Downing Street disinformation

[What follows is excerpted from a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2007:]

The UK Government has published details of a deal struck with Libya on prisoner exchange, which it insists does not cover the Lockerbie bomber's case.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond had voiced concern at Holyrood that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi could be transferred back to a jail in Libya.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said no deal had been signed over the future of al-Megrahi. (...)

The memorandum of understanding with Libya was signed last week by Mr Blair during a trip to the country. It was created on 29 May.

It states that the two sides will shortly "commence negotiations" on prisoner transfer, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law, with a final deal signed within 12 months.

It will be based on a "model agreement" that, according to the document, has already been hammered out.

Mr Salmond had demanded clarification from the UK Government about al-Megrahi's case and made an emergency statement at Holyrood on Thursday.

He said that "at no stage" was the Scottish government made aware of the memorandum, despite the deal being struck on 29 May.

Addressing MSPs, he said: "I have today written to the prime minister expressing my concern that it was felt appropriate for the UK government to sign such a memorandum on matters clearly devolved to Scotland, without any opportunity for this government and indeed this parliament to contribute." (...)

He added that while the Scottish Executive supported the UK Government's desire for better relations with Libya, the lack of consultation with Holyrood over the memorandum was "clearly unacceptable".

"This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law," the first minister said.

A Downing Street statement said: "There is a legal process currently under way in Scotland reviewing this case which is not expected to conclude until later this summer.

"Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest the we have reached any agreement with the Libyan Government in this case.

"The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan Government last week does not cover this case." (...)

Opposition politicians in Scotland condemned the lack of consultation with the Scottish government.

Labour leader Jack McConnell said: "As former first minister I would have expected and demanded no less than prior consultation on such a memorandum.

"Scottish ministers, as far as I understand the letter of the law, have an absolute veto over prison transfers. I want to know if this memorandum contradicts that in any way."

[RB: Here is something previously written by me on this matter:]

It was on this date in 2007 that the “deal in the desert” was concluded between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi at a meeting in Sirte. This was embodied in a “memorandum of understanding” that provided, amongst other things, for a prisoner transfer agreement to be drawn up. In later years UK Government ministers, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw, sought to argue either (i) that the prisoner transfer element of the deal was not intended to apply to Abdelbaset Megrahi or (ii) that if it was intended to cover him, all parties appreciated that the decision on transfer would be one for the Scottish Government not the UK Government. Here is what I wrote about that on this blog:

According to Jack Straw "the Libyans understood that the discretion in respect of any PTA application rested with the Scottish Executive." This is not so. In meetings that I had with Libyan officials at the highest level shortly after the "deal in the desert" it was abundantly clear that the Libyans believed that the UK Government could order the transfer of Mr Megrahi and that they were prepared to do so. When I told them that the relevant powers rested with the Scottish -- not the UK -- Government, they simply did not believe me. When they eventually realised that I had been correct, their anger and disgust with the UK Government was palpable. As I have said elsewhere:

"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.

“Among the Libyan officials with whom I discussed this matter at the time were Abdulati al-Obeidi, Moussa Koussa and Abdel Rahman Shalgam.”

Kenny MacAskill will not stand for Scottish Parliament in 2016

[What follows is excerpted from a report in today’s edition of The National:]

Kenny MacAskill – one of the leading figures in the SNP for the past three decades – is to stand down at the Holyrood election next May.

The former Justice Secretary was replaced by Michael Matheson in Nicola Sturgeon’s new administration, following the independence referendum last September.

He was first elected to the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh in 1999 and held on to the seat at subsequent elections through boundary changes.

A former solicitor, MacAskill said he had to fight for 25 years before he was elected during a period when the SNP was regarded as a minority party and struggled to have a public profile.

But forming the first SNP Government in 2007, Alex Salmond appointed MacAskill to the key Cabinet post and he became the longest serving Justice Secretary since devolution.

Last night MacAskill wrote to his Edinburgh Eastern constituency members to tell them he will not be seeking nomination again and will be drawing a line under his career in frontline politics. (...)

MacAskill’s most controversial decision as Justice Secretary was the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, from Greenock Prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds after he had been diagnosed with cancer. He died in Tripoli protesting his innocence in 2012. “It was the decision with the most pressures internationally, but we followed the laws and guidance and we ignored the external pressures to change,” he said. “The pressures went with the job but I had a great team around me in the justice department, the police and the prison service and for that I am humble. I stand by the decision now, as I did then.”

