Iain McKie on criminal justice

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

Lockerbie probe appeal at Holyrood

[This is the headline over a report on the Carrick Gazette website (and on the websites of a number of other local newspapers). It reads in part:]

Campaigners calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber are taking their case to the Scottish Parliament.

About 1,500 people have signed a petition by the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) pressure group calling on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction. [RB: The actual number is 1646, from more than thirty countries, although the petition was actually available for signature online for only fifteen of the planned twenty days.]

Members of the group will appear before Holyrood's petitions committee on Tuesday,including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the disaster.

Dr Swire said: "It is imperative that the Scottish Government open an inquiry under its own auspices to deal with the corrosive and deeply damaging effects the Lockerbie case has had upon the Scottish criminal justice system." (...)

The petition has already attracted the support of Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, as well as Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Have I Got News for You? TV star Ian Hislop.

The witnesses appearing before MSPs will also include Edinburgh University Emeritus Scots Law Professor Robert Black, an architect of the the non-jury Lockerbie trial under Scots Law in the neutral Netherlands in 2000, who has since slammed the verdict as a "miscarriage of justice."

Megrahi dropped a second appeal against his conviction in the run-up to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to free him on compassionate grounds.

But campaigners say they could possibly try to pick up Megrahi's appeal against conviction if he died.

[A similar report appears on the Newsnet Scotland website; the BBC News website's report can be read here.

Anne McLaughlin MSP's Indygal Goes to Holyrood blog has a post headed Justice for Megrahi petition in Parliament Tuesday. It reads as follows:]

As a member of the Petitions Committee in Parliament I am particularly looking forward to tomorrow's meeting. We will hear evidence from Jim Swire, father of Flora who was one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. He'll be presenting evidence in support of his petition calling for an enquiry into the conviction of Megrahi. He'll do so alongside Professor Robert Black and Iain McKie, father of Shirley.

I've met Iain McKie a couple of times through previous work and found him to be both charismatic and inspirational. And of course Jim Swire has to be one of the most compassionate people ever. I don't know if they have a point in claiming that Megrahi is innocent. What I do know is that it would be all too easy (and understandable) for Mr Swire to accept Megrahi's guilt and put all of his negativity energy in that direction.

But he didn't accept it. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of the conviction and as you can see is campaigning for an enquiry into it. I guess it's important to him that they get the right person but how tempting must it have been to turn a blind eye and blame the man with the conviction?

The other thing that occurs to me is that tomorrow, as I imagine is always the case, he will give evidence and in the recesses of his mind will be this image of his daughter, his flesh and blood, a young woman with a zest for life who only got to live for 24 years. That pain must never leave him and for that reason I am in awe of him and have nothing but the deepest respect.

You can watch the evidence session at 2pm [on Tuesday;] click here and scroll down to Petitions.

Investigation into Lockerbie prosecutors nearing completion

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

Retired detectives, former prosecutors who now serve as judges and expert

witnesses in the Lockerbie case will learn early in the new year if they will be
charged with criminal conduct.

Police Scotland said yesterday that Operation Sandwood, their investigation

into claims of criminality by investigators and prosecutors, was at the reporting
stage and was well advanced.

The evidence uncovered will set the ball rolling on what could be the final act

in the drama surrounding the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which claimed
the lives of 270 people on December 21, 1988.

As the police team conducted their inquiries investigators working for the family

of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing who died in 2012,
made a breakthrough.

Scientific tests carried out on the most crucial piece of evidence in the case,

a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that enabled prosecutors to link
Libya to the bombing, suggested strongly that it was a fake.

This means that the family will continue to push for the Scottish Criminal Cases

Review Commission to refer the case back to the court of appeal to try to clear
al-Megrahi’s name.

The Sandwood team, led by Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, is taking

advice from an independent QC.

Police Scotland took the view when the allegations were made by the Justice

for Megrahi (JfM) pressure group that it could not be led by the Crown Office as
many of the claims related to the office’s conduct.

