The Herald today publishes a letter from Christopher Frew in response to the letter from Dr Jim Swire published yesterday. It reads:
"Further to Dr Jim Swire's detailed and dignified letter (June 2) on the Lockerbie appeal, there is one aspect which I think invites re-examination.
That is the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate signed by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who has said that disclosing the two confidential documents would cause 'real harm' to national security.
The role of PII certificates in court proceedings seems to straddle uneasily the pillars of the judicial and the political structures. May I suggest merely that we keep in mind two precedents: first, the scathing comments by the judiciary on the blocking of the BAE inquiry, where political expedience was allowed to take precedence over due process; and, secondly, the case of the Matrix Churchill prosecutions, where four ministers (Clarke, Rifkind, Garel-Jones for Hurd and Heseltine) signed PII certificates.
Michael Heseltine, to his credit, made his reservations clear, both to officials and in the wording particular to his PII. The whole affair can be studied in various books, notably Truth Is A Difficult Concept: Inside the Scott Inquiry, by Richard Norton Taylor (Guardian Books, 1995).
An illuminating quote as to the government view comes in that case from an assistant Treasury solicitor, Andrew Leithead: 'It is damaging to the public interest to have any decision-making process expanded.'
Let us hope the judges have a more enlightened view as to the public interest."
The comments from members of the public that follow the letter are also worth reading.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "public interest immunity" miliband. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "public interest immunity" miliband. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday 3 June 2008
Saturday 27 May 2017
Sidelining Megrahi’s chosen lawyers
The Westminster Government set out a "remarkable" proposal yesterday for judges to go into private session during a preliminary hearing in the Lockerbie bomber's appeal.
Under the plan, claimed to be in the interests of national security, not only would the public be excluded, but Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's legal team would also be denied entry. He is seeking access to a classified document, and a vetted lawyer would be appointed to represent his interests at the hearing.
The behind-closed-doors session of the Court of Criminal Appeal would be the first of its kind in Scotland.
"This may initially seem remarkable, and I accept that," said Lord Davidson, QC, the Advocate-General for Scotland, on behalf of the foreign secretary, David Miliband. "This is an area of very considerable difficulty and one forced on the government because of extraordinarily difficult times...in the prevention of terrorism," he added.
Megrahi's lawyers are expected to give their response to the proposal today. (...)
[Megrahi] lost an appeal in 2002, but last year the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the appeal court. One of the reasons cited was that there may have been a miscarriage of justice because the Crown had not disclosed to the defence a document which an unidentified country, not the United States, had provided to the UK government in 1996. It is understood the paper relates to the timer alleged to have been fitted in the bomb.
Megrahi's defence team petitioned the appeal court, seeking access to the document and related papers. In response, Mr Miliband issued a public interest immunity (PII) certificate, stating: "It would cause real harm to the national security of the UK because of damage to counter-terrorism liaison and intelligence gathering between the UK and other states."
The appeal court has said there should be a hearing to consider the merits of the foreign secretary's public interest immunity plea. The current hearing is to determine the procedure to be followed at the hearing on the merits.
Lord Davidson said the Government was entitled to take steps to protect UK security.
His proposal was that the document be disclosed to a five-strong appeal Bench and a "special representative" who would look after Megrahi's interests.
Sunday 15 February 2009
The FCO and public interest immunity
‘The Foreign Office (FCO) solicited the letter from the US State Department that forced British judges to block the disclosure of CIA files documenting the torture of a British resident held in Guantánamo Bay, The Observer can reveal.
‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.
‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)
‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."
‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’
The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.
The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.
‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.
‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)
‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."
‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’
The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.
The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.
Friday 22 May 2015
Public interest immunity and security-vetted counsel
Prosecutors will next week attempt to throw an unprecedented veil of secrecy over the appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.
If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case.
However, the tactic will fuel suspicions that the Crown is going to unusual lengths to preserve the UK's current diplomatic relations with other nations.
The paperwork, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in the skies over Lockerbie.
It is not known if political pressure has been exercised directly on the Crown, but there have been previous instances in the Megrahi case where Britain's changed attitudes to foreign states since 1988 have played a key role in the legal process.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has already said the document should remain confidential.
It was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer. The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose the document could constitute a miscarriage of justice. Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material, it has refused to disclose it to Megrahi's defence team.