Mandela plans visit to Megrahi

[On this date in 2002, The Herald published a report headlined Mandela wants to visit Lockerbie bomber. (Not long afterwards The Herald wisely adopted the practice of referring to “the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing” rather than “the Lockerbie bomber”.) The report reads as follows:]

Nelson Mandela wants to visit Barlinnie next week to see the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Zelda la Grange, spokeswoman for the former South African president, said that Mr Mandela was speaking to government officials to arrange details of a visit to see Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. She said: ''We are in the process of planning to go there early next week.''

Mr Mandela played a crucial role in persuading Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi to hand over two men suspected of involvement in the 1988 bombing. A total of 270 people were killed when PanAm flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie.

Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 20 years. The second Libyan was acquitted.

Libyan television said that Mr Mandela had telephoned Colonel Gaddafi to tell him of his plans to visit al-Megrahi and check his health and detention conditions. Ms la Grange said: ''He's had a personal involvement in this case throughout, so it would only be expected of him to go there and see the prisoner and see the conditions in the prison.''

The Scottish Prison Service said it had not received any confirmation of Mr Mandela's visit.

Government officials from Britain, the US, and Libya are to meet in London tomorrow to discuss the £1.86 billion compensation offer to relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims. It is part of tripartite discussions which have taken place since the Libyan intelligence agent was convicted.

Kriendler and Kriendler, the New York law firm which has been negotiating on behalf of some of the families last week said Libya was prepared to pay compensation. It said Libya had offered to pay £1.86 billion - or almost £7m per family - as compensation for the 270 people killed in the bombing, with payments linked to the lifting of sanctions.

The Foreign Office yesterday confirmed a meeting with US and Libyan officials would take place tomorrow. A spokesman said: ''It is about Libya's response to the requirements of the UN resolutions, which cover not just compensation.''

Later, Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, said:''Nelson Mandela and I, separately, were as responsible as anybody for persuading the two Libyans to have a trial in a third country and to persuade them as well to submit themselves to trial. ''I feel an obligation to make sure, in any way I can, that justice has been done. I believe there has been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.''

Mr Dalyell, MP for Linlithgow, went on: ''I went a fortnight ago to see Mr Megrahi for more than two hours in Barlinnie. ''He explained to me in detail that he was for 10 years a sanctions buster for Libyan-Arab Airlines. This is very different from being a mass murderer.''

[RB: Nelson Mandela’s visit took place a few days later, on 10 June 2002.]

Another claim of Iranian responsibility

[This is the headline over a report published on this date in 2000 on the BBC News website. It reads as follows:]

A man claiming to be a senior Iranian intelligence service defector has said that Iran, not Libya, masterminded the Lockerbie bombing.

But legal experts in Scotland have said that the allegations are unlikely to affect the trial currently under way of two Libyans accused of being behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Ahmad Behbahani also said that Iran was responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in the Argentine capital Buenos Aires.

Mr Behbahani - who was interviewed in Turkey - told CBS's 60 Minutes programme that until recently he had been responsible for all "terrorist" operations carried out by the Iranian Government beyond its borders.

CBS quoted him as saying that these operations included the bombing which downed Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie in December 1988, killing all 259 aboard and 11 people on the ground.

Prosecutors in the trial in the Netherlands allege that two Libyans were intelligence agents who planted a bomb in a suitcase on Pan Am Flight 103.

Edinburgh University law professor Robert Black said: "This trial is not a trial of the various competing theories of what happened at Lockerbie.

"It is a trial into one theory - namely the prosecution theory that these two Libyans were responsible."

Mr Behbahani did not appear in the programme in person, because the CBS producers were prevented by the Turkish authorities from recording an interview.

However, he told them that he himself had first suggested the plan to bomb the Pan Am flight to Ahmad Jibril, who heads a Syrian-backed armed group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

He also said Iran spent 90 days training a group of Libyans for the operation.

CBS says Iran's motive for the attack was revenge after a US warship shot down a commercial Iranian airliner, killing all 290 passengers aboard.

Iran vowed the skies would "rain blood" after the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air flight in July 1988, killing 290.

It was widely assumed at first that Tehran ordered the destruction of the Pan Am airliner with Syrian-sponsored help.

The two Libyans currently on trial have consistently maintained that Syrian-backed Palestinian extremists were responsible for the attack.

CBS said Aboul-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the former Iranian president who has lived for many years in exile in Paris, first alerted the programme makers to what the former intelligence operative had to say.

Mr Bani-Sadr also has a recording of a telephone conversation claiming that the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing was co-ordinated by Ahmad Jibril under direction of Iran.

Officers from the US Central Intelligence Agency spent several hours debriefing Mr Behbahani on Friday and Saturday, 60 Minutes said.

