judges were not aware that some vital evidence known to the prosecution was withheld from Megrahi's defence team, or that the British and American Secret Services had refused to release important documents.

They did not know that the CIA had promised the principal witness $2m and a new life in Australia if he identified Megrahi as a casual visitor to his Malta shop several years earlier, and that he was shown photographs of Megrahi before identifying him in court.

The judges were not told that the tiny piece of electronic detonator claimed to be part of the explosive device was found by an American secret service agent in a field near Lockerbie a full six months after the area had already been exhaustively searched, and that there are some serious doubts about its authen­ticity. And they were not told that on the night before Pan Am 103 took off on its tragic flight, there had been an unexplained break-in at the Heathrow onward baggage terminal which for some reason was not made public at the time.

While each of these pieces of information might not seem very significant in itself, together they would surely have been enough to establish at least a reasonable doubt in the minds of the three judges.

The sooner all this evidence is formally presented in an appeal court, the sooner the grieving families of those who lost their lives in this appalling act of mass murder can finally know the truth about who was or was not responsible.

SCCRC chief speaks about expected new Megrahi appeal bid

[What follows is a report from the Press Association news agency published today on the website of The Sunday Post:]

Lockerbie review bid expected

A fresh application for a review of the conviction of the only man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be submitted to authorities in Scotland.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said it expects to receive a request "shortly" for it to look again at the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Megrahi was the sole person to have been found guilty of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland on December 21 1988, in which 270 people were killed.

He abandoned a second appeal against conviction in 2009 after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. He was later released from jail by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds and died protesting his innocence in 2012.

The new application for the conviction to be reviewed is to be made by Jim Swire on behalf of himself and several others.

Dr Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, has long held the view that Megrahi was not guilty of the atrocity.

The SCCRC is an independent body set up 15 years ago to review alleged miscarriages of justice in Scottish criminal cases.

It can refer a case back to the High Court if it believes a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that such a move is in the interests of justice. After that point, the case will proceed before judges as a normal appeal.

When a convicted person has died, court rules allow the High Court to consider an appeal where it considers the person taking the case forward has "legitimate interest" in the issue.

SCCRC chief executive Gerard Sinclair said there are several matters which will affect the timescale for the body to be able to deal with a fresh application.

Looking at these matters could take some time, he warned.

"Even before deciding whether to accept this new application for review, the commission will require to consider a number of preliminary matters relating to the application," he said.

"These include whether Dr Swire has a 'legitimate interest' to pursue, on behalf of Mr Megrahi, an application to the commission and any subsequent appeal."

The commission could ask the High Court for a formal opinion on the matter, he said.

He went on: "If it is decided that Dr Swire has a 'legitimate interest' in this matter, the commission will also require to address whether it is 'in the interests of justice' to accept for a further review the conviction of Mr Megrahi, taking account of the statutory requirement for 'finality and certainty' in criminal proceedings.

"In considering this matter, the commission will be required to address the fact that Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal in 2009 after a referral from the commission and that neither he nor any member of his family lodged an application for a further review of his conviction prior to his death in May 2012. Consideration of these matters could take some time.

"As this is a fresh application, if it is then accepted for review, the commission will have to allow some time for board members to acquaint themselves with the terms of the application and the basis for the previous review and referral, as none of the present members of the SCCRC were members at the time the matter was previously referred in 2007.

"Likewise, if this case is accepted for review, the commission will require to address the various grounds of review, taking account of any changes in the law since the application was previously reviewed and carry out relevant inquiries and investigations.

"It is anticipated, therefore, that, if there is to be a further review of this conviction, any such review will take some time to complete."

Megrahi lost his first appeal against his murder conviction in 2002. [RB: The circumstances in which this appeal was lost are described here, in the section headed “The Appeal”.]

The following year, he applied to the SCCRC for a review of his conviction and his case was referred by the commission to the High Court for a new appeal in 2007.

His bid to drop his second appeal against conviction was accepted by judges in Edinburgh in August 2009.

Twenty-five relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims are said to have agreed to support the new application to clear Megrahi's name.

Dr Swire told BBC Scotland: "I have a privilege of representing about 25 British relatives. These are people who want to know the truth about who murdered their families. They want the public to know the truth about how, they believe, they have been deliberately kept from knowing the truth themselves by our Government."

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC. The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people.

"We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.

"Following consideration of all relevant matters, only a criminal court has the power to either uphold or overturn Mr AI-Megrahi's conviction.