The Crown's latest move is expected to anger further his lawyers, who believe the failure to disclose the document calls into question the ultimate right to a fair appeal.
The request will be made on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal when the decision on whether to grant the defence access to the document is to be debated.
The Crown is expected to ask for the hearing to be held behind closed doors in the absence of the defence, who would be represented by special advocates. Public Interest Immunity hearings of this kind in criminal cases have previously been held only south of the border, where there is a statutory system in place, and a list of special advocates.
Megrahi's defence team has made it clear that it needs to see the document in order to proceed with the appeal, and has accused the UK Government of "interference" in the appeal.
If the prosecution denies access to the paper, Megrahi's lawyers are expected to argue that the conviction should be quashed because, without it, their client's right to a fair trial would be breached.
One legal expert said: "This is entirely unprecedented in Scotland."
A spokesman for the Crown Office said the court hearing is to be from from May 27 to 29 in Edinburgh. "It is not possible to provide further comment," he said.
[RB: It was, of course, the UK Government (represented by the then Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC) not the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office, that sought the appointment of a special security-vetted advocate. The court ultimately (and utterly wrongly) acceded to the request. If a further appeal takes place in consequence of the current application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, will the present UK government adopt the same attitude? And, if so, will a differently constituted judicial bench be as supine as its predecessor? By the time those become live issues it is to be hoped that Prime Minister David Cameron will have got round to appointing an Advocate General -- at the time of writing the only ministerial office yet to be filled in the new UK administration.]
Wednesday 8 March 2017
UK Government held entitled to claim public interest immunity
The defence team for the Libyan jailed for the Lockerbie bombing yesterday suffered a set-back in its attempts to get access to a top-secret document.
The document, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in 1988.
At the previous hearing, the UK Government said the document could not be disclosed for reasons of national security, leading the defence team to accuse it of "interference" in the appeal.
Margaret Scott QC, senior counsel for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan currently serving 27 years in Greenock prison for the bombing, objected to the Advocate General for Scotland - the law officer who represents the UK Government in Scottish affairs - playing a part in the debate.
She accused the government of meddling - an allegation hotly disputed by Lord Davidson, the Advocate General, and by Elish Angiolini QC, the Lord Advocate and head of prosecutions in Scotland.
However, yesterday the appeal judges ruled against her. Their decision opens the way for several days of future debate about whether letting lawyers see the document would have any security implications.
The Libyan's defence team say it needs to see the document in order for Megrahi to have a fair appeal.
Earlier this year, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was told that Ms Angiolini would be prepared to disclose the document but that has also been disputed.
The document itself was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer.
The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose this document, which is thought to contain information about the electronic timer used to detonate the bomb, could constitute a miscarriage of justice.
Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material they have refused to disclose it to the defence.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband claims the document should remain confidential.
Now Lord Davidson will be allowed to put the case for "public interest immunity", on his behalf, at a future hearing - for which no date has yet been set. The hearing of Megrahi's actual appeal is still months away.
Megrahi, who was jailed in 2001, was not in court yesterday - but the appeal judges have been told he would like to attend future appeal hearings.
Sunday 22 May 2016
MacAskill may have breached Official Secrets Act over Lockerbie
Former justice minister Kenny MacAskill has revealed details of highly classified secret document which casts serious doubt on the safety of the conviction of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has said that the revelation, which will appear in MacAskill's new book about the downing of Pan Am flight 103, 'might' constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
It is understood the FCO only became aware that top secret details were disclosed in MacAskill’s book when the Sunday Herald contacted the UK government about the revelations. Officials are now believed to be seeking legal advice.
The person who discloses information is guilty of an offence if they do so “without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure”.
In his book, The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, which is due to be released on Thursday, MacAskill reveals details of a secret document which implicates the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) in the Lockerbie bombing carried out on December 21 1988.
The PFLP-GC were the original suspects in the investigation into the biggest terrorist atrocity ever to have been committed in mainland Britain, which claimed the lives of 270 people, including 11 Lockerbie residents.
However, by 1991 police and prosecutors were entirely focused on Libya and in 2001 Megrahi – who was a former Libyan intelligence officer - was convicted of the bombing and sentenced to life in prison. (...)
The significance of the document which implicates the PFLP-GC is played down by MacAskill in his book but it does suggest others may have been involved in the bombing.
