[The papers pertaining to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s forthcoming consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1307) at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in Holyrood’s Committee Room 2 (note change of venue) can be read here (agenda item 4). JFM’s written submission to the Justice Committee reads as follows:]
At PE1370’s last consideration before the Justice Committee, on 25th September 2012, committee members resolved to maintain its ‘open’ status pending further information regarding allegations of criminality submitted to Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials involved the Lockerbie inquiry and the 2000-01 trial at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.
This submission and its attachments provide an update for members on these matters.
Allegations of criminality
On 13th September 2012, in a letter (see appendix A) marked ‘private and confidential’, Justice for Megrahi (JFM) wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Kenny MacAskill, specifying a series of six allegations (now eight) of serious criminal wrongdoing, ranging from perjury to perverting the course of justice. The allegations were against a number of named individuals in relation to their involvement in the investigation into the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21st December 1988, and the subsequent trial of Messrs Fhimah and al-Megrahi.
The letter requested that Mr MacAskill appoint an individual or body independent of the original investigation and trial to examine our allegations fully. We made it clear that, given the history of the case, the seriousness of the allegations and because certain of them involved the Crown Office and Scottish Police service, we believed their involvement in any independent investigation of our allegations would be inappropriate.
We also informed the Justice Secretary that we shared the current concern being expressed about the ‘perceived lack of independence in Scotland between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government’ and requested, ‘that your response to this letter will be free from Crown Office influence of any kind.’
Finally, we placed a self-imposed media embargo on the letter’s contents of 30 days in order to permit the Justice Secretary sufficient time to deal with the request without intrusion from the growing media interest.
A reply dated 8th October (see appendix B) was received from Mr Neil Rennick, the Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate, on behalf of Mr MacAskill in which he stated among other things:
‘It is not the function of the Scottish Government to investigate allegations that criminal offences have been committed. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate who operates independently of the Scottish Government in such matters and your letter acknowledges the importance of this separation of duties within Scotland’s justice system.’
Moreover, we were informed that if we wished to take the allegations further we should refer them to two of the organisations cited in the allegations, namely, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the Crown Office.
In our response dated 17th October (see appendix C) we expressed our disappointment at Mr MacAskill’s response which we maintained, ‘distorts and utterly misrepresents our request to you’.
We pointed out that we had not requested that the Justice Secretary, or any other member of the executive, investigate our allegations but that, because the Scottish Police and Crown Office were among those complained of, the allegations should be independently investigated.
‘As Secretary for Justice you have a clear duty to make sure that our justice system is administered in a way that instils public confidence in that system. We will leave it to you to decide if, by failing to facilitate a full and independent enquiry into our allegations, you have abrogated that responsibility to the people of Scotland.’
We also expressed our considerable surprise that our confidential letter of 13th September, which contained allegations against the Crown Office, had not only been passed on to them but that the Crown Office had clearly been authorised to act as respondent via the medium of the press. They did so in a confrontational manner by accusing JFM of:
1. ‘making deliberately false and misleading allegations’, when the Crown Office had obviously not had sight of the supporting evidence;
2. suggesting that ‘police officers’ and ‘officials fabricated evidence’, when JFM had done no such thing;
3. making ‘defamatory and entirely unfoundedallegations’, when, again, the Crown Office had not had sight of the supporting evidence, and it is clearly a self evident truism that when making an allegation against an individual, one will inevitably impugn that person’s reputation.
(See: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/lockerbie-cover-up-like-hillsboroughclaim-campaigners-1-2543953)
We considered it to be highly improper for the Crown Office to respond, and, furthermore, to respond inaccurately, to a private and confidential letter to the Justice Secretary, which had contained criminal allegations against that very organisation, via the media and without any recourse to us.
In the event and under protest, because we were left with no alternative, we have since reported our allegations to Chief Constable Patrick Shearer of Dumfries and Galloway Police and on 9th November supplied him with a 41 page paper detailing evidence in support of our allegations. We await a response on how he intends to proceed.
Documentation
In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the redacted correspondence between JFM and the Justice Directorate may be viewed by committee members by referring to the appendices [RB: to be found at pages 8 to 15 of the agenda item 4 papers] to this submission:
A. JFM’s 13th September 2012 letter
B. Justice Directorate’s 8th October 2012 letter
C. JFM’s 17th October 2012 letter
Discussion
It is clear from the above that we are extremely concerned at the way the Secretary for Justice and Crown Office are handling the serious allegations we have made. Our initial pleas for a confidential and independent examination of our allegations have been summarily dismissed and we have been forced to report matters to a police force intimately involved in the Lockerbie tragedy since day one. It seems almost inevitable given the seriousness of these allegations that the matter will require to be passed back to the Crown Office for advice, and, yet again, an accused organisation will be acting as judge and jury in its own cause.
JFM firmly believes it has sound and compelling evidence to back up its allegations, and that this evidence submitted to support them (contained in its 41 page paper) is not susceptible to the customary type of blanket dismissal by the Crown Office, namely, that the matter has already been attended to by the courts, or by that normally employed by the Scottish Government, namely, that it has no doubt as to the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction.
We also believe that the Crown’s suggestion that the only course of action is for the al-Megrahi family to lodge an appeal is not a viable one given the rampant political factionalism in today’s Libya that must be placing the family under extreme pressure not to do so.
Additionally, for the bereaved to step into the breach would no doubt result in their efforts falling foul of the double standards and conflict of interest embodied in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. Ultimately, should it not be the responsibility of the Crown to serve the interests of justice in Scotland rather than that of an embattled and isolated Libyan family or the Lockerbie bereaved?
We believe that the official response to our allegations clearly demonstrates:
1. An abrogation of his responsibilities by the Secretary for Justice.
2. A cynical placing of the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in the invidious and unenviable position of either having to investigate his own force or refer the matter to the Crown Office against whom some of the allegations are made (this aspect of the matter is of course compounded by the fact that Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is working together with the Crown on the ‘live’ investigation which is attempting to seek out Libyans whom they believe may have been co-conspirators in Lockerbie). 3. A blatant disregard for the public interest which clearly demands that after nearly 25 years the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated within the UK is fully investigated and those responsible held to account.
