"Arise, Sir Jim"?

[The Caledonian Mercury today has a feature in which Dave Hewitt suggests six possible candidates for the knighthood going begging now that Fred Goodwin no longer has it.  One suggestion reads as follows:]

Jim Swire already has a title – doctor – but he deserves a bigger one. He is the father of Flora, one of the on-the-plane victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988, and has worked tirelessly – and one fears fruitlessly – to try and establish the truth of what happened in that terrible event.

Lockerbie and everything after is more obscured by governmental deceit and political smokescreening than almost any incident of terrorism – and, whatever one thinks about Dr Swire’s belief that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is not the guilty party, he deserves great credit for remaining the honest and humble man amid a sea of criminal dissembling and murky geopolitics.

Against Dr Swire, in the current political climate, is that he was schooled at Eton – but his having been born in Windsor ought to make the investiture side of things go smoothly, in satnav terms at least. By rights he should get something with the word Nobel written across it – but Goodwin’s knighthood would do pretty well to be going on with. It would, at the very least, restore some credibility to a tarnished award.

US 1998 Lockerbie freedom of information request still outstanding

[The following is an excerpt from a report headlined Slow Responses Cloud a Window Into Washington published in The New York Times on 29 January 2012.  It reads in part:]

Is a FOIA delayed a FOIA denied? (...)

On Jan 4, The New York Times received a final response from the Defense Department to a FOIA request made on June 1, 1997. The department sent it by Federal Express, Priority Overnight.

The courts have ruled that government agencies must respond to FOIA requests in 20 days. But The Times’s case was hardly a record; some requests are approaching 20 years old. (...)

The National Security Archive, a nonprofit group based in Washington that is a heavy user of the Freedom of Information Act, reported last July 4, on the 45th anniversary of President Lyndon B Johnson’s signing of the law, on some older cases that were still open. Those included a 1995 request for information on Pakistani surface-to-air missiles and a 1998 request to the George Bush Presidential Library for documents relating to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombing happened in 1988.

Eleven years of injustice

It was eleven years ago today that the judges of the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist delivered their verdict of Guilty against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (and Not Guilty against Lamin Fhima) for the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. The Opinion of the Court justifying the verdicts can be read here. In the version originally issued on 31 January 2001, in the very first sentence, their Lordships mis-stated the date of the disaster. This is indicative of the quality of the Opinion as a whole. [RB: This is a modified excerpt from the post that appeared on this blog on the tenth anniversary of the Zeist verdict.]

Tory justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP on Megrahi

[Holyrood magazine today publishes a long article about the views of recently-appointed Scottish Conservative Party justice spokesman (and former leader) David McLetchie MSP.  It reads in part:]


The government last month published a bill that could permit publication of information about the case against the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. It has been said the Criminal Cases Bill would let the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decide whether information it gathered and referred to the Appeal Court should be published.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his second appeal days before he was sent home to Libya on compassionate grounds.

Campaigners want case papers released, but that has so far been prohibited by law. For the documents to be released, the SCCRC needed the consent of the main parties involved, which include the Crown Office, the police and the Foreign Office.

McLetchie said: “I think it is interesting that the Scottish Government’s official position is that it doesn’t doubt the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. We have this obsession about Megrahi and although they say they don’t doubt the conviction, clearly they do as they are playing to that gallery.

“It would appear there are barriers in terms of the release of statements of reasons to do with data protection, which is reserved, and also issues over official secrets, so there are quite a lot of barriers over which the Scottish Parliament can do nothing.

“To my mind it is quite simply grandstanding, it is pandering to a view that Megrahi is innocent, it is pandering to all the conspiracy theorists and if they [the Government] really don’t doubt the safety of the conviction then what are they wasting our time for?

“I would be surprised if all of this ends up being released into the public domain at the end of the day and I think it’s time to draw a line under this but suspect it won’t be until Megrahi passes away.” It is not a view that will deter Megrahi campaigners. In recent years, there has been growing support for the idea that the Libyan may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It is one of several issues that convince McLetchie his new job will be far from dull.

He added: “We are at a time when the police is about to go through major reform and there is some important legislation coming through the parliament. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the justice brief plays a significant role in terms of politics and policy and I expect that very much to continue throughout this parliament too.”