The details of the document are covered by a strict Whitehall gagging order. The document in question was the subject of a legal wrangle during Megrahi’s second appeal against conviction.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the High Court on the basis that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
That conclusion was reached after the SCCRC team that investigated Megrahi's conviction discovered the existence of the document during their four-year probe which concluded in 2007.
Their 800-page report explains that their investigative team were allowed to access the document in Dumfries police station but they were prevented from removing the notes they made on it and the document itself.
The SCCRC was only able to access the document after signing up to a special agreement not to divulge the contents and was told by the Crown that “a conclusion was reached that the documents did not require to be disclosed in terms of the Crown's obligations”.
When Megrahi’s defence team pushed for the recovery of the information the Lord Advocate took the view that it would be appropriate to disclose the document.
However, the Advocate General, representing the UK government, produced a public interest immunity (PII) certificate signed by then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, which blocked the disclosure on the grounds of national security.
A spokeswoman for the FCO confirmed that “the [PII] certificate is still active” and “if the material protected by the certificate were disclosed, it might constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act.”
She added: “It would be for the publisher of the book to seek their own legal advice about any legal risks they are running.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “This is a matter for the publisher to advise upon.”
In 2012 the UK Government went to great lengths to prevent our sister paper The Herald revealing details of the document.
It threatened legal action to stop publication and asked the paper to sign up to a court-approved gagging order.
At that time only the Crown, UK Government and SCCRC team knew the contents of the closely guarded document.
The Herald did publish some details which implicated the PFLP-GC, and revealed that the document originated in Jordan.
MacAskill, however, has gone much further, naming key individuals who were party to the contents of the document, and the potential security ramifications of its release into the public domain.
The Sunday Herald has chosen - after consultation with our lawyers - not to publish the full details of the document despite knowing its contents.
Co-founder of campaigning organisation Lockerbie Truth, Dr Jim Swire, 80, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions about the potential involvement of the PFLP-GC.
He said: “It’s exactly what the relatives of the victims have thought for many years. I hope that the book is published without interference. It may lead us to find ways of breaking through the refusal to look again at the evidence used to convict Megrahi.
“This sort of thing - pointing to official knowledge of the real perpetrators - could be absolutely crucial.”
A Crown Office spokesman said: “The Crown has had no involvement in the publication of the former Cabinet Secretary’s book and cannot therefore comment on its content ahead of publication.
“The suggestion that the PFLP-GC was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing was fully considered by the trial court following the incrimination of this terrorist group by Megrahi during his trial and does nothing to undermine the Crown's case that Megrahi acted with others in the bombing of flight Pan Am 103. (...)”
When asked about the possible breach of the PII certificate, Victoria Gilder, Publicity Director at Biteback, the publisher of MacAskill’s book, said: “Sorry, I can’t comment on that because I don’t know anything about it.
“The book is embargoed until next week…you’re not supposed to run anything. It’s embargoed until Monday.”
Last night a Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the government department has not seen a copy of the book, but added: “We take the protection of material covered by Public Interest Immunity certificates extremely seriously.”
Monday 24 March 2008
Dr Swire's article in The Scotsman
I am grateful to Dr Jim Swire for sending me the full text of the article that appeared in The Scotsman on 14 March (see post on that date on this blog). It reads as follows (the version in The Scotsman was slightly edited):
"The issues here are tied into the development of the Scottish devolution process, they involve a great deal more than the sanctity of Mr Megrahi's (described by your headline as 'the Lockerbie bomber') appeal process.
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr Miliband now claims cannot be divilged to the defence. This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has, as your article says, now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates(PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to either the defence or the public.
"Since a basic tenet of Scottish criminal law is 'equality of arms' between the defence and prosecution in a criminal case, it is hard to see how anyone can contend in the present circumstances that the 2nd appeal could be considered fair. Specially since the SCCRC seemed to be including the contents of these documents (which they had also been shown) in their reasons for referring the case back.
"PII certificates, carry as their justification and title, the interests of 'the public'. What may be at stake here, unless a solution is found in the High Court, is the freedom of the Scottish criminal system to be, and to be seen to be, independent of political control from Whitehall.
"If that absolute independance of Scottish law were not to be decisively established, and soon, it would be a black day indeed for the scottish public, which presumably Mr Miliband also claims to serve.