A US official in Washington told CBS: "The government wants to get to the truth of all terrorist incidents, and we do not turn a deaf ear when people offer credible information."

US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it was obviously an interesting report, but that she did not want to comment on the specifics because a trial was already in process.

A CBS producer said that Mr Behbahani might be motivated by revenge.

"I traced the tone of someone who was extremely bitter... He had fallen out of favour with the Iranian officials, with the government of Iran, and he just wanted to get back at them, at any cost."

Mr Behbahani said he had lost a power struggle in Tehran before being arrested and escaping.

[A long article about Behbahani by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer can be read here.  Material about the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing can be found here. The special prosecutor investigating the bombing, Alberto Nisman, died in suspicious circumstances in January 2015.]

A monumental lie

[What follows is from an article by William Blum that featured in this blog on this date in 2012:]

If there’s anyone out there who is not already thoroughly cynical about those on the board of directors of the planet, the latest chapter in the saga of the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland might just be enough to push them over the edge.

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted for the December 21, 1988 bombing, was released from his Scottish imprisonment August 21 supposedly because of his terminal cancer and sent home to Libya, where he received a hero’s welcome. President Obama said that the jubilant welcome Megrahi received was “highly objectionable”. His White House spokesman Robert Gibbs added that the welcoming scenes in Libya were “outrageous and disgusting”. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was “angry and repulsed”, while his foreign secretary, David Miliband, termed the celebratory images “deeply upsetting.” Miliband warned: “How the Libyan government handles itself in the next few days will be very significant in the way the world views Libya’s reentry into the civilized community of nations.”[1]

Ah yes, “the civilized community of nations”, that place we so often hear about but so seldom get to actually see. American officials, British officials, and Scottish officials know that Megrahi is innocent. They know that Iran financed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian group, to carry out the bombing with the cooperation of Syria, in retaliation for the American naval ship, the Vincennes, shooting down an Iranian passenger plane in July of the same year, which took the lives of more people than did the 103 bombing. And it should be pointed out that the Vincennes captain, plus the officer in command of air warfare, and the crew were all awarded medals or ribbons afterward.[2] No one in the US government or media found this objectionable or outrageous, or disgusting or repulsive. The United States has always insisted that the shooting down of the Iranian plane was an “accident”. Why then give awards to those responsible?

Today’s oh-so-civilized officials have known of Megrahi’s innocence since 1989. The Scottish judges who found Megrahi guilty know he’s innocent. They admit as much in their written final opinion. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigated Megrahi’s trial, knows it. They stated in 2007 that they had uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice, clearing the way for him to file a new appeal of his case.[3] The evidence for all this is considerable. And most importantly, there is no evidence that Megrahi was involved in the act of terror.

The first step of the alleged crime, sine qua non — loading the bomb into a suitcase at the Malta airport — for this there was no witness, no video, no document, no fingerprints, nothing to tie Megrahi to the particular brown Samsonite suitcase, no past history of terrorism, no forensic evidence of any kind linking him to such an act.

And the court admitted it: “The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta to Frankfurt] is a major difficulty for the Crown case.”[4]

The scenario implicating Iran, Syria, and the PFLP-GC was the Original Official Version, endorsed by the US, UK, Scotland, even West Germany — guaranteed, sworn to, scout’s honor, case closed — until the buildup to the Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was needed for the broad Middle East coalition the United States was readying for the ouster of Iraq’s troops from Kuwait. Washington was also anxious to achieve the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by groups close to Iran. Thus it was that the scurrying sound of backtracking could be heard in the corridors of the White House. Suddenly, in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: it was Libya — the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq — that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington.

The two Libyans were formally indicted in the US and Scotland on Nov. 14, 1991. Within the next 20 days, the remaining four American hostages were released in Lebanon along with the most prominent British hostage, Terry Waite.[5]

In order to be returned to Libya, Megrahi had to cancel his appeal. It was the appeal, not his health, that concerned the Brits and the Americans. Dr. Jim Swire of Britain, whose daughter died over Lockerbie, is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. “If he goes back to Libya,” Swire says, “it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case. … I’ve lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive.”[6]

And a reversal of the verdict would mean that the civilized and venerable governments of the United States and the United Kingdom would stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for almost 20 years and imprisoned a man they knew to be innocent for eight years.

The Sunday Times (London) recently reported: “American intelligence documents [of 1989, from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)] blaming Iran for the Lockerbie bombing would have been produced in court if the Libyan convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist attack had not dropped his appeal.” Added the Times: “The DIA briefing discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was ‘no current credible intelligence’ implicating her.”[7]

If the three governments involved really believed that Megrahi was guilty of murdering 270 of their people, it’s highly unlikely that they would have released their grip on him. Or is even that too much civilized behavior to expect.

One final note: Many people are under the impression that Libyan Leader Moammar Qaddafi has admitted on more than one occasion to Libya’s guilt in the PanAm 103 bombing. This is not so. Instead, he has stated that Libya would take “responsibility” for the crime. He has said this purely to get the heavy international sanctions against his country lifted. At various times, both he and his son have explicitly denied any Libyan role in the bombing.

____________________

[1] Washington Post, August 22 and August 26, 2009

[2] Newsweek magazine, July 13, 1992

[3] Sunday Herald (Scotland), August 17, 2009

[4] “Opinion of the Court”, Par. 39, issued following the trial in 2001

[5] Read many further details about the case at http://killinghope.org/bblum6/panam.htm

[6] The Independent (London daily), April 26, 2009

[7] Sunday Times (London), August 16, 2009

Verdict awaited in trial of Gaddafi-era officials

[What follows is excerpted from a Reuters news agency report dated 1 June 2015:]

A Libyan court will rule on July 28 on a son of Muammar Gaddafi and 36 other former regime officials accused of war crimes and suppressing peaceful protests during the 2011 revolution, a state prosecutor said on Monday. (...)

Others in the dock include Gaddafi-era prime minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, former foreign minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi and ex-intelligence chief Buzeid Dorda. They also face corruption and other charges.

The trial had started in April 2014 before fighting between rival factions in Tripoli ripped Libya apart in a power struggle which has produced two governments competing for authority.

It takes place in Tripoli which is controlled by a rival government set up after an armed faction called Libya Dawn seized the capital in August, expelling the official premier to the east.

The struggle has worsened chaos in the oil producer which has struggled to establish basic institutions since Gaddafi's four-decade one-man rule ended in 2011.

"The court has ended the hearing after all defendants gave their oral and written defence statements," said Sadiq al-Sur, head of the investigation department at the attorney general.

"God willing there will be a verdict on July 28...for 37 defendants," he told Reuters.

The International Criminal Court and other human rights organisations worry about the fairness of Libya's justice system although the North African country won the right in 2013 to try Gaddafi's former spy chief at home instead of at the ICC in The Hague.

Sur said all defendants had had plenty of time to meet their lawyers despite claims by some they had struggled to get access to their clients.

The verdicts could be appealed, said Sur.

[RB: Although he is not mentioned by name in the report, one of the other accused is Mohammed Belqasim Zwai. Obeidi, Dorda and Zwai were intimately involved on the Libyan side in seeking a resolution of the Lockerbie affair. In my dealings with them, I found them to be honest and straightforward -- a contrast with their UK and US counterparts.]

Foreign Office "has attempted to block ... judicial process"

[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire which was published in The Herald on this date in 2008:]

Our first encounter with the Scottish justice system was the fatal accident inquiry (FAI) held in Dumfries under the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat. Two findings stood out: 1. The aircraft destroyed at Lockerbie on which our families perished, and into which it appeared that a bomb had been loaded at Heathrow, had been under the "host state protection" of the UK authorities; 2. It was preventable.

At the end of 1991 indictments were issued against two Libyans; there was, so the Foreign Office told us, no evidence against any other country than Libya.

Within two weeks, and with the subsequent ending of a professional career, one of us went to visit Colonel Gaddafi. We told him we believed that Scottish criminal justice was among the fairest available, and that it was independent of the English-based government. We dared to explain that we felt US justice to be inappropriate because of the death penalty, and because of the enmity between the two nations, and that Libyan justice, though appropriate under the international aviation treaties of the time, would never be accepted as impartial by the international community. Our plea to him was to allow his citizens to face justice under Scots law.

It was not until after two further visits to Libya and following the intervention of many, including Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh, with proposals as to how Scottish criminal law might best be used, plus that of the late Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary, and Nelson Mandela some years later, that our wish was granted, the result being the trial at Zeist in Holland.

Meanwhile, we had sought, in the light of the FAI findings and the known warnings received beforehand, an independent and far-reaching inquiry into why the UK government had failed to protect our families. The Thatcher government of the day refused to discuss the issue of an inquiry with us. Twenty years later, despite repeated refusals, we are still waiting for the government to face up to the 1988 failure by allowing a full inquiry.

Therefore, we bring some preconceptions from outwith the criminal justice arena about the role of the UK government in the whole Lockerbie disaster, and issues arising from the trial, though that trial has to do only with the accusations against the two Libyan individuals, one of whom was acquitted and the other of whom is currently in Greenock prison.