4. A failure to exercise the power to appoint an independent body invested in the Justice Secretary by the electorate.
5. Evidence of an unhealthy and unconstitutional relationship between the Secretary for Justice and the Crown Office.
The allegations and PE1370
As referred to above we firmly believe our allegations to be both compelling and immune to the usual blanket rebuffs so commonly presented by the Crown. JFM took the decision to lodge its allegations in order to break the logjam which is currently blocking its request for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist.
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the Crown Office insist that their enquiry is still ‘live’. In 11 years they have interviewed Mr Moussa Koussa in London, visited Tripoli to persuade the new Libyan Government to produce concrete evidence, and conducted in camera hearings on Malta in an effort to locate others responsible for the downing of PA103, and yet, all this has produced is a succession of ‘no comments’ and a feeling of extreme frustration among the Lockerbie relatives and others committed to the truth being revealed.
Meanwhile, in the space of two months, JFM has assembled a total of now eight allegations of criminality against employees, former or otherwise, of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, other police forces, the Crown Office and forensic investigators backed up with copious evidence, all of which points in an entirely different direction to the Zeist conviction and the Crown’s current quest.
It is extremely important that this matter remains a ‘live’ issue within the Scottish Parliament so that it cannot be arbitrarily closed down by the very people we believe might have culpability in the matter. It is vital that clear and unambiguous answers are forthcoming from the appropriate authorities.
In light of the integral relationship between PE1370 and the allegations we have lodged with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, we would request that the Justice Committee maintain the status of PE1370 as ‘open’ whilst decisions are made in respect of these allegations. It is obvious that we have raised many important questions that the ongoing Crown Office/police enquiry has failed to answer.
The case for an independent public enquiry into the whole Lockerbie/Zeist affair, as petitioned for, is growing and we hope that the Justice Committee will do all that it can to ensure that all the relevant questions are answered and that the actions of the government and their officials are carefully scrutinised. Justice must be done and as importantly be seen to be done by those directly involved in the Lockerbie tragedy and the Scottish people in whose name the government is acting.
The detailed evidence recently presented to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is not being released at this time to maintain the integrity of the whole enquiry.
Please do not hesitate to contact Justice for Megrahi should further information be required.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
UK Parliament Q & A on reparations for victims of Libyan-supplied Semtex
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): What discussions his Department has had with the Libyan Government on reparations for previous victims of Libyan Semtex.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): The Gaddafi regime left a terrible legacy, with many victims both in Libya and in the UK. My right hon Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have consistently raised Gaddafi’s relationship with the IRA when we have seen the Libyan authorities.
David Mowat: It is now accepted that Libya provided the Semtex used both at Lockerbie and at the Warrington bombing in 1993. The US Government are vigorously pursuing a claim on behalf of the Lockerbie victims, whereas the UK is more passive in its support for the equivalent McCue case. Will the Minister review our position and undertake to go the extra mile for the UK victims, including those living in Warrington?
Alistair Burt: I know my hon Friend’s position and his close relationship with those who suffered in Warrington, not least Colin Parry and his family. It has not been the UK’s position specifically to support individual compensation claims—that has been done privately—but the UK has offered facilitation and support to those making such claims. More important, the UK has also been able to support a process of reconciliation with the new Libyan authorities to make good the comment of President Magarief at the UN in September—he apologised for the crimes of the despot and is looking to try to ensure that things are repaired. We are working continually with the Libyan authorities on that. I am going there next week to help in that process.
[From House of Commons Hansard, 4 December 2012, column 710.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): The Gaddafi regime left a terrible legacy, with many victims both in Libya and in the UK. My right hon Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have consistently raised Gaddafi’s relationship with the IRA when we have seen the Libyan authorities.
David Mowat: It is now accepted that Libya provided the Semtex used both at Lockerbie and at the Warrington bombing in 1993. The US Government are vigorously pursuing a claim on behalf of the Lockerbie victims, whereas the UK is more passive in its support for the equivalent McCue case. Will the Minister review our position and undertake to go the extra mile for the UK victims, including those living in Warrington?
Alistair Burt: I know my hon Friend’s position and his close relationship with those who suffered in Warrington, not least Colin Parry and his family. It has not been the UK’s position specifically to support individual compensation claims—that has been done privately—but the UK has offered facilitation and support to those making such claims. More important, the UK has also been able to support a process of reconciliation with the new Libyan authorities to make good the comment of President Magarief at the UN in September—he apologised for the crimes of the despot and is looking to try to ensure that things are repaired. We are working continually with the Libyan authorities on that. I am going there next week to help in that process.
[From House of Commons Hansard, 4 December 2012, column 710.]
Further Justice Committee consideration of Megrahi petition
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will once again be considering Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling upon the Scottish Government to institute an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi at its meeting commencing at 10am on Tuesday, 11 December in Holyrood’s committee room 4. There will be a good attendance by JFM committee members and distinguished supporters. The parliamentary record of the Justice Committee’s previous consideration of the petition can be found here (second item).
Friday, 30 November 2012
Death of Jakes Gerwel
I am saddened to learn of the death on Wednesday of Jakes Gerwel who, as director-general of Nelson Mandela’s Presidential Office in South Africa from 1994 to 1999, played an important part in brokering the arrangements that led to the surrender of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhima for trial at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. Obituaries can be read here and here. An earlier reference to Professor Gerwel on this blog can be found here.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Obituary of police officer in charge of operations at Pan Am 103 crash site
[The following are excerpts from an obituary in today’s edition of The Herald:]
John Dickson
Former Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and head of police operations at the Lockerbie disaster;
Born: October 23, 1932; Died: October 25, 2012.
John Thomson Dickson, better known as John T, who has died aged 80, was a policeman's policeman who led from the front.
A tenacious, considerate and courteous man, he was in charge of police operations during the Lockerbie disaster (...)
In 1985 he was appointed Assistant Chief Constable. Initially he was in command of personnel and later in the post he relished, operations. (...)
His leadership and planning skills were put to the ultimate test when Pan Am Flight 103 fell from the skies above Lockerbie, just after 7pm on December 22, 1988.