"The citizen needs to have faith in the independence and fairness of his judicial system, which he might need to use to protect himself from injustice imposed by his own government, let alone that in Westminster: selective disclosure to the prosecution in so grave a criminal case cannot be right."
"The issues here are tied into the development of the Scottish devolution process, they involve a great deal more than the sanctity of Mr Megrahi's (described by your headline as 'the Lockerbie bomber') appeal process.
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr Miliband now claims cannot be divilged to the defence. This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has, as your article says, now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates(PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to either the defence or the public.
"Since a basic tenet of Scottish criminal law is 'equality of arms' between the defence and prosecution in a criminal case, it is hard to see how anyone can contend in the present circumstances that the 2nd appeal could be considered fair. Specially since the SCCRC seemed to be including the contents of these documents (which they had also been shown) in their reasons for referring the case back.
"PII certificates, carry as their justification and title, the interests of 'the public'. What may be at stake here, unless a solution is found in the High Court, is the freedom of the Scottish criminal system to be, and to be seen to be, independent of political control from Whitehall.
"If that absolute independance of Scottish law were not to be decisively established, and soon, it would be a black day indeed for the scottish public, which presumably Mr Miliband also claims to serve.
"The citizen needs to have faith in the independence and fairness of his judicial system, which he might need to use to protect himself from injustice imposed by his own government, let alone that in Westminster: selective disclosure to the prosecution in so grave a criminal case cannot be right."
Sunday 9 October 2016
Sensitive information from a foreign government
[What follows is excerpted from a report published on this date in 2000 on the BBC News website:]
The Lockerbie trial is to be delayed again after "sensitive" information was given to the prosecution by a government.
In an unexpected development, Scotland's Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC told the judges on Monday it was impossible to proceed without further enquiries.
He gave few details to the court but confirmed that the information was related to the defence case and did not come from the United States.
Although some witnesses will be heard on Tuesday, the judges, with defence agreement, agreed then to adjourn the trial until Tuesday, 17 October.
On Monday the court at Camp Zeist in Holland was due to hear more evidence relating to the special defences of incrimination put forward by the two accused men.
They have denied all charges against them, blaming others for the atrocity including Mohamed Abo Talb, a former commander in the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front.
Talb, who was jailed for life in 1989 for bombing an airline's office in Copenhagen, was expected to give evidence as a prosecution witness on Monday.
The prosecution declined to comment further on the delay and a Crown Office spokesman said: "We can give no further information other than that given to the court by the lord advocate."
Mr Boyd told the court he had received the new information on Thursday and enquiries were carried out on Friday.
He said: "The matters raised by this information are of some complexity and considerable sensitivity. They relate not to the Crown case but to the defence case.
"Enquiries are continuing but it is likely, though not certain, that I will conclude that the information ought to be disclosed to the defence.
"However there are a number of difficult issues which require to be resolved before any disclosure is possible.
"The sensitivity of the enquiries is such that I am unable to give any further explanation at this stage."
Mr Boyd said it would be "inappropriate" to lead further Crown evidence relating to the special defences as the new information could have a bearing on the cross examination of witnesses.
William Taylor QC, defence counsel for Al Megrahi, told the judges he was "as much in the dark" as them about the reasons for the adjournment and therefore in no position to object to it.
However he added: "I am conscious that my client has now been in custody for some considerable time and any delay further extends that period."
Richard Keen QC, defending Fhimah, said: "It's obviously unfortunate the accused should have been in custody for one and a half years while 57 days of a trial has taken place.
"But the lord advocate was good enough to speak to myself and Mr Taylor before and I fully accept he has obligations incumbent on him in the public interest."
Presiding judge Lord Sutherland said that while a disruption to the proceedings was "unfortunate" the judges accepted the adjournment motion.
He said: "We will adjourn until next Tuesday for enquiries to be made. All we can do is express the hope that there will be sufficient time to resolve the difficulties."
[RB: I suspect that the document referred to above was not in fact provided to the defence at the Zeist trial and is the same document that was only disclosed six years later to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in respect of which the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its being revealed to Megrahi’s legal team for the subsequent appeal. The contents of the document were made public in a report in The Herald in June 2012. Kenny MacAskill made reference to it in his recent Lockerbie book: see Lockerbie: The bid to suppress evidence on this blog on 27 May 2016.]