The final report, with recommendations about any potential prosecutions, will be

with the Lord Advocate James Wolffe, QC, by February.

The Sandwood team has faced a difficult and sensitive task because it has had

to investigate the conduct of people at the heart of the Scottish justice system.
It would not be unprecedented for former police officers to face charges, and
the forensic experts under scrutiny have already been discredited through their
conduct in other trials, notably a number of IRA cases where verdicts were
reversed on appeals.

However, it would send shockwaves through the system if any of the prosecutors i

n the case, two now sitting as High Court judges and one as a sheriff, faced
questions about their integrity.

Iain McKie, a former police superintendent and now a key figure in JfM, said:

“We have been impressed by Police Scotland and the way in which Iain Livingstone
and others have dealt with this matter and kept us informed.

“If they have established there was criminality, they won’t shy away from it.

I fully believe that. But the problem might be that ultimately it would still be for
the Crown to make a final decision after considering the police report.”

It is likely that if any charges do result, the forensic experts in the case would be

the most likely targets, and the new evidence uncovered by the al-Megrahi family’s
legal team would support that strongly. One of the experts testified at the trial
that the timer fragment was “similar in every respect” to a set of timers supplied
to Libya.

However, it has emerged that while the timers supplied to Libya contained

a tin/lead alloy, the fragment came from a timer made of pure tin. It also yielded
absolutely no explosives residue when tested, so had never been at the seat of
an explosion.

Gareth Peirce, the lawyer who helped clear the Birmingham Six and the

Guildford Four, said: “[They were] the same forensic scientists who produced
the wrongful conviction of Giuseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of
Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played.

“Yet here they were. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far

less a conviction in Lockerbie.”

Al-Megrahi’s elder son, Khaled, said: “We are sure that our cause is right and

we will prevail no matter how long. We know one day the truth will come out.
We will never stop our work to make sure of it.”

Personal statements from members of JFM Committee on importance of petition

[Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm today publishes a long article, prepared by Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester, which includes statements from Ian Hamilton QC and from JFM committee members Jim Swire, Iain McKie and Robert Black. Mr McKie's statement reads as follows:]

The Police Officer

I have had some interesting discussions with family members and friends who understandably feel, not knowing the full background, that they cannot fault the Megrahi conviction. It is very hard for them to accept that cover-up and corruption might be integral to the police investigation and eventual conviction. Others suffer from ‘Lockerbie fatigue’ and feel that the cost of an inquiry with cutbacks in the offing is a step too far.

As an ex-police officer this has also been hard for me to cope with and it has taken years of enquiry, (and the suffering of my daughter Shirley Mckie), to satisfy myself that from beginning to end the whole affair was overshadowed by incompetence and political and other interests intent on ensuring that the truth was never known. My answer to the doubters is, I suppose, it is a question of how highly we value justice? For me one resolvable injustice is the mark of a country in decline. I continue to believe that if, as a society, we accept injustice on the Lockerbie scale then we had better all watch our backs.

My involvement with the JFM committee is driven by a need to know that the investigative and prosecution process that led our judges to their conclusion that Mr. Megrahi was guilty of destroying the lives of 270 victims and their families was right and just. No, the UK and American governments will not want this and will do everything but co-operate but I firmly believe that a Scottish based inquiry will satisfy my hopes and aspirations for our Scottish justice system.

Fourth meeting between Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland

[What follows is a précis of the fourth meeting held between the Justice for Megrahi Police Scotland Liaison Group and officers of Police Scotland at Tulliallan on 24th November 2014. Reports on the earlier meetings can be found here and here and here.]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JfM):  Iain McKie; James Robertson.

Police Scotland: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone; Detective Chief Inspector Scott Cunningham.

Apologies: Len Murray.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Agenda:

This is the fourth meeting held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JfM in respect of the ongoing investigation by Police Scotland into JfM’s complaint of 9 criminal allegations made in September 2012.

DCC Livingstone introduced the meeting and welcomed those present whilst acknowledging the apology sent by Len Murray due to illness.