Mr Dickson was sent to Dumfries and Galloway to take charge of operations under the command of the Dumfries and Galloway Chief Constable, John Boyd.
He arrived in Lockerbie at 10pm while the plane and parts of the town were still ablaze. He and a team of officers worked through the night and devised a seven-sector search plan.
As dawn broke the grim reality was obvious and Mr Dickson and his team briefed search teams that poured into the area from all Scottish police forces and numerous volunteer agencies.
By Christmas Eve over 1000 officers plus volunteers were searching the hills, rivers and lochs for bodies, luggage and aircraft parts. All of the dead and luggage were recovered and identified in what remains to this day the most successful search and recovery operation of its type in the world.
Mr Dickson was awarded the OBE in 1989 for his service to policing.
John Dickson
Former Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and head of police operations at the Lockerbie disaster;
Born: October 23, 1932; Died: October 25, 2012.
John Thomson Dickson, better known as John T, who has died aged 80, was a policeman's policeman who led from the front.
A tenacious, considerate and courteous man, he was in charge of police operations during the Lockerbie disaster (...)
In 1985 he was appointed Assistant Chief Constable. Initially he was in command of personnel and later in the post he relished, operations. (...)
His leadership and planning skills were put to the ultimate test when Pan Am Flight 103 fell from the skies above Lockerbie, just after 7pm on December 22, 1988.
Mr Dickson was sent to Dumfries and Galloway to take charge of operations under the command of the Dumfries and Galloway Chief Constable, John Boyd.
He arrived in Lockerbie at 10pm while the plane and parts of the town were still ablaze. He and a team of officers worked through the night and devised a seven-sector search plan.
As dawn broke the grim reality was obvious and Mr Dickson and his team briefed search teams that poured into the area from all Scottish police forces and numerous volunteer agencies.
By Christmas Eve over 1000 officers plus volunteers were searching the hills, rivers and lochs for bodies, luggage and aircraft parts. All of the dead and luggage were recovered and identified in what remains to this day the most successful search and recovery operation of its type in the world.
Mr Dickson was awarded the OBE in 1989 for his service to policing.
Saturday, 24 November 2012
Yet more from the archive
On 24 November 2003, the High Court of Justiciary, sitting in Glasgow, determined that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted on 31 January 2001 in the Scottish Court in The Netherlands for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, should serve 27 years in prison before becoming eligible for release on licence from his life sentence. The trial judges' original recommendation that he serve at least twenty years of the life sentence before being considered for release, required to be reconsidered following changes in Scots penal law following the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights. The "punishment part" of 27 years now imposed (by the same three judges as had imposed the original sentence) was backdated to April 1999, when Megrahi was remanded in custody to await trial. Both the Crown and the defence have appealed the 27-year punishment part, but it is unlikely that these appeals will be heard unless and until Megrahi's new appeal is dismissed.
[First published here on 25 November 2007.]
[First published here on 25 November 2007.]
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
More from the archive
[For the benefit of followers of this blog who may be feeling bereft in the traditional fallow period in the run-up to an anniversary of the destruction of Pan Am 103, here is an item that was posted here four years ago today:]
Nearly two decades after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the families of the 180 Americans aboard the plane said Thursday they had received full compensation from Libya for the loss of their loved ones.
At the same time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, who is in Washington on a private visit following an unprecedented phone call this week between his father and President Bush. (...)
Under the agreement worked out between US and Libyan officials in August, Libya agreed to hand over $1.5 billion to finish compensation payments to families of Americans killed on Pan Am 103, those killed and wounded in a 1986 attack on a Berlin disco, and resolve other claims for property and personal damages.
The agreement also called for $300 million in compensation to be paid for the Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes that were ordered by former President Reagan in retaliation for the Berlin bombing. The Bush administration says no taxpayer money will be used for those payments but has not said where the money is coming from. (...)
Libya completed payments into the compensation fund in late October, clearing the last hurdle in restoration of full normalization of diplomatic relations between Washington and Tripoli, and the Treasury began transfers to the Lockerbie families earlier this month. In return, Bush restored Libya's sovereign immunity from terror-related lawsuits.
[From Matthew Lee of the news agency Associated Press. The full article can be read here. The deal covers the families of all Lockerbie victims, not just the American ones.]
Nearly two decades after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the families of the 180 Americans aboard the plane said Thursday they had received full compensation from Libya for the loss of their loved ones.
At the same time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, who is in Washington on a private visit following an unprecedented phone call this week between his father and President Bush. (...)
Under the agreement worked out between US and Libyan officials in August, Libya agreed to hand over $1.5 billion to finish compensation payments to families of Americans killed on Pan Am 103, those killed and wounded in a 1986 attack on a Berlin disco, and resolve other claims for property and personal damages.
The agreement also called for $300 million in compensation to be paid for the Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes that were ordered by former President Reagan in retaliation for the Berlin bombing. The Bush administration says no taxpayer money will be used for those payments but has not said where the money is coming from. (...)
Libya completed payments into the compensation fund in late October, clearing the last hurdle in restoration of full normalization of diplomatic relations between Washington and Tripoli, and the Treasury began transfers to the Lockerbie families earlier this month. In return, Bush restored Libya's sovereign immunity from terror-related lawsuits.
[From Matthew Lee of the news agency Associated Press. The full article can be read here. The deal covers the families of all Lockerbie victims, not just the American ones.]
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Release of communications between Scottish Government and Libyan Government "not in public interest"
[I am grateful to Mark Hirst for allowing me to post the following response from the Scottish Government to a Freedom of Information request made by him:]
Our ref: FOI/12101533
16 November 2012
Dear Mr Hirst
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for information contained within communications between the Scottish Government and the Libyan and US Governments between 1 May 2011 and 16 October 2012 on the subject of the Lockerbie bombing and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
We do endeavour to provide information whenever possible. However, in this instance an exemption under section 32(1)(a) of FOISA applies to the information requested. Section 32(l)(a) provides that information is exempt from FOISA if its release would prejudice substantially or would be likely to prejudice substantially relations between the UK and any other state.
As the exemption is conditional we have applied the ‘public interest test’. This means we have, in all the circumstances of this case, considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. While we recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the high degree of public interest in matters relating to the Lockerbie bombing and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that communications made in confidence between the Scottish Government and other States will remain private, as failure to do so may make States reluctant to share information with the Scottish or UK Governments in future.