The Lockerbie trial is to be delayed again after "sensitive" information was given to the prosecution by a government.
In an unexpected development, Scotland's Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC told the judges on Monday it was impossible to proceed without further enquiries.
He gave few details to the court but confirmed that the information was related to the defence case and did not come from the United States.
Although some witnesses will be heard on Tuesday, the judges, with defence agreement, agreed then to adjourn the trial until Tuesday, 17 October.
On Monday the court at Camp Zeist in Holland was due to hear more evidence relating to the special defences of incrimination put forward by the two accused men.
They have denied all charges against them, blaming others for the atrocity including Mohamed Abo Talb, a former commander in the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front.
Talb, who was jailed for life in 1989 for bombing an airline's office in Copenhagen, was expected to give evidence as a prosecution witness on Monday.
The prosecution declined to comment further on the delay and a Crown Office spokesman said: "We can give no further information other than that given to the court by the lord advocate."
Mr Boyd told the court he had received the new information on Thursday and enquiries were carried out on Friday.
He said: "The matters raised by this information are of some complexity and considerable sensitivity. They relate not to the Crown case but to the defence case.
"Enquiries are continuing but it is likely, though not certain, that I will conclude that the information ought to be disclosed to the defence.
"However there are a number of difficult issues which require to be resolved before any disclosure is possible.
"The sensitivity of the enquiries is such that I am unable to give any further explanation at this stage."
Mr Boyd said it would be "inappropriate" to lead further Crown evidence relating to the special defences as the new information could have a bearing on the cross examination of witnesses.
William Taylor QC, defence counsel for Al Megrahi, told the judges he was "as much in the dark" as them about the reasons for the adjournment and therefore in no position to object to it.
However he added: "I am conscious that my client has now been in custody for some considerable time and any delay further extends that period."
Richard Keen QC, defending Fhimah, said: "It's obviously unfortunate the accused should have been in custody for one and a half years while 57 days of a trial has taken place.
"But the lord advocate was good enough to speak to myself and Mr Taylor before and I fully accept he has obligations incumbent on him in the public interest."
Presiding judge Lord Sutherland said that while a disruption to the proceedings was "unfortunate" the judges accepted the adjournment motion.
He said: "We will adjourn until next Tuesday for enquiries to be made. All we can do is express the hope that there will be sufficient time to resolve the difficulties."
[RB: I suspect that the document referred to above was not in fact provided to the defence at the Zeist trial and is the same document that was only disclosed six years later to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in respect of which the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its being revealed to Megrahi’s legal team for the subsequent appeal. The contents of the document were made public in a report in The Herald in June 2012. Kenny MacAskill made reference to it in his recent Lockerbie book: see Lockerbie: The bid to suppress evidence on this blog on 27 May 2016.]
Monday 10 September 2012
David Miliband on Megrahi
"Al-Megrahi was the man behind the bombing," and "Al-Megrahi's release [in the Lockerbie bombing case] was obviously wrong," says former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband in an interview on Aljazeera English.
Mr Miliband has clearly not read John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury or Dr Morag Kerr’s Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction or watched Aljazeera’s documentary Lockerbie: Case Closed.
Until now David Miliband’s best-known contribution to the Lockerbie case was his signing of a public interest immunity (PII) certificate in the context of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s second appeal in an attempt to prevent disclosure of a document (relating to timers) that had been in the hands of the Crown since 1996 (before the Lockerbie trial) but which was never divulged to the defence (as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes it should have been). His conduct in this matter was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday Herald headlined Miliband has made Lockerbie appeal a mockery of justice.
Mr Miliband has clearly not read John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury or Dr Morag Kerr’s Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction or watched Aljazeera’s documentary Lockerbie: Case Closed.
Until now David Miliband’s best-known contribution to the Lockerbie case was his signing of a public interest immunity (PII) certificate in the context of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s second appeal in an attempt to prevent disclosure of a document (relating to timers) that had been in the hands of the Crown since 1996 (before the Lockerbie trial) but which was never divulged to the defence (as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes it should have been). His conduct in this matter was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday Herald headlined Miliband has made Lockerbie appeal a mockery of justice.