He referred to the previous meeting held on 29th September 2014; despite neither himself nor James Robertson being present, he acknowledged this still provided opportunity for meaningful dialogue and discussion on the progress of the enquiry and that much of the discussion at the last meeting focused on what is essentially the conclusion, meantime, of enquiries into Allegation 8.

It was agreed by both parties that the précis of the last meeting was accurate for submission to the Justice Committee and DCC Livingstone confirmed he would update the JC convener’s clerk.  The confidential meeting record was also discussed to be agreed.

DCC Livingstone confirmed that a meeting with the appointed independent QC had been arranged for early December 2014 to discuss the draft report in relation to Allegation 8.

D Supt Johnstone referred to the close relationship between Police Scotland and JfM; this allowed for open and frank discussion which had been, and would continue to be recorded in an agreed confidential record of meetings, with also a subsequent agreed précis for public release.  JfM were in full agreement with this and emphasised the importance of keeping certain discussions confidential.

DCC Livingstone reiterated that consideration was ongoing in terms of the necessity and proportionality of interviewing witnesses, and that the matter of interviewing witnesses would be considered by the investigating officers and actioned if deemed necessary.  JfM, acknowledging this, however stated they expected in principle that witnesses would require to be interviewed at some stage.

DCC Livingstone added that as these were unique circumstances the appointment of an independent QC provided the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to Crown Office, which was clearly not the normal procedure.  It was again emphasised that this was a key relationship and preparatory work was underway prior to the next formal meeting with the QC.  

JfM highlighted their desire to discuss the findings of the police investigation at the conclusion and acknowledged although they may not be in full agreement or entirely satisfied with the findings, they appreciated a thorough investigation was ongoing.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that the analytical research had been opened out and wider reaching including analysis of publications by Morag Kerr, John Ashton along with the JfM allegations.  A document listing 64 assertions had been compiled which was particularly complex and included key areas of forensics, 3 airports security and movement of baggage.  This was identified as the largest body of work due to the sheer volume of information and documentation.

D Supt Johnstone highlighted that there was a good relationship with the SCCRC who are assisting the police investigation with providing relevant documentation and information, where necessary.

Police Scotland also confirmed that to date, there has been no dialogue with Crown Office in relation to the police investigation into the 9 allegations made by JfM.

JfM emphasised that it was critical that the present level of trust was maintained with Police Scotland and that this should not be jeopardised by either party.

Although not directly linked to their criminal allegations JfM raised concerns about a perceived lack of follow up treatment by the authorities for police officers and others who had been traumatised as a result of their Lockerbie related duties. It appeared as if a number had suffered from post traumatic stress and other psychological and emotional reactions and these effects had not been effectively monitored and treated by the various responsible authorities. They felt that these issues were worthy of recognition and comment. DCC Livingstone acknowledged this concern and outlined how Police Scotland were alert to such issues and had built in welfare procedures to identify, diagnose and care for those officers who suffered such reactions.

The JfM representatives asked Police Scotland to confirm in respect of their enquiries into the ‘timer’ fragment found at Lockerbie, whose provenance had subsequently been challenged by JfM in their allegations, that should these challenges be upheld, would further enquiry then be made into the evidence of the witnesses who allegedly found the fragment and who had subsequently handled and analysed it.

DCC Livingstone explained that while he would not go into detail about any aspect of their investigation, no legitimate lines of enquiry arising from their investigations would be excluded.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that a specific timeline was being compiled in relation to ‘evidence’ related to the “bomb” used in the atrocity.

The matter of forensic issues and experts was raised by JfM. D Supt Johnstone explained there were several areas which would require independent forensic experts.

In terms of the projection of the police investigation, D Supt Johnstone indicated this would progress well into 2015.  Additional expert support was being provided by the National Crime Agency emphasising the degree of specialist support to the police investigation.

Conclusion

JFM representatives stated they were satisfied with the updates and with the process whereby a confidential record of discussions is maintained and circulated to both parties, and an agreed précis released to the public.  It was agreed to hold the next meeting around February 2015.