The information in question concerns communications with the Libyan National Transitional Council. We hold no records of communications between the Scottish Government and the US Government on matters related to the Lockerbie bombing or Mr Al-Megrahi between the relevant dates.
Our ref: FOI/12101533
16 November 2012
Dear Mr Hirst
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for information contained within communications between the Scottish Government and the Libyan and US Governments between 1 May 2011 and 16 October 2012 on the subject of the Lockerbie bombing and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
We do endeavour to provide information whenever possible. However, in this instance an exemption under section 32(1)(a) of FOISA applies to the information requested. Section 32(l)(a) provides that information is exempt from FOISA if its release would prejudice substantially or would be likely to prejudice substantially relations between the UK and any other state.
As the exemption is conditional we have applied the ‘public interest test’. This means we have, in all the circumstances of this case, considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. While we recognise that there is some public interest in release because of the high degree of public interest in matters relating to the Lockerbie bombing and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that communications made in confidence between the Scottish Government and other States will remain private, as failure to do so may make States reluctant to share information with the Scottish or UK Governments in future.
The information in question concerns communications with the Libyan National Transitional Council. We hold no records of communications between the Scottish Government and the US Government on matters related to the Lockerbie bombing or Mr Al-Megrahi between the relevant dates.
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
The charade begins...
Twenty-one years ago today, in simultaneous announcements in Edinburgh and Washington DC, the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, and the Acting Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, disclosed that criminal proceedings had been launched against two Libyans, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fhima, for the murder of the 270 people killed in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. The Washington DC Grand Jury indictment can be read here. The Scottish indictment that followed on from the November 1991 Dumfries sheriff court petition was in essence the same.
Some snippets from today's press
[From a letter in the Daily Telegraph:]
The Lockerbie bomber was tried by Scottish judges in a neutral country with the agreement of the Libyans. Why can't a similar arrangement be reached with Jordan regarding the trial of Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric (...)?
Then evidence can be monitored to ensure nothing obtained under torture is presented, and if found guilty the defendant can be sent to Jordan.
[From a report in the Belfast Telegraph:]
Victims of IRA terrorism should not expect direct compensation from the new Libyan government, a businessman with links to the country has warned.
However, Peter Lismore, chairman of the Libyan Irish Business Council, believes the country’s government will make a contribution to the International Fund of Ireland, or a new fund, as a gesture of goodwill. (...)
As part of its rapprochement with the west the Gaddafi regime made an “ex gratia” payment of $7.5m (£4.72m) to each of the families of the 270 people who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1998. [RB: The amount paid was $10m per family. The reduced amount mentioned above may reflect the contingency fee paid to the US law firm
Kreindler & Kreindler.]
That payment was authorised by Abdul Atti al-Obeidi, Prime Minister of Libya under Gaddafi. Mr al Obeidi was detained by rebel forces in August of last year. “He is now on trial for settling that claim; the charge is over-compensating the victims and wasting state funds,” Mr Lismore said.
“Al Obeidi could be released soon but these charges show the present regime’s attitude towards compensation compared to the previous regime.”
The Lockerbie bomber was tried by Scottish judges in a neutral country with the agreement of the Libyans. Why can't a similar arrangement be reached with Jordan regarding the trial of Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric (...)?
Then evidence can be monitored to ensure nothing obtained under torture is presented, and if found guilty the defendant can be sent to Jordan.
[From a report in the Belfast Telegraph:]
Victims of IRA terrorism should not expect direct compensation from the new Libyan government, a businessman with links to the country has warned.
However, Peter Lismore, chairman of the Libyan Irish Business Council, believes the country’s government will make a contribution to the International Fund of Ireland, or a new fund, as a gesture of goodwill. (...)
As part of its rapprochement with the west the Gaddafi regime made an “ex gratia” payment of $7.5m (£4.72m) to each of the families of the 270 people who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1998. [RB: The amount paid was $10m per family. The reduced amount mentioned above may reflect the contingency fee paid to the US law firm
Kreindler & Kreindler.]
That payment was authorised by Abdul Atti al-Obeidi, Prime Minister of Libya under Gaddafi. Mr al Obeidi was detained by rebel forces in August of last year. “He is now on trial for settling that claim; the charge is over-compensating the victims and wasting state funds,” Mr Lismore said.
“Al Obeidi could be released soon but these charges show the present regime’s attitude towards compensation compared to the previous regime.”
Saturday, 10 November 2012
A welcome, albeit grudging, change of tune
[On Tuesday, 6 November the following item appeared on this blog:]
In the (redacted) version of Justice for Megrahi’s letter alleging criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution that was released to the press on 23 October 2012, allegation no 1 reads as follows:
“1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A B and C D] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality. This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D, supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court. That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.
I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.
[In today’s edition of the Scottish Review Kenneth Roy’s article There is a greater tragedy this weekend than the disgrace of the BBC contains the following:]
Most recently, here in Scotland, we have had an allegation, published by the BBC, of criminal wrongdoing against a High Court judge; although the source of the allegation has assured this magazine that it did not intend to make any such allegation, and that it was based on a misunderstanding, we have seen no correction or clarification of it by BBC Scotland. How fruitily ironic that the man drafted in by George Entwistle to investigate the goings-on at Newsnight is none other than the director of BBC Scotland, who seems to be unaware of the need to correct an injustice on his own doorstep.
In the (redacted) version of Justice for Megrahi’s letter alleging criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution that was released to the press on 23 October 2012, allegation no 1 reads as follows:
“1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A B and C D] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality. This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D, supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court. That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.
I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.
[In today’s edition of the Scottish Review Kenneth Roy’s article There is a greater tragedy this weekend than the disgrace of the BBC contains the following:]
Most recently, here in Scotland, we have had an allegation, published by the BBC, of criminal wrongdoing against a High Court judge; although the source of the allegation has assured this magazine that it did not intend to make any such allegation, and that it was based on a misunderstanding, we have seen no correction or clarification of it by BBC Scotland. How fruitily ironic that the man drafted in by George Entwistle to investigate the goings-on at Newsnight is none other than the director of BBC Scotland, who seems to be unaware of the need to correct an injustice on his own doorstep.