Sunday 13 July 2008
Scottish Sunday Express article
In today's Scottish Sunday Express there is an article by Ben Borland headlined "Lockerbie bomber to be freed". It tells of my speculation that Abdelbaset Megrahi could soon be freed because, if it is held that the mysterious document that the UK Government insists should not be disclosed, cannot be divulged to the defence, the Lord Advocate (who has said that, if it were up to her, the document would be handed over) might decide that the Crown could not, in conscience, proceed with opposing an appeal that would not, in the circumstances, be seen to be fair to Megrahi. The Sunday Express story in places hardens what was simply speculation on my part into something approaching fact. The article reads:
‘THE Lockerbie bomber is set to be sensationally freed on a “technicality” because of a controversial legal stalemate involving top secret documents.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 56, could even be released before the end of summer because of Westmin-ster’s refusal to make public the papers relating to the 1988 disaster.
Professor Robert Black – who helped orchestrate the Lockerbie trial – insists the Libyan, currently serving life in Greenock Prison, will be returned to his family long before the 20th anniversary of the disaster in December this year.
Scotland’s top judges are still deciding whether or not to release the secret document, which reportedly points the finger of blame at Iran for the atrocity that killed 270 people.
Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary David Miliband signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its content being revealed, saying it could harm the national interest.
Speculation is now growing the judges will rule it should remain classified, forcing Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini to free Megrahi because he
cannot have a fair appeal.
It would also avoid the need to hear any new evidence that may prove there was a miscarriage of justice or even a deliberate cover-up by the US and UK authorities.
Prof Black told the Sunday Express: “If the court says this document can’t be released in the normal way to the defence, then it is distinctly possible the Lord Advocate will say, if it cannot be seen that this appeal process is fair and open, it is better to say we will no longer oppose this appeal. Not because we believe Mr Megrahi is innocent, but because the appeal cannot be seen to be fair.”
The retired law professor added that such a “cynical” outcome would also avoid any renewed calls for a public inquiry.
The document is reportedly a German intelligence debriefing of an Iranian defector, who claimed Tehran paid a Palestinian terror cell to carry out the bombing, after the US accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, in 1988.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, yesterday said a full hearing would expose the “appalling collusion” of Britain and America.
He added: “There may be an attempt to remove the awkward problem of Megrahi by allowing him to return home and to remove the possibility of a public examination of the evidence.”
Such a move would be “a bit of a downer” to those still seeking the truth, Dr Swire added.'
‘THE Lockerbie bomber is set to be sensationally freed on a “technicality” because of a controversial legal stalemate involving top secret documents.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 56, could even be released before the end of summer because of Westmin-ster’s refusal to make public the papers relating to the 1988 disaster.
Professor Robert Black – who helped orchestrate the Lockerbie trial – insists the Libyan, currently serving life in Greenock Prison, will be returned to his family long before the 20th anniversary of the disaster in December this year.
Scotland’s top judges are still deciding whether or not to release the secret document, which reportedly points the finger of blame at Iran for the atrocity that killed 270 people.
Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary David Miliband signed a Public Interest Immunity certificate to prevent its content being revealed, saying it could harm the national interest.
Speculation is now growing the judges will rule it should remain classified, forcing Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini to free Megrahi because he
cannot have a fair appeal.
It would also avoid the need to hear any new evidence that may prove there was a miscarriage of justice or even a deliberate cover-up by the US and UK authorities.
Prof Black told the Sunday Express: “If the court says this document can’t be released in the normal way to the defence, then it is distinctly possible the Lord Advocate will say, if it cannot be seen that this appeal process is fair and open, it is better to say we will no longer oppose this appeal. Not because we believe Mr Megrahi is innocent, but because the appeal cannot be seen to be fair.”
The retired law professor added that such a “cynical” outcome would also avoid any renewed calls for a public inquiry.
The document is reportedly a German intelligence debriefing of an Iranian defector, who claimed Tehran paid a Palestinian terror cell to carry out the bombing, after the US accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, in 1988.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the attack, yesterday said a full hearing would expose the “appalling collusion” of Britain and America.
He added: “There may be an attempt to remove the awkward problem of Megrahi by allowing him to return home and to remove the possibility of a public examination of the evidence.”
Such a move would be “a bit of a downer” to those still seeking the truth, Dr Swire added.'