Both parties agreed that the positive relationship and mutual trust which had been built was apparent and that the discussions continued to be open, frank and extremely beneficial.

Progress report on investigation of JFM criminality allegations

[What follows is a précis of the third meeting held between the Justice for Megrahi Police Scotland Liaison Group and officers of Police Scotland at Tulliallan on 29th September 2014. It has only just been finally agreed between the participants. Reports on the earlier meetings can be found here and here. A further meeting between the two organisations took place on Monday of this week, 24 November 2014, and a précis of this most recent meeting will be forthcoming as soon as it is available.]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JfM):  Iain McKie; Len Murray.

Police Scotland: Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone; Detective Chief Inspector Scott Cunningham.

Apologies: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; James Robertson.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

This is the third meeting held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JfM in respect of the ongoing investigation by Police Scotland into JfM’s 9 criminal allegations made in September 2012.

D Supt Johnstone introduced the meeting and welcomed those present. He reiterated this forum was appropriate and necessary for Police Scotland and JfM to have full and frank discussion on related matters and also provide an update in relation to the 9 criminal allegations. Today’s discussions would predominantly be on allegation 8. [RB: This allegation relates to the processes and procedures whereby Abdelbaset Megrahi was “identified” as the purchaser from Mary’s House in Malta of items that accompanied the bomb in the Samsonite suitcase.]

It was agreed from the outset that the content of the meeting would be recorded and that a (i) confidential record and subsequent (ii) disclosable record would be agreed by both Police Scotland and JfM prior to release into the public domain.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that in response to the call for “a full forensic examination” in relation to allegation 8, this phase of the investigation was nearing completion and a “draft” report was being compiled which would be submitted to DCC Livingstone prior to being presented to the appointed Independent QC.

It was confirmed that this ‘draft’ report in relation to allegation 8 would be retained and added to the composite report when the police enquiries into all 9 allegations were complete and prior to its submission to the Crown Office.

JfM acknowledged this and highlighted that the content of their complaint in relation to allegation 8 had purposely been a “silent challenge” and kept narrow in anticipation that the police would identify and unravel other key areas worthy of investigation. That they had was encouraging to the JfM representatives.

JfM asked if timelines had been created. D Supt Johnstone confirmed that timelines had been produced for several themes.

A section was being included covering police procedures, policies and practices along with further information and reference to the Lord Advocate’s guidelines and rules of disclosure, then and now.

JfM questioned if identification procedures were now different and whether best practice was “not” displayed.  D Supt Johnstone explained that the procedures had not changed much in this regard and the findings would be provided at the conclusion of the investigation.

JfM reiterated that they continued to have trust in Police Scotland and were totally satisfied with the level of commitment apparent in their investigations.

They continued however to have no faith in the Crown Office to make an objective assessment of the Police Report.

The matter of interviewing witnesses, some of whom would be potentially hostile, was raised again by JfM. Police Scotland explained as in any enquiry the question of what witnesses to interview would be a consideration for the investigating officers.

The police representatives then outlined issues related to other allegations and the enquiry they were undertaking.

JfM enquired regarding the anticipated timescale of the investigation. D Supt Johnstone explained that it was very likely to continue well into 2015 and ultimately acknowledged that there remained several months of work ahead. The decision of the SCCRC in relation to the latest appeal may have an impact and add to the significance and length of this inquiry.

JfM raised ongoing concerns regarding outside influence in terms of any external political pressure from the Crown Office, independent QC and SCCRC.  D Supt Johnstone reaffirmed that there had been no political interference, no contact with the Crown, the independent QC would be consulted in the coming days and there had been no direct contact at this time from the SCCRC.

The involvement of the Justice Committee (JC) was discussed. Committee members were provided with a précis of the last meeting by JfM.  D Supt Johnstone confirmed a covering letter from DCC Livingstone would be submitted following today’s meeting confirming there was ongoing positive liaison between both parties.  Generally both parties were content with the involvement of the JC and JfM saw the political oversight of the committee as important given the seriousness of the matters under investigation.