Friday, 9 November 2012
Tough stooshie
[This is the headline over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Some of those who have studied the Lockerbie case and the current totality of the evidence believe Kenny MacAskill’s decision to allow Megrahi to go home to die was an act of compassion which reduced the implications for Scotland of what now seems a fatally flawed verdict.
Exactly what imperatives created that decision we do not know, but the resulting action was vividly to illuminate the stark difference between a lust for revenge by an ignorant majority, and the implications for history of failure to hold a fair trial.
Apparent compassion does not conceal the need to review the verdict which our judges, in the most extraordinary of straitjackets, delivered at the time.
It is not now our compassion which is in the dock but our entire prosecution system. We must review the verdict and the system which has till now held to it.
That will be the real big stooshie, before the mantle of history shrouds it all.
Unfortunately, Mr Salmond has made the resolution of that even greater stooshie even harder than it needed to be.
[This letter refers, of course, to the First Minister’s recent statement that the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the lowest point of his leadership.]
Some of those who have studied the Lockerbie case and the current totality of the evidence believe Kenny MacAskill’s decision to allow Megrahi to go home to die was an act of compassion which reduced the implications for Scotland of what now seems a fatally flawed verdict.
Exactly what imperatives created that decision we do not know, but the resulting action was vividly to illuminate the stark difference between a lust for revenge by an ignorant majority, and the implications for history of failure to hold a fair trial.
Apparent compassion does not conceal the need to review the verdict which our judges, in the most extraordinary of straitjackets, delivered at the time.
It is not now our compassion which is in the dock but our entire prosecution system. We must review the verdict and the system which has till now held to it.
That will be the real big stooshie, before the mantle of history shrouds it all.
Unfortunately, Mr Salmond has made the resolution of that even greater stooshie even harder than it needed to be.
[This letter refers, of course, to the First Minister’s recent statement that the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the lowest point of his leadership.]
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Megrahi release row Salmond's darkest day
Alex Salmond revealed yesterday that the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the lowest point of his leadership.
Speaking on the day he became Scotland’s longest-serving First Minister, the SNP leader said he would not be going “on and on” in the role, a reference to Lady Thatcher’s famous 1987 post-election interview.
His comments prompted speculation that Mr Salmond could be ready to walk away if he loses the 2014 referendum, but he insisted he had no immediate plans to quit.
The SNP leader officially overtook Lord Jack McConnell yesterday as the longest-serving First Minister as he completed 2,002 days in office.
Asked about his darkest day, Mr Salmond said that governments must deal with “political stooshies” but he added: “The Megrahi issue. I believe, absolutely, Kenny MacAskill took the right decision and for the right reasons and I think that was vindicated. But during that particular stooshie, which had Scottish and international implications, there were some difficult days.
“But if you’re doing the right things, and you believe you’ve done the right things, then that’s a great strength, and of course the election was vindication of that.
“People said the SNP government would never survive taking that decision. In fact, we survived to prosper.”
Mr Salmond, who will turn 58 next month, has been First Minister since May 2007, after making a dramatic comeback as SNP leader in 2004.
[From an article published in today’s edition of The Scotsman.]
Speaking on the day he became Scotland’s longest-serving First Minister, the SNP leader said he would not be going “on and on” in the role, a reference to Lady Thatcher’s famous 1987 post-election interview.
His comments prompted speculation that Mr Salmond could be ready to walk away if he loses the 2014 referendum, but he insisted he had no immediate plans to quit.
The SNP leader officially overtook Lord Jack McConnell yesterday as the longest-serving First Minister as he completed 2,002 days in office.
Asked about his darkest day, Mr Salmond said that governments must deal with “political stooshies” but he added: “The Megrahi issue. I believe, absolutely, Kenny MacAskill took the right decision and for the right reasons and I think that was vindicated. But during that particular stooshie, which had Scottish and international implications, there were some difficult days.
“But if you’re doing the right things, and you believe you’ve done the right things, then that’s a great strength, and of course the election was vindication of that.
“People said the SNP government would never survive taking that decision. In fact, we survived to prosper.”
Mr Salmond, who will turn 58 next month, has been First Minister since May 2007, after making a dramatic comeback as SNP leader in 2004.
[From an article published in today’s edition of The Scotsman.]
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Who is accused of perverting the course of justice?
In the (redacted) version of Justice for Megrahi’s letter alleging criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution that was released to the press on 23 October 2012, allegation no 1 reads as follows:
“1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A B and C D] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality. This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D, supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court. That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.
I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.
“1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A B and C D] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality. This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D, supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court. That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.
I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
New forensic equipment could provide clues to who Lockerbie bomber is
[This is the headline over a report published in today’s edition of the Sunday Mail. It reads as follows:]
Lawyers for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had wanted to the new technology to be used but the work was cancelled when he was released from prison.
Advanced forensic technology could reveal the fingerprints of the Lockerbie bomber.
Lawyers for convicted bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who died in May, had wanted to use the new technique to show their client was innocent.
Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis can find fingerprints on metal and a source close to the Libyan’s defence team said parts of the suitcase that contained the bomb and an umbrella could have yielded vital clues.
The source said: “They wanted to see if the bomber’s prints were on there.”
Dr John Bond, who developed the technique, said he was asked to examine evidence but the work was cancelled when Megrahi dropped his appeal and was released from jail.
[I am grateful to journalist Bob Smyth for drawing my attention to the following article in today’s edition of The Sunday Post:]
Advanced fingerprint technology could reveal the prints of the Lockerbie bomber.
It has emerged that the defence team of the Libyan convicted of the downing of Pan-Am Flight 103 wanted to test key items for fingerprints in a bid to show their client was innocent.
They were planning to use a breakthrough technique that finds fingerprints on metal rather than the usual surfaces such as glass or walls.
However, the plan collapsed when Megrahi dropped his appeal and was then allowed out of jail on compassionate grounds because he was dying of cancer.
Last night a source close to the Libyan’s defence team said parts of the suitcase that contained the bomb and bits of an umbrella that was among clothing in the case could have yielded vital prints.
The insider said: “The defence hoped to get a few items tested using advanced fingerprinting techniques, such as the suitcase lock and bits of the umbrella handle.
“They wanted to see if the bomber’s prints were on there, whoever he may be.
“But by the time Megrahi abandoned the appeal it hadn’t happened.”
The Lockerbie link to the advanced fingerprint machine emerged last week. It was revealed the pioneering forensics machine which was developed by a UK police force to uncover hidden fingerprints on metal has sold for the first time abroad – earning thousands of pounds.
Northamptonshire Police Authority has confirmed it made “several thousand pounds” in royalties from the sale of a Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis (CERA) unit in the US recently.
The machine was created by Dr John Bond, the former scientific support manager at the force, and patented by Northamptonshire Police Authority, which granted a licence to manufacture and sell it worldwide.
It uses the technique, pioneered by Dr Bond, of fingerprint visualisation on metal – allowing previously undiscovered fingerprints, especially on gun shell casings, to be revealed.
CERA was created in 2008 and Dr Bond has now revealed he was later called by the defence team of the Lockerbie bomber to examine pieces of evidence in relation to the case. But, he said, the work was cancelled when Megrahi was freed.
He explained: “When there was talk of being an appeal we were asked to examine the evidence and there was one piece of evidence that looked promising – but then the Scottish Government went and released him.”
[The story featured on this blog on 31 October 2012.]
Lawyers for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had wanted to the new technology to be used but the work was cancelled when he was released from prison.
Advanced forensic technology could reveal the fingerprints of the Lockerbie bomber.
Lawyers for convicted bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who died in May, had wanted to use the new technique to show their client was innocent.
Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis can find fingerprints on metal and a source close to the Libyan’s defence team said parts of the suitcase that contained the bomb and an umbrella could have yielded vital clues.
The source said: “They wanted to see if the bomber’s prints were on there.”
Dr John Bond, who developed the technique, said he was asked to examine evidence but the work was cancelled when Megrahi dropped his appeal and was released from jail.
[I am grateful to journalist Bob Smyth for drawing my attention to the following article in today’s edition of The Sunday Post:]
Advanced fingerprint technology could reveal the prints of the Lockerbie bomber.
It has emerged that the defence team of the Libyan convicted of the downing of Pan-Am Flight 103 wanted to test key items for fingerprints in a bid to show their client was innocent.
They were planning to use a breakthrough technique that finds fingerprints on metal rather than the usual surfaces such as glass or walls.
However, the plan collapsed when Megrahi dropped his appeal and was then allowed out of jail on compassionate grounds because he was dying of cancer.
Last night a source close to the Libyan’s defence team said parts of the suitcase that contained the bomb and bits of an umbrella that was among clothing in the case could have yielded vital prints.
The insider said: “The defence hoped to get a few items tested using advanced fingerprinting techniques, such as the suitcase lock and bits of the umbrella handle.
“They wanted to see if the bomber’s prints were on there, whoever he may be.
“But by the time Megrahi abandoned the appeal it hadn’t happened.”
The Lockerbie link to the advanced fingerprint machine emerged last week. It was revealed the pioneering forensics machine which was developed by a UK police force to uncover hidden fingerprints on metal has sold for the first time abroad – earning thousands of pounds.
Northamptonshire Police Authority has confirmed it made “several thousand pounds” in royalties from the sale of a Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis (CERA) unit in the US recently.
The machine was created by Dr John Bond, the former scientific support manager at the force, and patented by Northamptonshire Police Authority, which granted a licence to manufacture and sell it worldwide.
It uses the technique, pioneered by Dr Bond, of fingerprint visualisation on metal – allowing previously undiscovered fingerprints, especially on gun shell casings, to be revealed.
CERA was created in 2008 and Dr Bond has now revealed he was later called by the defence team of the Lockerbie bomber to examine pieces of evidence in relation to the case. But, he said, the work was cancelled when Megrahi was freed.
He explained: “When there was talk of being an appeal we were asked to examine the evidence and there was one piece of evidence that looked promising – but then the Scottish Government went and released him.”
[The story featured on this blog on 31 October 2012.]
Saturday, 3 November 2012
From the blog archive
[Things are quiet on the Lockerbie front at present, at least in public. Behind the scenes, moves are afoot. But until such time as developments come into the public domain, here is a blog post from two years ago today:]
An outrage that should not happen in any civilised country
["Emergency law ‘may prevent Lockerbie bomber appeal’" is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times (which can be accessed here -- but only, of course, by subscribers). It reads in part:]
The Scottish government has been accused of using newly enacted (...) legislation to push through a law that will prevent supporters of the Lockerbie bomber from appealing his case.
A clause buried in the emergency legislation that followed the British Supreme Court’s ruling on “the Cadder case” allows High Court judges to have the final word on whether an appeal should be heard on their own ruling on a case.
Critics of the legislation say this represents a clear conflict of interest for the High Court, in its dealings with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), while supporters of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi believe the new modus operandi will present an almost insuperable obstacle to an appeal against his conviction being heard.
“Section 7 [of the new legislation] would appear to place an additional hurdle in the path of any such attempt,” said Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh.
“Even if it wasn’t done for that reason, it is inherently undesirable. It is outrageous that a Scottish government, that any responsible government, should have proposed such legislation and it is outrageous that any responsible parliament should have passed it.”
Professor Black’s intervention came a week after the Supreme Court ruled that Scottish arrest and detention laws did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). (...)
Professor Black said emergency legislation had been unnecessary and the result was “absolutely astonishing and disgraceful”.
Critics of the legislation are outraged that it could prevent the Lockerbie case being heard again by the High Court, should some of the families of victims killed in the 1988 atrocity resurrect Megrahi’s appeal, as they they intend. The Libyan, who is dying of cancer, was convicted of the bombing in 2001.
Professor Black said: “The effect [of the new law] is that even if the SCCRC now says there may have been a miscarriage of justice and it is in the interests of justice that there should be an appeal, the Appeal Court itself can say, ‘We refuse to accept the reference’. That is the same body — namely the High Court — whose initial decision the SCCRC has said may amount to a miscarriage of justice. In that case, the High Court can turn round and say, ‘We, the court you are accusing of perhaps having perpetrated a miscarriage of justice, say: ‘Go away and get stuffed.’ That is an outrage and should not happen in any civilised country.”