S7 in the firing line as Justice Committee defend the role of the SCCRC and recommend repeal

[This is the headline over a news item published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

The Justice Committee has issued a strongly worded defence of the Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission and rejected two recent legislative attempts to interfere with its remit contained in the much maligned “emergency” legislation in the wake of the Cadder decision, and Lord Carloway’s review of criminal law.

The committee challenged whether introducing additional hurdles into the role of the Commission was in the interests of justice or warranted by its volume of business.

It said that the committee was “surprised” that Lord Carloway had sought to restrict access to the SCCRC by introducing a further test for cases.

“Emergency legislation passed in the wake of the Cadder case gave the High Court of Justiciary the power to reject a reference from the SCCRC if the Court, having regard to the need for finality and certainty in criminal proceedings, considered that it was not in the interests of justice to accept the reference,” the committee said.

“The Committee appreciates that the main purpose of this provision was to prevent a possible flood of references in the wake of the Cadder judgment involving individuals convicted mainly on the basis of information volunteered during detention, without access to a solicitor having been offered.

“However, as Lord Carloway’s report noted, the legislation gave the High Court a “gate-keeping role” relating to the interest of justice, that formerly rested only with the SCCRC, and which applied to all cases, not just those raising Cadder points. Lord Carloway further noted that that anticipated flood has not, in fact, materialised, and recommended that the relevant provisions in the emergency legislation be repealed. In doing so, he noted that the gate-keeping role assigned to the High Court was in principle inconsistent with the functions originally vested by Parliament in the SCCRC.

“Given the overall thrust of Lord Carloway’s argument, the Committee was surprised to note that, alongside this recommendation, Lord Carloway recommended restating the test for the High Court in determining whether to allow an appeal arising from an SCCRC reference as follows: (a) that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that the appeal be allowed.

“Whilst the first leg of the test, being a restatement of the current position, is unobjectionable, practically all witnesses to express a view, queried the purpose of the second leg.”

The letter said that the recommendation amounted to dismantling the gates at the bottom of the driveway only in order to reassemble them at the entrance to the front door.

Justice Committee Convener Christine Grahame MSP said the Committee had seen no evidence to suggest that this is a problem.

The vexed s7, introduced to the surprise of the legal community, was also challenged, and its repeal urged on the basis that it gave “undue prominence” to the need to reflect finality in court cases.

The section had been perceived as an attempt to target the ongoing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi case, and stymie any further possible appeal that may be lodged by his family or campaigners upon his death.

“Another point to arise in evidence was that the opportunity should be taken to repeal a second element of the emergency legislation; provision requiring the Commission itself to take into account finality and certainty in deciding whether to make a reference to the High Court,” she said.

“The SCCRC witness argued that the SCCRC did, in practice, consider these matters in deciding whether to make a reference, but said that the statutory test imposed by the emergency legislation gave these criteria undue prominence, especially given that the very existence of the SCCRC is an exception to the general principle that there should be finality and certainty in the judicial process.”

Justice for Megrahi's written evidence to Justice Committee

[The Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm has this evening published the following report about the written evidence submitted by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee:]

The Justice for Megrahi group have lodged a written submission to the Scottish Government outlining why it believes the Scottish Government should amend its position and move to lift the block preventing publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s report, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have befallen Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

The group had been invited to participate in the parliamentary consultation process on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill.

The group argue that the bill manufactures a block on the release of the paper, which could be removed by a statutory instrument.

“A cynic might suspect that Part 2 of the Bill has been deliberately designed to ensure that no useful disclosure of SCCRC material is possible under its terms,” the group said in its submission.

“Whether or not that is its purpose, that is its effect,” it adds.

“The reasons for proceeding by primary legislation rather than statutory instrument which are given in paragraphs 63 to 65 of the Policy Memorandum are wholly unconvincing: they completely fail to address the issue that a statutory instrument would override common law and statutory obligations of secrecy and confidentiality whereas Part 2 of the Bill does not and cannot.

“It is submitted that the Justice Committee should recommend to the Scottish Government that, if it genuinely wishes to see meaningful disclosure of SCCRC material in the Megrahi case, it should (a) reconsider the possibility of proceeding by statutory instrument and (b) formulate a scheme which, unlike the one set out in the Bill, is designed to achieve rather than impede this objective.”