Conclusion

JFM representatives stated they were totally satisfied with the updates and had trust in Police Scotland to fully investigate their complaints.

Both parties agreed that the discussions had been open, frank and extremely useful, and gave a commitment to maintain this positive relationship.

Report on meeting with police investigating JFM's criminality allegations

[What follows is the text of a report by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary Robert Forrester to JFM signatory members, following yesterday’s meeting with the police officers appointed to investigate JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct by persons involved in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial.]

As you will all be very much aware, representatives of the Justice for Megrahi Committee yesterday met with members of the police team leading the investigation into the eight JFM allegations of criminality levelled at forensic, legal and police officials involved in the Lockerbie investigation and subsequent Zeist trial. Although JFM had requested that these complaints be studied by a body independent of Lockerbie/Zeist, Justice Secretary MacAskill left us with no alternative but to submit them to the Scottish police and Crown Office; members of both groups bodies are, of course, accused of perverting the course of justice by us. These allegations were handed over to the then Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Patrick Shearer, in November 2012, an addendum being added in March 2013. Yesterday's meeting was the first face to face contact JFM has had with the police investigating team.

For the purpose of providing context, I [refer to] the explanatory outline document covering the allegations, which we put together at the end of last year to provide assistance to journalists and others. The document may be accessed via this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117745379/Allegations-Outline-for-Press-1. I also [give a link to] a summary of the addendum to the allegations, entitled 'Fundamental Error'. The JFM Committee is, for obvious legal reasons, unable to publish the full allegations document and, moreover, as the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee has yet to publish the redacted version of this document, we have no intention of releasing it in advance of its appearance on the parliamentary website. Finally, I [give a link to] the JFM briefing paper used as a reference by us during the meeting. Copies of this were provided to the officers present.

The JFM delegation for yesterday's meeting consisted of Superintendent of Police (Rtd) Iain McKie and myself. Those representing the police investigators were the head of the investigating team, Deputy Chief Constable Patrick Shearer, and Chief Inspector William Sturgeon (Complaints). Mr Shearer was, prior to the amalgamation of the eight Scottish police forces on 1st April, the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary.

The meeting was both positive and very constructive, albeit within the confines of a highly fraught situation. In the brief initial stage, both parties approached each other with caution but very soon a relaxed atmosphere was established in which Iain and I felt able to express ourselves freely, frankly and openly. In short, we did not mince our words on the subject of the independence of the investigation into our allegations, and the fact that we were highly pessimistic about its prospects given that the matter ultimately has the shadow of Crown Office cast over it. We made our position clear that we bore nothing personal against DCC Shearer, his team and the integrity of his investigation since he has never given us cause to distrust him, and until such takes place, we put our faith in him to do his job without fear, favour and prejudice.  However, we roundly pilloried Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland for the manner in which he has comported himself by vilifying JFM via 'the court of public opinion': particularly in The Scotsman on 24th September 2012 and The Times (Scotland Edition) on 21st December 2012 (as per outlined in our briefing paper - see attached). We additionally condemned the Lord Advocate for bringing disrepute upon his office due to his irresponsible conduct, and failing to reach the standards of conduct expected of prosecutors as laid down by the The International Association of Prosecutors' Standard of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors.

Furthermore, we made it plain that we were particularly disappointed in Justice Secretary MacAskill's failure to exercise his powers under sections 1 and 28 of the 2005 Inquiries Act, which enable him to appoint a body independent of Lockerbie/Zeist to investigate our allegations. In brief, DCC Shearer could not have left yesterday's encounter with any uncertainties about our message and its sentiment (as expressed in the briefing paper). It should be pointed out in passing that, because of the way the meeting developed, we did not deliver it in one continuous 'sermon' but more in an organic but focussed manner as the discussion took form.

At the start of the meeting, DCC Shearer came over as being rather apprehensive regarding how he thought we had been intending to deal with the arrangements for the interviews to be held on the specific allegations. If I understood correctly, he seemed to have been given the impression that he was going to have to be dealing with the entire JFM Committee every time an interview on an individual allegation took place. However, once we had managed to allay his fears and explained our plans (see briefing paper), he was noticeably more relaxed. Nonetheless, he maintained an understandably cautious but very friendly reserve throughout. From a practical standpoint, he seems happy with our plans to have our five chosen witnesses speaking to the eight allegations, for our legal [adviser], to be present at the interviews and for them to be recorded. 

In respect of the process, he stated that he was performing an initial document search before interviewing JFM, and following that, he will move on to interviewing the accused. He also made the important point that it would facilitate the investigation if we had any other documents we wished to add to the two already in his possession that we do so sooner rather than later. It was very encouraging and perfectly clear for us to see that in a rather busy period for him, what with the amalgamation of the forces to deal with, DCC Shearer has done a considerable amount of background work on the allegations since they were submitted. On other matters, he also said he would be providing us with updates on the basis of any significant developments taking place in the investigation. Moreover, he emphasised that he wanted to see consistency and continuity in terms of the staffing and other aspects of the investigations, which is a positive sign. The impression was given of someone who is interested in the task and will be committed, thorough and keen that everything be done strictly by the book. Although DCC Shearer will be retiring in October, he gave us strong grounds for believing that there would be seamless consistency in standards and approach despite this.

Chief Inspector William Sturgeon wrote up a provisional report of the meeting and I have now supplied him with further material on our group to assist him in completing it. Once he has typed it up, we will have complete editorial control over its content. 

DCC Shearer impressed us as someone with whom we found it easy to develop a positive rapport, even on the basis of this brief initial encounter. The massive difficulty we all have, not just JFM but the police too in my view, is the spectre of Chambers Street (The Crown Office - to whom DCC Shearer ultimately has to report his findings).

We conducted interviews afterwards with ITV Border News journalist Matthew Taylor. In them we covered a range of elements relating to JFM, the call for an inquiry and our allegations, however, the actual piece which was broadcast is extremely brief. Having said that, it is accurate, and considerably better than no media attention at all. Follow the link below to see the piece:

http://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2013-04-16/full-report-megrahi-campaigners-meet-investigators/

It is noteworthy that the Crown's comment on this meeting, as elicited by Matthew Taylor, was: "The allegations made by Justice for Megrahi are being considered by DCC Shearer in accordance with due process and it would be inappropriate to offer comment at this stage". We find this new found reserve a welcome departure from the excesses we have become accustomed to emanating from the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, perhaps reflecting the fact that some of the allegations may be posing one or two complications for Chambers Street.

I apologise for the volume of material contained in this mail. You will appreciate, however, that after almost six months of apparently little or no activity evident at our end, this meeting carries some significance for our group.

We will be sending a report on this meeting to the Justice Committee.

Justice for Megrahi petition again on Justice Committee agenda

[At its meeting on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will again consider Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling on the Scottish Government to institute an independent inquiry into the prosecution, trial and conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (agenda item 4).  The papers for the meeting can be read here.  Among them (last three pages of the document) is a report from Police Scotland on the meeting held on 2 April 2014 with representatives of Justice for Megrahi to discuss progress on the police investigation into JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. It reads as follows:]

MEETING SUMMARY

Police Scotland and Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Tulliallan Castle: Wednesday 2nd April 2014.

Present:

Police Scotland: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone.

Justice for Megrahi (JFM): Iain McKie; Len Murray; James Robertson.

The meeting was held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JFM in

respect of the ongoing police investigation into JFM’s 9 criminal allegations, with

both parties keen to resolve the recent difficulties and use the meeting as a positive

basis to move forward.

In a full and frank discussion, JFM expressed their concern at the progress of the

investigation to date, the lack of feedback in this regard and sought to restore and

maintain mutual confidence through regular liaison. In acknowledgement of the JFM

position, DCC Livingstone reiterated that Sir Stephen House had stated his priority

was an efficient and effective investigation into the allegations and that DCC

Livingstone had been appointed to ensure that this was delivered. Regular liaison

between Police Scotland and JFM was welcomed and would serve to underline this

commitment.

Police Scotland provided a brief synopsis of the extent of the investigations into the

allegations, to date, with some reassurance through emphasis of the high standard

of work and level of detail applied by Mr Shearer prior to his retirement. This work, in

turn, has been subject to independent scrutiny and review, the opinion of which will

help inform the enquiry as it moves forward. This update and explanation was

welcomed by JFM, and served to dispel some misconceptions that the allegations

were not being effectively investigated.

A robust governance structure is now in place, with the appointment of Detective

Superintendent Johnstone as senior investigating officer, to progress work on the

allegations, as directed by Deputy Chief Constable, Crime and on behalf of the Chief

Constable. The enquiry is now being managed through established major incident

procedures, with immediate effect. This methodology was welcomed by the JFM

Liaison Group, and provided an assurance that the enquiry was being robustly

managed, and following established major enquiry processes. A dedicated enquiry

team of selected officers is being appointed under Detective Superintendent

Johnstone, whose full-time remit and responsibility is now the investigation into the

allegations.

JFM stated that they could find no justification in the August 2013 decision to delay

enquiry into allegations 5, 6 and 7, and also challenged the implication, in the Chief

Constable’s letter to JFM dated 20th February 2014, that effectively investigation into

all 9 allegations had been temporarily halted because of this ‘conflict’. The delay had

arisen because of a perceived ‘conflict’ with investigations being carried out by the

Crown Office/Police team seeking evidence against Abdelbaset al Megrahi and

possible others in relation to the downing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270

persons. JFM could see no good reason why the allegations could not be

investigated in parallel with the other Libyan enquiries. It was highlighted that on two

occasions the Justice Committee had been informed that the ‘conflict’ would shortly

be resolved and investigation would be restarted. This had not happened. JFM

maintained that far from being in conflict a number of their allegations actually had

relevance to the separate Crown enquiry.

Police Scotland noted JFM’s position and stated that following liaison between Mr

Shearer and the Crown Office conflict between the two enquiries had been identified

and thus delays occurred in progressing certain of the allegations. It was not

possible to share the exact detail of that conflict due to operational security. The

current position was that, of now, a full investigation of JFM’s allegations was

resuming and that it was accepted that in some aspects the two separate enquiries

had common threads running through them that would require to be examined.

However, should such conflicts present themselves the live investigation will at all

times take precedent. This will not, however, preclude the full, proper, and timeous

investigation to the JFM allegations.

The need for regular liaison was recognised as being an important factor if mutual

confidence was to be restored and maintained during the investigative process. JFM

undertook to be available as required to assist the ongoing investigation, and

proposed the formation of a ‘Liaison Group’ charged with responsibility for

maintaining close police links. While inviting the JFM representatives to contact the

enquiry team at any time Police Scotland indicated that they welcomed the concept

of a ‘Liaison Group’ whereby trust and mutual confidence could develop. They would

institute a series of regular meetings shortly where there would be an opportunity to

meet and review. JFM agreed to this proposal but made it clear that as an

organisation with a specific aim (i.e. ‘Justice for Megrahi’) it reserved the right to

challenge the police during the ongoing liaison. Given the length of time that had

already passed, JFM stated that further unexplained or unreasonable delays in the

investigation would not be acceptable.

In conclusion, JFM representatives stated that while they had reservations about the

way their allegations had been handled in the past they were confident that today’s

discussions would prove to be an excellent basis for moving the investigation

forward. Police Scotland underlined their total commitment to the investigation and

their determination that these high priority allegations would be effectively

investigated.

Both parties agreed that the discussions had been open, frank and extremely useful,

and gave a commitment to build on this accord. Police Scotland and JFM agreed

that further liaison meetings will be held in future.

[[A paper by Justice for Megrahi has been submitted explaining its reasons for contending that the Committee should keep the petition open. This paper does not yet appear on the Justice Committee’s webpage.]