Friday 1 June 2018
Arguments for a Lockerbie inquiry
[Around a year after the abandonment by Abdelbaset Megrahi of his
representatives of UK Families Flight 103 had a meeting with the
Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, with a view
to pressing the case for an inquiry into Lockerbie. The Rev’d John
Mosey, a member of the group, has recently found amongst his papers
a briefing note that I wrote for the group before that meeting
containing suggestions for points that should be made to Mr MacAskill.
It reads as follows:]
1. The SCCRC findings are there. [RB: The Scottish Criminal Cases
Review Commission found in June 2007 that there were six grounds on
which Megrahi’s conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of
justice.] They cannot simply be ignored or swept under the carpet.
2. The SCCRC is not a body composed of conspiracy theorists. Nor are
those who have, like it, questioned the justifiability of the Zeist verdict.
Apart from a number of UK relatives, they include the UN observer
Dr Hans Koechler, Kate Adie, Ian Bell, Ian Hislop, Michael Mansfield QC,
Gareth Peirce, John Pilger, Kenneth Roy, and Desmond Tutu.
3. There is widespread public concern within Scotland regarding the
Megrahi conviction. Look at the letters that have been published, and
the readers' online comments that have followed articles, in eg The
Herald, The Scotsman and Newsnet Scotland. Public confidence in the
Scottish prosecution system and the Scottish criminal justice system
has been severely dented.
4. At the very least there must be an inquiry covering the six issues on
which the SCCRC found that there might have been a miscarriage of
justice. All of the material on the basis of which that conclusion was
reached is already in the hands of the SCCRC in Scotland. There is
therefore no justification for contending that a purely Scottish inquiry
would not be meaningful, and the UK relatives may soon be compelled
to begin saying so very publicly. In respect of some of the SCCRC
evidence the previous Foreign Secretary [David Miliband] asserted
public interest immunity. If the new Foreign Secretary [William Hague]
refused to allow that material to be laid before an independent Scottish
inquiry, he would open himself to public excoriation. And even an
inquiry limited to the mass of SCCRC material in respect of which no
PII issue arises would still be valuable.
5. If, as a spokesman for the First Minister has asserted, "the Scottish
Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi"
will the Scottish Government disband the Scottish Criminal Cases Review
Commission? This expert body has stated that on six grounds there are
reasons for believing that Megrahi may have been the victim of a
miscarriage of justice. On what grounds and on the basis of what
evidence does the Scottish Government expect the people of Scotland
and elsewhere to prefer its satisfaction with the conviction over the
SCCRC's doubts? If the Scottish Government has evidence that
establishes that the SCCRC's concerns are unjustified, laying it before
an independent inquiry would be the best way of getting it before the
public at home and abroad and allaying their concerns about the safety
of the Megrahi conviction.
6. At present the SNP, unlike the Labour and Conservative parties, has
clean hands over the Megrahi conviction. But unless it moves soon, the
opprobrium over that conviction will begin to attach to the SNP as well.
7. Moreover, establishing an inquiry, as the UK relatives wish, is
morally the right thing to do. Surely the Scottish Government wishes to
occupy the moral high ground?
8. It took 19 years for Scottish politicians and the Scottish criminal
justice system to rectify the miscarriage of justice suffered by Oscar
Slater. Does the Scottish Government really want to break that dismal
record in relation to the Megrahi case?
9. Until the Megrahi conviction is removed from the picture, it can be
used -- and is being used -- by governments and politicians as a reason
for denying relatives an independent inquiry into the whole Pan Am 103
affair. By establishing an inquiry covering the SCCRC concerns only, the
Scottish Government would deprive the UK Government of this very
convenient excuse.
10. It was Voltaire who said that the best is the enemy of the good. Of
course an inquiry convened under international auspices, or an inquiry
convened by the UK Government which has foreign relations powers,
would be better than one which would of necessity be limited to such
aspects of Lockerbie -- eg the police investigation, the prosecution, the
trial, the conviction, the SCCRC investigation and findings, the
applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release -- as are
within the competence of the Scottish Government. But the argument
that a good and useful thing should not be done because somebody
else could, if so minded, do a better and more useful thing is always
a bad argument. It is sad to see the Scottish Government resorting to it.