The group argue that the Bill removes the requirement of obtaining the consent of the person who supplied information to the SCCRC, but conversely also requires the SCCRC to notify and seek the views of the person who supplied the information and also “of any person directly affected by it".

“It provides a detailed (and cumbersome) mechanism to permit such persons to object to disclosure and (if the SCCRC rejects the objections) to permit them to take legal action to try to block the disclosure,” the group says.

“Under the Bill, common law and statutory obligations of secrecy or confidentiality could be founded upon by the suppliers of the information, or any persons directly affected by it, in any legal action taken by them to block disclosure. But if a statutory instrument were used by the Scottish Ministers to remove the restriction on disclosure -- the mechanism which is specifically mandated in section 194K(1)(f) -- these common law and statutory obligations of secrecy or confidentiality would be overridden.”

The full submission can be read here.

Lockerbie bombing inquiry police officer numbers raised

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

Additional police officers have been drafted into the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary team investigating the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

The inquiry has been scaled up following regime change in Libya.

Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that the extra resources required for the probe had been supplied by the Scottish government. (...)

The overthrow and death of Col Muammar Gaddafi last year opened up a possible opportunity for investigators to explore the role of others in the bombing.

The Crown Office has already asked the new authorities in Libya for help with the inquiry.

As a result, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, which has led the Lockerbie investigation from the start, has increased staffing levels within its inquiry team.

Detectives from the local force have already questioned Libya's former Foreign Minister Musa Kusa who fled to London when Col Gaddafi's regime started to fall.A spokesman for Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary said that for operational reasons it could not reveal the number of officers it had added to its inquiry team.

[Unless the police inquiry is prepared to investigate conscientiously the material that has come to light casting grave doubt on the Zeist trial's verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi (including material uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) the new staffing and resources will be a complete waste of time and money and will achieve no more than the "one man with a feather duster" that has been the pretext over the years for the police and Crown Office claim that the Lockerbie investigation was still live. 


The treatment of this issue by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be found here.  The coverage of the story in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday 25 January contains the following: 'The Crown Office said: "The transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries into the involvement of others with Mr Megrahi."'  So here we have confirmation from the horse's mouth of the scope of this "investigation".]

Justice for Megrahi submits evidence on SCCRC disclosure Bill

On 7 December 2011, the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee issued a call for evidence on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill. The campaign group Justice for Megrahi has now submitted written evidence on Part 2 of the Bill, which purports to set out a framework for disclosure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's reasons (and evidence) for concluding that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.  JFM's submission will be reproduced on this blog once it has been published on the Justice Committee's website.  Representatives of JFM are likely to give oral evidence to the committee at a session on 7 February 2012.

Lockerbie father: al-Megrahi is innocent

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times. It reads as follows:]

The doctor who lost his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing has reaffirmed his belief that the Libyan man convicted of the attack is innocent.

Jim Swire said he was convinced that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, despite the belief of the new Libyan governement that al-Megrahi is guilty of the mass murder of the 270 passengers.

Dr Swire was speaking last night after an ITV documentary in which he was shown visiting al-Megrahi, who is dying of cancer. He also consulted representatives of the Libyan leadership that toppled the dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi last year.

In one exchange Ashour Shamis, an adviser to Abdurrahim al-Keib, the Libyan Prime Minister, told Dr Swire: “As far as the Libyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved in planning and executing the atrocity. There is no doubt about it. They are involved, the regime are involved.”

Mr Shamis added that al-Megrahi was involved in the bombing, if “only a small player”. He went on: “Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security there is no doubt about it — of Libyan security. And if he was told to do something, he would have done it.”

Dr Swire said he had not accepted that argument. Mr Shamis, along with the rest of new government, had simply not had time to consider the case with any thoroughness.

“I found Tripoli percolated with the desire to pin everything imaginable under the sun on the defunct Gaddafi regime, because the people are so delighted to have got rid of him,” said Dr Swire. “Mr Shamis certainly believes al-Megrahi was guilty. I tried to make plain that if you look at the evidence that it is not at all likely.”

Dr Swire added that he hoped the documentary would re-awaken interest in al-Megrahi’s conviction, in a Scottish court at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, in 2001. The Libyan was released from Greenock prison on compassionate grounds in 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer.