"The Scottish Government has always been clear that it is comfortable for relatives of Mr Al-Megrahi or relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims to apply to the commission to consider referring Al-Megrahi's case.

"And, of course, the Lockerbie case remains a live investigation, and Scotland's criminal justice authorities have made clear that they will rigorously pursue any new lines of inquiry."

Lockerbie bombing: Megrahi conviction review sought by families

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams published today on the BBC News website.  It reads as follows:]

Twenty-five relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims have agreed to support a new application to clear the name of the only man convicted.

They will give the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) their new application in the next few weeks to try to overturn the conviction.

It has been prepared by legal expert Prof Robert Black. [RB: What I have prepared is a draft, which must now be finalised and improved for submission to the Commission.]

The Crown Office said it would "rigorously defend" Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction.

He was the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people, died in 2012.

The application will focus on new evidence garnered since he dropped his appeal almost five years ago and the six grounds on which the SCCRC concluded it might have been a miscarriage of justice in its previous 2007 report.

Megrahi dropped his appeal to expedite his return home to Tripoli after he learned he had terminal cancer.

He was released from Greenock prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds and died in Libya two years ago.

Dr Jim Swire and John Mosey both lost children in the tragedy.

They met with Prof Black in Glasgow to finalise the plans for the application. [RB: The meeting in Glasgow was with lawyers who will be involved in presenting the application to the SCCRC.]

Any applicant must have a "legitimate interest" in the case and the SCCRC would normally consult the deceased's family before accepting an application. 

The BBC understands that Megrahi's family have given their tacit approval.

Last year Megrahi's brother Abdel-Hakim al-Megrahi told the BBC they wanted a "fresh appeal and for the truth to be revealed".

Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was confident the SCCRC would be sympathetic to a request from UK relatives of Lockerbie victims.

He said the relatives wanted answers.

"I have a privilege of representing about 25 British relatives," Dr Swire said.

"These are people who want to know the truth about who murdered their family. They want the public to know the truth about how, they believe, they have been deliberately kept from knowing the truth themselves by our government."

If the commission agrees to review the application and agrees the conviction could constitute a miscarriage of justice, they would then refer the case to the High Court.

The court could agree to hear the appeal or veto the referral.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC.

"The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people.

"We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement."

[The Crown Office is up to its old tricks again. It knows very well that the evidence on which the conviction was based was not “rigorously scrutinised” by two appeal courts.  The court which heard the first appeal held that it was barred by the grounds of appeal submitted by Megrahi’s then legal team from considering whether there was sufficient evidence to convict or whether, on the evidence, any reasonable court could have done so. Hardly a rigorous examination of the evidence; indeed, no examination of the evidence at all. And the second appeal was abandoned long before any rigorous examination of the evidence could take place. The Crown Office knows all this perfectly well. But it persists in putting out untruthful statements to the media. Its behaviour throughout the Lockerbie saga has been uniformly disgraceful.]

Lockerbie film will aid justice, hopes father

[This is the headline over a report published (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times.  It adds nothing to what appears here and here, but I reproduce it (a) because it is The Times and (b) because it doesn’t emanate from Magnus Linklater:]

The father of a young woman killed in the Lockerbie disaster has said that a new film about the tragedy could help to aid justice more than 25 years on.

Jim Swire’s daughter, Flora, 23, died on December 21, 1988, when Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed over Lockerbie, killing 270 people. She had bought a last-minute ticket to spend Christmas in the US with her American boyfriend.

Dr Swire, 78, a veteran campaigner, said he hoped that the film, understood to be based on his fight for justice, could help “the truth to dawn” for the public over Britain’s worst terrorist attack.

Although details of the film are being kept under wraps, Jim Sheridan, the six-times Oscar-nominated director, is lined up to be the director.

Dr Swire said he hoped that the project would help to bring evidence into the public domain that he believes casts doubt over the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Dr Swire said: “The film is important because it brings into the public domain more of the truth about what really happened instead of a package of lies clearly supported by US sources. This may turn out to be the way by which the truth dawns for the general public.”

Kathy Tedeschi, whose husband, Bill Daniels, was a passenger, criticised the move. “There are too many people, like the FBI and Scotland Yard, who investigated this case, and I firmly believe they knew what they were doing and they got the right man,” she said.

Dr Swire and other relatives are to attend a meeting in Glasgow this week to decide when they will submit a request for a third appeal to overturn Megrahi’s conviction.