11. There are skeletons in the cupboard of Scottish and UK Labour
Governments in relation to the Lockerbie case. If the Scottish
Government falls in May 2011 into the hands of the Labour Party,
there is no prospect whatsoever of a serious investigation. They have
too much to hide. Our only hope is for the SNP Government to do the
right thing.
1. The SCCRC findings are there. [RB: The Scottish Criminal Cases
Review Commission found in June 2007 that there were six grounds on
which Megrahi’s conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of
justice.] They cannot simply be ignored or swept under the carpet.
2. The SCCRC is not a body composed of conspiracy theorists. Nor are
those who have, like it, questioned the justifiability of the Zeist verdict.
Apart from a number of UK relatives, they include the UN observer
Dr Hans Koechler, Kate Adie, Ian Bell, Ian Hislop, Michael Mansfield QC,
Gareth Peirce, John Pilger, Kenneth Roy, and Desmond Tutu.
3. There is widespread public concern within Scotland regarding the
Megrahi conviction. Look at the letters that have been published, and
the readers' online comments that have followed articles, in eg The
Herald, The Scotsman and Newsnet Scotland. Public confidence in the
Scottish prosecution system and the Scottish criminal justice system
has been severely dented.
4. At the very least there must be an inquiry covering the six issues on
which the SCCRC found that there might have been a miscarriage of
justice. All of the material on the basis of which that conclusion was
reached is already in the hands of the SCCRC in Scotland. There is
therefore no justification for contending that a purely Scottish inquiry
would not be meaningful, and the UK relatives may soon be compelled
to begin saying so very publicly. In respect of some of the SCCRC
evidence the previous Foreign Secretary [David Miliband] asserted
public interest immunity. If the new Foreign Secretary [William Hague]
refused to allow that material to be laid before an independent Scottish
inquiry, he would open himself to public excoriation. And even an
inquiry limited to the mass of SCCRC material in respect of which no
PII issue arises would still be valuable.
5. If, as a spokesman for the First Minister has asserted, "the Scottish
Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi"
will the Scottish Government disband the Scottish Criminal Cases Review
Commission? This expert body has stated that on six grounds there are
reasons for believing that Megrahi may have been the victim of a
miscarriage of justice. On what grounds and on the basis of what
evidence does the Scottish Government expect the people of Scotland
and elsewhere to prefer its satisfaction with the conviction over the
SCCRC's doubts? If the Scottish Government has evidence that
establishes that the SCCRC's concerns are unjustified, laying it before
an independent inquiry would be the best way of getting it before the
public at home and abroad and allaying their concerns about the safety
of the Megrahi conviction.
6. At present the SNP, unlike the Labour and Conservative parties, has
clean hands over the Megrahi conviction. But unless it moves soon, the
opprobrium over that conviction will begin to attach to the SNP as well.
7. Moreover, establishing an inquiry, as the UK relatives wish, is
morally the right thing to do. Surely the Scottish Government wishes to
occupy the moral high ground?
8. It took 19 years for Scottish politicians and the Scottish criminal
justice system to rectify the miscarriage of justice suffered by Oscar
Slater. Does the Scottish Government really want to break that dismal
record in relation to the Megrahi case?
9. Until the Megrahi conviction is removed from the picture, it can be
used -- and is being used -- by governments and politicians as a reason
for denying relatives an independent inquiry into the whole Pan Am 103
affair. By establishing an inquiry covering the SCCRC concerns only, the
Scottish Government would deprive the UK Government of this very
convenient excuse.
10. It was Voltaire who said that the best is the enemy of the good. Of
course an inquiry convened under international auspices, or an inquiry
convened by the UK Government which has foreign relations powers,
would be better than one which would of necessity be limited to such
aspects of Lockerbie -- eg the police investigation, the prosecution, the
trial, the conviction, the SCCRC investigation and findings, the
applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release -- as are
within the competence of the Scottish Government. But the argument
that a good and useful thing should not be done because somebody
else could, if so minded, do a better and more useful thing is always
a bad argument. It is sad to see the Scottish Government resorting to it.
11. There are skeletons in the cupboard of Scottish and UK Labour
Governments in relation to the Lockerbie case. If the Scottish
Government falls in May 2011 into the hands of the Labour Party,
there is no prospect whatsoever of a serious investigation. They have
too much to hide. Our only hope is for the SNP Government to do the
right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)