“The verdict is vulnerable and would be repealed if there were a full inquiry into it,” said Dr Swire. “The Scottish public should understand what’s going on in their name: the support of an unsupportable verdict.”

A petition calling for a review of the al-Megrahi case has been lodged with Holyrood’s Justice Committee and will be debated in the Scottish Parliament next month.


[It is not the petition (PE 1370) that the Justice Committee will be considering next month but Justice for Megrahi's evidence on Part 2 of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which purports to set a legal framework for disclosure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's reasons for concluding that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The evidence session in question is provisionally scheduled for 7 February 2012.]

My trip to bid dying bomber goodbye

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Scottish edition of The Sun.  It is the only article that I have so far been able to find following last night's STV and ITV1 documentary Did Gaddafi kill my daughter?  It reads in part:]

A dad who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing has travelled to Libya to "say goodbye" to the man convicted of the atrocity.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, was among 270 people killed in the 1988 terror attack, said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi "does not have much time left".

Megrahi, 59, was freed on compassionate grounds from Greenock jail in August 2009, after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.

Dr Swire — who said he was "entirely satisfied" that Megrahi was not guilty — revealed he had spent just over a week in Tripoli. The 75-year-old, who lives in Gloucestershire, said: "It was very much a trip for me to say goodbye to him.

"It may seem unusual but I have come to regard him as a friend."

A deathbed farewell to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi

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

Even without the events of December 21, 1988, they would be the most unlikely of friends. Jim Swire, an Eton and Cambridge-educated doctor from Bromsgrove, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a former member of the Libyan security services who was convicted of murdering 270 people when a bomb exploded on Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew over Lockerbie. Swire’s daughter, Flora, was one of the passengers. She would have turned 24 the next day.

Last month, Flora’s father travelled to Tripoli for a meeting with the terminally ill Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds. It was a remarkable journey for a 75-year-old man to make, not least because Swire undertook it in order to bid farewell to the man he now describes as his friend.

The pair have met on a number of occasions – once in prison in Scotland and twice in Libya – but Swire is sure their encounter in December was their last. “It was, a privilege to be allowed, essentially, to say goodbye to him,” Swire told an ITV camera crew who filmed part of his visit to Libya. He tells me he is “proud” to have known the man he calls Basset, the man so many others know as the Lockerbie bomber. “Megrahi is dying, and as a doctor I wanted to find out whether he has got the necessary painkillers.” He has, but Swire cannot say how long the convicted terrorist might live. “He is a very sick man. He only talks in short sentences with pauses to get his breath back. He is looking death in the face, and he knows it.”


Swire speaks affectionately of the Libyan’s wife, Aisha, always by her husband’s side, holding his hand; he is almost jovial when speaking about Megrahi’s love of football. “I think that was the thing that endeared him to the other prisoners. He was popular prisoner and, although he lived a different sort of life from his fellow inmates, he did muck in with them.”


At the end of his meeting Swire, a Christian, was so moved he found one of only two churches in Tripoli, where he prayed for Megrahi.

Such gentle compassion for the man convicted of murdering his daughter is incredible, and Swire is aware that many might find it astonishing. But the simple fact of the matter in this most complex of cases is this: Swire does not believe Megrahi is guilty. Indeed, if anyone feels guilt then it is Swire himself, who once met Gaddafi to pressure the late Libyan leader into handing over Megrahi to stand trial. (...)

Swire does not seem to have the same sense of mercy towards Gaddafi, who went to his grave with his secrets. “I am totally satisfied, that he [Megrahi] had nothing to do with it. But that is very different to saying that Gaddafi had nothing to do with it.”

It was during the 2001 trial that Swire started to doubt Megrahi’s guilt. While Libya and Syria may have been involved, he believes Iran was ultimately responsible for Lockerbie, as revenge for the shooting down of an Iranair flight by the Americans.

It was in the early hours of Flora’s 24th birthday that the Swires received a phone call confirming their daughter was dead. “It never occurred to me that I would be trying to get justice for Flora 23 years later. I thought there would be an international investigation and the truth would come out in a year or two,” Swire says. He has lobbied five Prime Ministers for a public inquiry, all of whom seem to have fobbed the families off; and at least two of whom, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were pictured cosying up to Gaddafi.