Doubts about the verdict against him meant the affair was referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which, after some three years, decided the trial might have been unfair, partly because two documents given to the UK government by a foreign power had been available to the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway police from long before the trial, but not to the defence. The matter fell to be resolved by the High Court.

Following representations by the advocate-general to the government, the Foreign Office's response was to make the two documents the subject of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate.

The two documents, the denial of which to the defence was crucial to the SCCRC's decision that the verdict might be unsafe, are still denied to those by whom the convicted Libyan wishes to be represented in the appeal. The Foreign Office, through this PII certificate, has attempted to block, in the name of the national interest, the very Scottish criminal judicial process we believed to be independent of it.

The documents refer to a preventable outrage. They were provided to Dumfries and Galloway police and the Crown Office from at least 1996. PII certificates have never impacted upon Scottish criminal justice in this way before. The High Court has now to decide whether to set aside the PII certificate, or whether the national interest is really sufficiently powerful that it should be served by some intermediate degree of security for the documents. To do this the court first has to see the documents. Last week the High Court issued an order to the advocate-general that they be supplied with the documents within seven days.

No doubt their lordships will reach a wise decision; their responsibility is both to the Lockerbie criminal appeal process, and to future perceptions as to the independence of our criminal justice system. It has always been part of our endeavour to force something good out of this atrocity, and we hope Scottish criminal justice will be enhanced, not harmed.

As for the relatives of the dead, some of us cast the Westminster government in a role far removed from impartiality. However seriously defective its full failure in 1988 may or may not have been, it has hidden it behind powerful protective screens. The repercussions, should the criminal verdict be overturned on appeal, might impact heavily upon the perceived degree of the government's failure to protect our families and promote the truth. Just what this PII certificate is supposed to benefit is unclear. Maybe the answer is simply the politicians and civil servants of the Foreign Office.

A jury would not have convicted Megrahi

[What follows is excerpted from an item published on this date in 2009 on the Lallands Peat Worrier blog:]

On entering Edinburgh University’s School of Law in 2004, my first lecture was delivered by Professor Robert Black QC, and concerned the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Convicted by a three judge panel in Camp Zeist, the Netherlands, anyone with half an eye on Scottish justice issues will be familiar with the extensive legal and political controversy surrounding the trial. Robert Black is convinced that – abstractly guilty or not – legally, Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence lead against him, beyond the standard of reasonable scepticism required. He has kept and continues to update a blog on the Lockerbie Case here.

Privately, other senior figures in the legal profession have suggested to me that, to their minds, a jury would not have convicted Al Megrahi on the evidence presented to the Court in the Netherlands. Implicitly, it is being suggested here that judges Sutherland, McLean and Coulsfield yielded to an inchoate sense of pressure, putting aside their doubts and convicting Megrahi. On either question, I am not particularly qualified to answer, not having reviewed the evidence. I simply report that it is a prevalent view in the dusty corridors of Scottish legal discussion.

Of course, we should bear in mind that other jurisdictions habitually try criminal cases employing only judges. Appeal courts regularly set aside lower courts findings of fact. The criticism implied by changing decisions or substituting a different ruling on appeal is undoubtedly less sharp when it is simply a general fact of legal life. Scotland is different. The exceptionalism which saw Megrahi tried without a jury seems to have erected barriers of embarrassment. In its structure, the High Court of Justiciary is collegiate. To recognise that one’s colleagues “got it wrong” would be dreadfully to undermine the whole College of Justice. Better to encourage quietism, and leave Megrahi where he is. So, in half-articulated whispers and furtive conversations, some suggest the "Lockerbie problem" should be dispensed with.

This is Denningprinzip, a haunting refrain recalling the much overrated Alfred Denning, who suggested in McIlkenny v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands[1980], dismissing allegations of police brutality against the “Birmingham Six” that we should all:

“Just consider the course of events if this action were to go to trial … if the six men fail, it will mean that much time and money and worry will have been expended by many people for no good purpose. If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence: and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal … This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: it cannot be right that these actions should go any further. They should be struck out.”

A vile canon for judicial action, that, which gnaws at the very bowels of the rational basis for our regimes of legal regulation. 

[At the time, I commented on this blog: “The anonymous author apparently attended a lecture by me in The Edinburgh Law School in 2004 and -- which must be unique -- remembers it.” I am happy to report that the author is no longer anonymous. Andrew Tickell is now a lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, continues to blog knowledgeably and entertainingly, and contributes to print and broadcast media on legal and political matters.]