John McGovern, the president of the Glasgow Bar Association, dismissed the legislation as “civil service law”, and he too was at a loss to explain its rationale for Section 7.
“The SCCRC is very independent. Why they have used this Act to take away its independence and place it in the hands of the Appeal Court, I don’t know. It could well be an excuse to curb its powers,” he said.
The Scottish government’s kneejerk reaction to the decision of the UK Supreme Court had been a huge mistake, he added.
“To present a Bill at 9am, to debate at 2pm and to legislate at 7pm for an Act which restricted fundamental, centuries-old appeal rights in Scotland was unfortunate, to say the least. There was no emergency with Cadder,” he said.
A Scottish government spokesman said it was essential for the Justice Secretary to act immediately the Supreme Court had ruled that Scottish law was incompatible with European law, and the Act was entirely a response to the Cadder ruling.
“It is beyond question that there was need for legislation that was compliant with the ECHR,” he added.
[Seventeen years ago today, a memorial to the 270 victims who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie was dedicated at Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, by President Bill Clinton. A photograph can be seen here.]
An outrage that should not happen in any civilised country
The Scottish government has been accused of using newly enacted (...) legislation to push through a law that will prevent supporters of the Lockerbie bomber from appealing his case.
A clause buried in the emergency legislation that followed the British Supreme Court’s ruling on “the Cadder case” allows High Court judges to have the final word on whether an appeal should be heard on their own ruling on a case.
Critics of the legislation say this represents a clear conflict of interest for the High Court, in its dealings with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), while supporters of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi believe the new modus operandi will present an almost insuperable obstacle to an appeal against his conviction being heard.
“Section 7 [of the new legislation] would appear to place an additional hurdle in the path of any such attempt,” said Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh.
“Even if it wasn’t done for that reason, it is inherently undesirable. It is outrageous that a Scottish government, that any responsible government, should have proposed such legislation and it is outrageous that any responsible parliament should have passed it.”
Professor Black’s intervention came a week after the Supreme Court ruled that Scottish arrest and detention laws did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). (...)
Professor Black said emergency legislation had been unnecessary and the result was “absolutely astonishing and disgraceful”.
Critics of the legislation are outraged that it could prevent the Lockerbie case being heard again by the High Court, should some of the families of victims killed in the 1988 atrocity resurrect Megrahi’s appeal, as they they intend. The Libyan, who is dying of cancer, was convicted of the bombing in 2001.
Professor Black said: “The effect [of the new law] is that even if the SCCRC now says there may have been a miscarriage of justice and it is in the interests of justice that there should be an appeal, the Appeal Court itself can say, ‘We refuse to accept the reference’. That is the same body — namely the High Court — whose initial decision the SCCRC has said may amount to a miscarriage of justice. In that case, the High Court can turn round and say, ‘We, the court you are accusing of perhaps having perpetrated a miscarriage of justice, say: ‘Go away and get stuffed.’ That is an outrage and should not happen in any civilised country.”
John McGovern, the president of the Glasgow Bar Association, dismissed the legislation as “civil service law”, and he too was at a loss to explain its rationale for Section 7.
“The SCCRC is very independent. Why they have used this Act to take away its independence and place it in the hands of the Appeal Court, I don’t know. It could well be an excuse to curb its powers,” he said.
The Scottish government’s kneejerk reaction to the decision of the UK Supreme Court had been a huge mistake, he added.
“To present a Bill at 9am, to debate at 2pm and to legislate at 7pm for an Act which restricted fundamental, centuries-old appeal rights in Scotland was unfortunate, to say the least. There was no emergency with Cadder,” he said.
A Scottish government spokesman said it was essential for the Justice Secretary to act immediately the Supreme Court had ruled that Scottish law was incompatible with European law, and the Act was entirely a response to the Cadder ruling.
“It is beyond question that there was need for legislation that was compliant with the ECHR,” he added.
[Seventeen years ago today, a memorial to the 270 victims who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie was dedicated at Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, by President Bill Clinton. A photograph can be seen here.]
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
QC: Crown Office "institutionally corrupt" - system "going to hell"
[This is the headline over a letter from Justice for Megrahi committee member Jock Thomson QC published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Following the monumental mess made of the trial for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, Lord Hardie (then Lord Advocate) and the trial Judge (Lord McCluskey) engaged in a highly publicised spat - gloves and jackets off - it was to figure in the subsequent appeal.
Crown Office at the time, to the great fury of the Lord Advocate and the then First Minster (Donald Dewar), was described as being "institutionally racist". The Lord Advocate was told to do something about it - you must understand, there was a separation of powers in those days which Jack McConnell was about to change dramatically by appointing a career prosecutor/civil servant, Elish Angiolini, Procurator Fiscal, as Solicitor General - and Lord Hardie promptly declared Crown Office squeaky clean and attempted (pathetically) to point elsewhere to explain the alleged racism. At least he demonstrated publicly that the Office of the Lord Advocate was answerable and accountable, to the Executive and to the public.
Now we are told that Crown Office is "institutionally corrupt" (Scottish Law Reporter 17 October). What response from Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill or the Lord Advocate has there been to that extraordinary claim? In a word, NONE.
What are we to make of the deafening silence?
And yet, when all of Scotland's Judges, Lord Justice-Clerk Carloway apart, disagree with the Justice Secretary's proposals to get rid of corroboration, we are told that "Crown Office is angry and its spin doctors have lodged personal attacks on some of the Judges." (Scottish Law Reporter).
Who are these "spin doctors? Are we paying them to attack our judges? Are they civil servant members of Crown Office? Do the Law Officers have any control over what that say? Do they speak on behalf of the Law Officers, Crown Office or COPFS? Are they part of the MacAskill/Crown apparatchik? How dare they attack any judge? Which judges? Why not all the dissenting judges?
These questions,and many more, demand answers...
...but I won't be holding my breath.
We should all be very afraid. Our system of criminal justice is rapidly going to hell in a handcart.
[These faults within the Crown Office are also, of course, amply demonstrated in its handling of the Lockerbie case and in its intemperate response to Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of serious criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution.]
Following the monumental mess made of the trial for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, Lord Hardie (then Lord Advocate) and the trial Judge (Lord McCluskey) engaged in a highly publicised spat - gloves and jackets off - it was to figure in the subsequent appeal.
Crown Office at the time, to the great fury of the Lord Advocate and the then First Minster (Donald Dewar), was described as being "institutionally racist". The Lord Advocate was told to do something about it - you must understand, there was a separation of powers in those days which Jack McConnell was about to change dramatically by appointing a career prosecutor/civil servant, Elish Angiolini, Procurator Fiscal, as Solicitor General - and Lord Hardie promptly declared Crown Office squeaky clean and attempted (pathetically) to point elsewhere to explain the alleged racism. At least he demonstrated publicly that the Office of the Lord Advocate was answerable and accountable, to the Executive and to the public.
Now we are told that Crown Office is "institutionally corrupt" (Scottish Law Reporter 17 October). What response from Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill or the Lord Advocate has there been to that extraordinary claim? In a word, NONE.
What are we to make of the deafening silence?
And yet, when all of Scotland's Judges, Lord Justice-Clerk Carloway apart, disagree with the Justice Secretary's proposals to get rid of corroboration, we are told that "Crown Office is angry and its spin doctors have lodged personal attacks on some of the Judges." (Scottish Law Reporter).
Who are these "spin doctors? Are we paying them to attack our judges? Are they civil servant members of Crown Office? Do the Law Officers have any control over what that say? Do they speak on behalf of the Law Officers, Crown Office or COPFS? Are they part of the MacAskill/Crown apparatchik? How dare they attack any judge? Which judges? Why not all the dissenting judges?
These questions,and many more, demand answers...
...but I won't be holding my breath.
We should all be very afraid. Our system of criminal justice is rapidly going to hell in a handcart.
[These faults within the Crown Office are also, of course, amply demonstrated in its handling of the Lockerbie case and in its intemperate response to Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of serious criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution.]
"Hidden fingerprint" machine used by defence in run-up to Megrahi appeal
[The following are excerpts from an article published today on the Police Oracle website:]
An invention developed by Northamptonshire Police, and used in the Lockerbie bomber case, is sold abroad for the first time – yielding funds for the force.
A pioneering forensics machine which was developed by a police force in the UK to reveal hidden fingerprints on metal has sold for the first time abroad – earning thousands of pounds for the police authority.
Northamptonshire Police Authority has confirmed it made “several thousand pounds” in royalties from the sale of a Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis (CERA) unit in the United States recently.
The machine was created by Dr John Bond ... the former Scientific Support Manager at the force – and patented by Northamptonshire Police Authority which granted a licence to Consolite Forensics to manufacture and sell it worldwide.
It uses the technique pioneered by Dr Bond of fingerprint visualisation on metal – allowing previously undiscovered fingerprints, especially on gun shell casings, to be revealed. (...)
The technique works by applying a large electrical voltage to the metal concerned before a fine powder, of a similar density to that found in photocopiers, is applied. The powder is applied to the metal through ceramic beads, which are coated in it. The powder then reacts with the corrosion on the metal left over from the fingerprints – even after they have been wiped off – revealing the original fingerprint pattern.
CERA was created in 2008 and Dr Bond was later called by the defence of the Lockerbie Bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, to examine pieces of evidence in relation to the case.
He told PoliceOracle.com: “When I was with the police we were contacted by the defence.
“When there was talk of being an appeal we were asked to examine the evidence and there was one piece of evidence that looked promising – but then the Scottish Government went and released him.”
An invention developed by Northamptonshire Police, and used in the Lockerbie bomber case, is sold abroad for the first time – yielding funds for the force.
A pioneering forensics machine which was developed by a police force in the UK to reveal hidden fingerprints on metal has sold for the first time abroad – earning thousands of pounds for the police authority.
Northamptonshire Police Authority has confirmed it made “several thousand pounds” in royalties from the sale of a Cartridge Electrostatic Recovery and Analysis (CERA) unit in the United States recently.
The machine was created by Dr John Bond ... the former Scientific Support Manager at the force – and patented by Northamptonshire Police Authority which granted a licence to Consolite Forensics to manufacture and sell it worldwide.
It uses the technique pioneered by Dr Bond of fingerprint visualisation on metal – allowing previously undiscovered fingerprints, especially on gun shell casings, to be revealed. (...)
The technique works by applying a large electrical voltage to the metal concerned before a fine powder, of a similar density to that found in photocopiers, is applied. The powder is applied to the metal through ceramic beads, which are coated in it. The powder then reacts with the corrosion on the metal left over from the fingerprints – even after they have been wiped off – revealing the original fingerprint pattern.
CERA was created in 2008 and Dr Bond was later called by the defence of the Lockerbie Bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, to examine pieces of evidence in relation to the case.
He told PoliceOracle.com: “When I was with the police we were contacted by the defence.
“When there was talk of being an appeal we were asked to examine the evidence and there was one piece of evidence that looked promising – but then the Scottish Government went and released him.”
Monday, 29 October 2012
Not safe for family
[The URLs from which visitors arrive on this blog leave a trace. Following one of these traces recently (not something that I normally do) I came across the Domain Sigma website's report on this blog. It reads as follows:]
Lockerbiecase.blogspot.com is None and located on the IP 173.194.33.42. According to our analysis, it is visited by 269 visitors daily. It holds an alexa rank of 495,902 and has a pagerank of 5. The website is in English and its content might not be safe for family (could be adult). No malware was detected on the website.
[I do not pretend to know what this means, but I am delighted to discover that the blog's content could be adult and not safe for family.]
Lockerbiecase.blogspot.com is None and located on the IP 173.194.33.42. According to our analysis, it is visited by 269 visitors daily. It holds an alexa rank of 495,902 and has a pagerank of 5. The website is in English and its content might not be safe for family (could be adult). No malware was detected on the website.
[I do not pretend to know what this means, but I am delighted to discover that the blog's content could be adult and not safe for family.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)