The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission found in 2007 the Lockerbie verdict may have been a miscarriage of justice; Swire still hopes for a proper inquiry.

Libya claims Megrahi had role in Lockerbie bombing

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

The new Libyan Government has admitted for the first time that Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing, which claimed the lives of 270 people.

Ashour Shamis, adviser to the country's Prime Minister Abdurrahim al Keib, scotched the theory the only man convicted of the atrocity was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Shamis claimed that, as a security adviser to Colonel Gaddafi, Megrahi would have had a part to play.

While the new Government in Libya has maintained Gaddafi executed the terror attack, it has never before pinpointed the involvement of Megrahi.

Mr Shamis made the admission to Dr Jim Swire during a trip to Tripoli which was filmed for a documentary to be screened tonight on STV.

Dr Swire, 75 – whose daughter Flora died in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 – has long believed in the convicted bomber's innocence and he told filmmakers of the guilt he feels for pressing Libya to hand Megrahi over to stand trial.

He went to Libya to continue his search for the full truth behind Lockerbie and to say goodbye to Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

As his fact-finding mission unfolded in Tripoli, he met Mr Shamis after being granted an interview with the Government.

Mr Shamis said: "As far as the Libyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved in planning and executing this atrocity.

"There is no doubt about it They are involved. The regime are involved."

He said Gaddafi's payment of compensation to victims was proof the despot, who was killed in the rebel uprising in October, was behind the terror attack.

Backers of Gaddafi have always maintained the money was paid to force the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya.

Crucially, Mr Shamis added that Megrahi was involved in the bombing even if "he was only a small player". He said: "Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security, there is no doubt about it – of external security. And if he was told to do something he would have done it." (...)

In the documentary, Dr Swire elaborated on the guilt he feels over Megrahi's time in prison, describing him as a "decent guy". Dr Swire said: "I feel a sense of guilt about Megrahi ever being found guilty because maybe, just maybe, if I hadn't tried as far as I did, maybe Gaddafi wouldn't have handed him over because it was Gaddafi that I addressed my pleas to – to allow him to be handed over.

"So I feel guilt towards Megrahi, he is a decent guy and many other people who have met him said the same sort of thing.

"I doubt now, that he was a member of Libyan intelligence at all and I don't think he knows who in the Libyan regime knew what was going on.

"That of course brings us to the question of how much did the Libyan regime know and what can we find out."

Dr Swire visited Megrahi during his recent trip but camera crews were banned during the meeting. He was described as "distraught" following the pair's hour-long encounter.

Dr Swire said: "I think that what happened - in the sick room of a dying man and his doctor has to remain private.

"He is a very sick man and I thought it was a privilege to have been allowed essentially to say goodbye to him."

Dr Swire, who had met Megrahi previously, added: "This is a different and deeper level than we have been at before ... this was a parting discussion between two people who know each other, one of whom is going to die in the very near future."

Tonight: Did Gaddafi Kill My Daughter? STV at 7.30pm.

[Megrahi "would have had a part to play"; "he was only a small player"; "if he was told to do something he would have done it".  This does not amount to an admission by Mr Shamis that Megrahi was the person who placed, or arranged for the placing of, a bomb on Pan Am 103 (which is what he was accused and convicted of), far less evidence of such involvement.  It sounds like a brazen attempt by the NTC to incriminate (i) the regime which they supplanted and (ii) an official of that regime (Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and later director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli).


A useful commentary can be found here on bensix's blog Back Towards The Locus.]

Documentary - Dr Jim Swire visits Al-Megrahi

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday evening on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads as follows:]

On Thursday 19th January at 7.30pm ITV1 and STV are due to broadcast a programme about a visit by Dr Jim Swire to Libya in December 2011.

During this visit Mr Swire met with Abdel Baset al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and also a number of key figures in the Libyan Interim Government.

At present the group called Justice for Megrahi (JFM), of which Mr Swire is a member, have a petition before the Holyrood Justice Committee, and also the SNP Government are currently taking steps which may make the findings of the SCCRC on Lockerbie more publicly available.

The conviction of Mr Megrahi has been the subject of debate and doubt ever since he was convicted.  This escalated in August 2009 when the Libyan was released on compassionate grounds by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Many people believe that Mr Megrahi was wrongfully convicted.  The imminent publication of John Ashton's biography of Megrahi is expected to reveal the evidence that led the SCCRC to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

[The readers' comments which follow the article are also worth attention.

For those outside the United Kingdom who wish to watch the programme after broadcast on the ITV player, I am told that this is possible via a UK-based proxy server, such as this. Others can be found by googling "UK proxy server".]

London's Imperial War Museum to exhibit Lockerbie trial witness box

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Record. It reads in part:]

The witness box from the Lockerbie bombing trial has been bought by the Imperial War Museum.

They are putting it on show in London in 2014 as part of an overhaul of exhibits.

Bomber Abdulbaset al-Megrahi listened to months of testimony from witnesses in the box at his trial in Camp Zeist, Holland.

A Scottish court was set up there in 2000 so he could be tried on neutral ground.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died when Pan Am 103 came down in 1988, said: “One has to question whether the box itself bore witness to the truth of the Lockerbie events or to something else entirely.

“In any event, there was an exhibit in Glasgow’s Museum of Transport for some years where one might have thought any additional items may be selected for display.

“One also has to ask what war this artefact is supposed to be associated with.” 

The IWM defended the decision to snap up the box, saying their remit is “to cover conflicts from 1914 to the present day – this includes acts of terrorism”.

[This story was broken on 13 January by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its article, with longer quotes from the IWM and Dr Swire, can be read here.]

Did Gaddafi kill my daughter?

[This is the title of a programme to be broadcast in the UK on ITV 1 on Thursday 19 January at 7.30pm. The description on the ITV TV Guide website reads as follows:]

75-year-old Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing, travels to war-torn Libya to investigate whether Colonel Gaddafi was behind the atrocity. He meets the only man convicted of the attack, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and confronts the new administration in his search for answers.

[It is indicated that there will be at least three repeats.]

Service announcement

For the next six months, posts to this blog will be from South Africa.  My home base there is very remote and internet connection can be problematical.  It is therefore likely that updating will be less frequent and immediate; and that the moderation of comments that I have been driven to institute may be regrettably slow.

Brown claims Lockerbie victory

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows:]

Gordon Brown has claimed victory in his battle to persuade Britain's top civil servant that he did not help to secure the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Sir Gus O'Donnell, who last month retired as Cabinet Secretary after six years, had suggested the last Labour government did "all it could" to to "facilitate" the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. But in an angry exchange of letters, Mr Brown insisted he knew nothing of the plan.

In a final letter, on 21 December, Sir Gus wrote to Mr Brown: "Given your recollection that you, as Prime Minister, did not know of such a policy of facilitation, it is right for me to be clear that I have found nothing in the record to contradict this."

The former PM has welcomed the statement and insisted: "I knew nothing, nor did I initiate or support any attempt to facilitate the Megrahi release."

Sound familiar?

[The first leader (behind the paywall) in today's edition of The Times is headlined "Justice and Answers". It is about the case of Eddie Gilfoyle. The leader reads in part:]

The story of Mrs Gilfoyle’s locked box is thus now a central part of the story of a man’s liberty, of the probity and competence of the police, and of the integrity of the justice system. It could hardly be more important. What happened to that box may be a mystery today, but it cannot possibly be allowed to remain one.

The box joins other critical evidence that was withheld from the defence at moments when it could have made a real difference. (...) There are serious questions about whether flaws in the case against Mr Gilfoyle have been deliberately protected from exposure.

These questions must be asked at a ministerial level and made subject to an urgent new inquiry. Mr Gilfoyle has been released on licence from his prison sentence having served so many years, but his conviction remains. Every day that it continues to do so without inquiry and examination is an affront to justice.  (...)

It is time for some answers and some justice.

[Messrs Salmond, MacAskill, Mulholland and all Members of the Scottish Parliament should read, mark and inwardly digest. And then, without further prevarication, the Scottish Government should institute an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.]

Blown gasket

My computer here in Scotland has blown a gasket. It is unlikely that I shall be able to service this blog until 12 January at the earliest, when I shall be back in South Africa and have access to my computer there.

Situation normal ...

[I wish a happy and peaceful 2012 to all readers of this blog. What follows is an item first posted here on 1 January 2008:]

In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:

“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.

While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.

A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”

See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp