Struggle for Lockerbie justice continues

[This is the headline over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]

It was of course a bitter blow when the High Court in the form of Lord Carloway and two other judges refused 24 UK Lockerbie relatives' application to the SCCRC to investigate the need for a further appeal against the Megrahi verdict ('Linking Megrahi to a new Lockerbie bombing suspect won't work ... he was innocent and his conviction is a stain on Scottish justice', News comment, October 4).

We have been advised that Scotland offers no process for appeal against Lord Carloway's decision.

We have hitherto avoided any public reaction to that decision primarily because it is of paramount importance not to impinge on the need of Police Scotland's ongoing investigation, Operation Sandwood, for freedom from improper external pressures. Sandwood is investigating allegations of criminality lodged by the group Justice For Megrahi in connection with the preparations for, the conduct of, and the sequels to, the Zeist trial.

In addition we are grateful that the Justice Committee of the Holyrood Parliament has retained a petition on its books (petition PE1370), to which many of us relatives signed up. It seems that any action which the Justice Committee may decide upon now over PE1370 must also logically await the findings of operation Sandwood.

John Ashton's article appears very well informed and is known to be heavily reliant on material prepared for use in the defence of Megrahi in Scottish courts. It also relies upon much material that was excluded, for whatever reasons, from use within the Zeist court, or which has emerged since Zeist, but which would certainly have been of critical importance to the SCCRC had the latter been enabled to pursue the request of the UK relatives for a further appeal.

Megrahi petition returns to Scottish Parliament Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday 5 September 2017 starting at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The following are (a) the committee clerk’s note on this agenda item and (b) Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the committee:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of the petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Current consideration

7. At its meeting on 2 May 2017 the Committee agreed, as it had at its meeting on 24 January 2017, to keep the petition open pending completion of Operation Sandwood. This is the operational name for Police Scotland’s investigation into the nine allegations of criminality levelled by Justice for Megrahi at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the police, and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi’s conviction. The allegations range from perverting the course of justice to perjury.

8. The clerks understand from Police Scotland that the operation is ongoing and, although in its final stages, there are certain aspects that are not fully concluded. Once Police Scotland’s report is completed, it will be submitted for consideration by an independently appointed Queen’s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland, before going to the Crown Office. Clerks continue to seek updates from Police Scotland as to a likely publication date but Police Scotland is as yet not in a position to suggest when the report will be made public. (The JfM submission indicates that it believes the report will be available to the Crown Office at some stage this year).

9. The petitioners have provided a written submission (Annexe A) requesting the Committee to confirm that the petition will remain open until Crown Office consideration of the police report is complete and any related decisions are made. The submission also states, along similar lines to previous submissions, that the Petitioners continue to have regular meetings with the Operation Sandwood police team and that they have faith in the integrity and completeness of the police inquiry.

10. On 4 July 2017, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirmed it had received an application to review the conviction*. The SCCRC may refer a case to the High Court if it believes that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. The SCCRC stated that it will give careful consideration to this new application, but that it will not make any further comment at this time.

11. The Committee is asked to consider and agree what action it wishes to take in relation to the petition (...), having regard to its decisions in January and in May to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood.

*Mr Megrahi previously applied to the SCCRC in 2003, who referred his case to the High Court for appeal in 2007; however, this appeal was abandoned in 2009. After Mr Megrahi’s death in 2012, a new application was made to the SCCRC on his behalf in 2014, which was rejected in 2015 as the SCCRC had not had access to appeal materials from 2007-09

oooOooo

Annexe A

Letter from Justice for Megrahi

25 August 2017

Justice for Megrahi submission to the Justice Committee of the Scottish

Parliament’s consideration of PE 1370 on 5th September 2017

The position of Justice for Megrahi (JfM) remains largely as was following our last communication with your good selves on the Justice Committee of the ScottishParliament (JC).

We reiterate the value we place on the continued JC scrutiny until Crown Office has considered the Operation Sandwood report and has reported on its findings. JfM's sole interest remains acquiring justice for the victims of Pan Am 103, their families and friends, and those whom we regard as having been wrongly accused and convicted.

As your committee members will understand this report is central to any further

Analysis of the Lockerbie tragedy, is of direct significance to the ongoing SCCRC consideration of the Megrahi family's submission for another appeal and is vital if the massive stain on the Scottish Justice System is ever to be removed.

Moreover, it should be added that JfM and Police Scotland continue to maintain a highly valued and constructive rapport.

In short, JfM has complete confidence in the work of Police Scotland on its behalf regarding JfM's various allegations of criminality associated with the conviction of Mr al Megrahi.

Our present understanding is that the Police Scotland Operation Sandwood Report is in its final stages and will be available to the Lord Advocate at some stage this year.

JfM wishes all members of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament our very best and looks forward to being represented at your meeting on 5th September, 2017.

Christopher Brookmyre joins Justice for Megrahi campaign

[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

The celebrated Scots author Christopher Brookmyre and the Artistic Director of Edinburgh Grand Opera, Christina Dunwoodie have both joined the Justice for Megrahi campaign group.

They join signatories to a petition for calling for an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 affair including John Pilger, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky, Tam Dalyell and Jock Thompson QC.

The petition will be heard again by the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee tomorrow.

"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," the committee said in a statement.

"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."

Justice for Megrahi petition kept open by Justice Committee

At its meeting held this morning the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee, now under the convenership of Margaret Mitchell MSP (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party), unanimously agreed to keep Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) open. The proceedings in the committee can be viewed here, with the consideration of PE1370 commencing 1 hour 31 minutes in.

The Official Report (Hansard) of the proceedings is now available here.

Megrahi petition to be considered at next meeting of Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial features on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee for its meeting on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 10am in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The papers for the meeting can be read here. The committee clerk’s note on this agenda item reads as follows:]

6. At its meeting on 3 February, the Committee received the record of the most recent meeting between Justice for Megrahi (JFM) and Police Scotland. JFM provided a further update on 14 April which highlighted recent comments made by the Lord Advocate on the Megrahi investigation. JFM invites the Committee to consider the principle of appointing an ‘independent prosecutor’ to consider the forthcoming Police Scotland report. This latest update is reproduced in full Annexe B.

7. Separately, the SCCRC has asked for a High Court ruling on the legal status of the victims’ relatives to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on Megrahi’s behalf. A procedural hearing was held before Lady Dorrian on 27 March. A date for a full hearing will be fixed in due course. Further information on the application is available on the SCCRC website*.  

*SCCRC news release on the application, 22 December 2014. Available at: http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=632.

The SCCRC’s petition, dated 3 February 2015, is available at: http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=636.]

[Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the Justice Committee (Annexe B) reads as follows:]

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) is most appreciative and grateful that the Justice Committee (JC ) has continued to maintain PE1370 on the books having identified that there are highly significant and influential factors which have a direct bearing on our call for an inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist affair. Namely, the referral to the SCCRC and the High Court for a third appeal supported by members of the UK bereaved and the al-Megrahi family itself, and, the lodging of serious allegations of criminality with Police Scotland against Crown, police and forensic officials by JFM.

Regarding the referral. Following an initial procedural hearing on 23rd January this year on a petition by the SCCRC for advice on whether victims' relatives have a legitimate interest to pursue such an appeal, the High Court fixed a further procedural hearing for 27th March. At this hearing it was decided to hold a further hearing, before three senior judges, to consider the substantive issues raised in the petition, and the legal competence of the petition itself . A date is still to be fixed.

JFM observes that, in part, this issue is complicated by the conflict of interest raised by The Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, section 7 - Appeals.

‘In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings.’

With respect to the JFM allegations levelled against Crown, police and forensic officials for their conduct, the major Police Scotland investigation, ‘Operation Sandwood’, remains ongoing. We maintain full confidence in the diligence and professionality of the investigators and are being provided with regular briefings on the general progress of the investigation.

While JFM is not aware of when the police report will be completed, that report will be handed over to the Crown Office for an assessment of whether any action should follow.

In this regard we must once again highlight our very serious concerns at the il-lconsidered and irresponsible remarks made by the current Lord Advocate in the media regarding JFM and its allegations on several occasions since the accusations were made. (see: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/deliberately-false-andmisleading.html;

http:// lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/pro-megrahibackers-flayed-by-new-lord.html; http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30560364 and http://news.stv.tv/west-central/304342-lord-advo- cate-mulholland-meets-fbidirector-to-discuss-lockerbie-probe/)

In these remarks the Lord Advocate, and COPFS as a whole, are quite obviously and unconscionably overstepping the mark and destroying any pretence that they will be able to assess the police report in an unbiased and objective manner. By their unprecedented and unconstitutional public interventions these authorities have effectively ruled themselves out as arbiters of the police report.

In light of the above, Professor Robert Black QC has proposed that the responsibility for assessing the police report should be handed over to an ‘independent prosecutor’. (See: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/conflict-of-interest-return-tocharge.html and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/call-for-lord-advocate-tostep-back.html)

JFM would value the Justice Committee’s thoughts on these matters and ask members to consider the principle of appointing an ‘independent prosecutor’.

Again, JFM would like to reiterate its sincere gratitude to the JC for its indulgence in this matter.  

Official Report of Justice Committee consideration of Megrahi petition

[What follows is the text of the Official Report (Hansard) of the discussion of Justice for Megrahi’s petition at the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on 17 January 2017:]

Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)

The Convener (Margaret Mitchell):

I propose to defer to next week discussion of the three sets of petitions that are on the agenda, apart from the petition on an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction, in deference to the fact that we have people in the public gallery who have sat through all of the meeting to hear about that issue.

PE1370 is discussed on page 4 of the clerk’s paper 3 and annex F provides an update from Justice for Megrahi. The committee agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of operation Sandwood, which we understood was to be completed by the end of 2016. However, according to the clerk’s recent update, the operation is still on-going and we do not have a completion date for it.

I ask the committee to consider and agree on what, if any, action it wishes to take in relation to the petition.

Stewart Stevenson:

The petitioners, in their letter to us, conclude by asking the committee to allow the petition to remain open until the conclusions of operation Sandwood have been announced. That is a reasonable request, to which we should accede.

Mary Fee:

I would have made the point that Stewart Stevenson just made if he had not made it, so I am grateful to him for making it.

The Convener:

In that case, the petition remains open.

Justice for Megrahi petition at forthcoming Justice Committee session

[The next consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) by the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will take place on 22 September 2015. What follows is the text of JFM’s submission for that meeting:]

On the 28th April 2015 the Convener of the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his view on JFM’s suggestion that an independent prosecutor be appointed to consider the forthcoming Police Scotland ‘Operation Sandwood’ report. In his response of 8th May 2015 the Lord Advocate stated that it was his intention to appoint an, ‘independent Crown Counsel who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.’ http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/ 20150508_LA_to_CG.pdf

In our letter to the committee dated 29th May JFM, objecting to this decision, we observed: ‘If the Lord Advocate is proposing a Crown Office advocate depute as an independent prosecutor to consider any Police Scotland report stemming from the investigation of JFM’s 9 allegations of criminality, known as Operation Sandwood, such a proposal falls well short of JFM’s concept of an independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach.’ http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/ 20150526_JFM_response_to_LA.pdf

Our letter lays out precisely why JFM objects in the strongest possible terms to the Lord Advocate’s proposal contained in his letter to the convener dated 8th May 2015 and we would ask the committee to fully consider our detailed objections at its 15th September meeting.

In particular JFM wishes to emphasise the following passage from page 4 of its 26th May letter: ‘We strongly believe that in order to acquire a fair, unprejudiced and truly independent reading of the final police report a special prosecutor must be appointed by a process independent of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, and must be seen to exercise his/ her decision-making and prosecutorial functions without reference to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.

‘Since the Lord Advocate’s position and independence as head of the prosecution system in Scotland is enshrined in the Scotland Act, such a mechanism must be put in place by the Lord Advocate himself, failing which, the Scottish Government should seek from the UK Government a section 30 Order in Council to enable the Scottish Government to do so.’

We believe that these facts offer the Justice Committee a way forward.

Over past years a number of serious questions have been raised about the office of the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and the Scottish Justice System in general. The collapse of the Andy Coulson trial, the hasty decision to take no proceedings in relation to the Bin Lorry accident are but two examples.

The astonishing public outbursts in relation to our 9 allegations first from the Crown Office and then from the Lord Advocate to which we have already referred before they even knew what the allegations were, are two more cases in point.

This latest attempt by the Lord Advocate not to surrender his control, despite irrefutable evidence that he should, only serves to provide further focus to these concerns and throw serious doubt on the Crown’s internal decision making processes.

We feel it is important to emphasise that while we have highlighted the actions of the current Lord Advocate and Crown Office this only serves to highlight a much more central concern about the general constitutional and political position of the Office of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.

We believe that the only authority providing any form of political oversight of the Scottish Justice System is the Justice Committee and as such we believe that your continuing monitoring of the action of the prosecution authorities in relation to our petition is critical and very much in the public interest.

We would respectfully urge the Committee to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.

[A submission from Police Scotland, along with the minute of a meeting between JFM and the police investigating team, can be read here.]

Justice for Megrahi secretary reports on recent developments

[What follows is the text of a report on recent developments distributed yesterday to members and supporters of Justice for Megrahi by the group’s secretary, Robert Forrester:]

You will be aware that petition PE1370 lives to fight on in its quest to be registered in the Guinness Book of Records subsequent to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament (JC) session of 24 September 2013. In no short measure this was due to the eloquent manner in which John Finnie MSP wielded so robustly his elegant cleaver. Our very own Christine Grahame managed what must be something of an awkward situation, being both a member of JFM and the Convener of the JC, most diplomatically. The Committee of JFM fully takes on board her request that we not carpet bomb JC members with submissions of such volume as we have tended to in the past.

The TV recording of the JC consideration of 1370 referred to above may be viewed here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41407.aspx.     

Matters became somewhat circumscribed by DCC Shearer's last minute submission of a letter to the JC concerning the contrasting perceptions of the meeting held at Police Scotland's Dumfries and Galloway Division HQ on 16 August that exist between himself and JFM. This letter, along with all other relevant documents may be read here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/44107.aspx.

On a personal level, and for what it is worth, my opinion of DCC Shearer remains positive. In the two meetings at Cornwall Mount between ourselves and Police Scotland, Patrick Shearer has been a flawless model of friendliness, scrupulous courtesy and professionalism. I also regard him as a consummate politician. However, the JFM recollection of events at Cornwall Mount on 16 August is crystal clear, and, furthermore supported by: Professor Robert Black QC, Detective Superintendent of police (Rtd) Iain McKie and myself, Robert Forrester; moreover, it diverges considerably from the recollection of DCC Shearer.

At the beginning of our 16 August encounter, DCC Shearer informed the three JFM Committee members that he, having identified what he perceived as a potential conflict between our allegations 5, 6 and 7, and the so called 'live and on-going' COPFS investigation into incriminating other Libyan nationals for the downing of 103 alongside Mr al-Megrahi, had approached the Crown Office to seek a resolution to the matter. The result of this consultation was that DCC Shearer was, 'for the time being', apparently, to sideline JFM allegations 5, 6 and 7. Members will be aware that all three allegations relate to the shard of PCB frequently referred to as PT/35b. Moreover that said allegations were all to be spoken to by JFM witness Mr John Ashton.

I am perfectly clear on what occurred. Indeed, in my momentary disbelief, I actually asked DCC Shearer to repeat what he had said to us in order to confirm the detail so that I could report events as accurately as possible to our membership. It is most difficult, in fact impossible, therefore, not to come to the conclusion that Mr Shearer approached the Crown Office in order to obtain permission to drop 5, 6 and 7 from our allegations. These allegations were duly dropped from his investigation as a direct result of his encounter with COPFS. Moreover, you will also recall that I asked him to inform us of who the SIO of the COPFS attempts to implicate further Libyans, alongside Baset, is. This he felt unable to do. My assessment is that he is SIO for both the JFM allegations and that of the much trumpeted COPFS investigation, 'live and on-going' no less, targeting Libya. Otherwise, why did he feel the need to consult COPFS in the first instance? All of the above was reported by me to you at the time and then later publicised in the public domain by Robert Black straight after the August meeting (see: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/report-on-meetings-with-investigators.html). You will also find our latest press release on the matter here: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/megrahi-campaigners-respond-to-public.html.

Further to the above, I should inform you all that JFM is currently in the midst of rather delicate discussions with the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP). The text of our initial letter to the IAP Secretary General, Mr Kuipers, is available in its redacted form here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20130919_Report_to_IAP.pdf (page 2 to end).

Lord Advocate's response to Justice Committee

From this blog on 21 April 2015:

“At this morning’s meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee it was decided (1) to keep open Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi; and (2) to write to the Lord Advocate enquiring how the Crown Office proposes to deal with the forthcoming Police Scotland report on JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of police officers, prosecutors and Crown forensic scientists in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. This arises out of the suggestion made on this blog that a special prosecutor or independent counsel might be required, in the light of the Lord Advocate’s publicly expressed views about the merits of JFM’s allegations and the character of JFM members.”

From this blog on 26 April 2015 (from The Sunday Times):

“Scotland’s lord advocate has signalled for the first time that he will play no role in prosecutions linked to the Lockerbie bombing if a fresh police investigation unearths evidence of criminality by Crown Office staff.

“Allegations being examined by Police Scotland include claims that some Crown Office staff concealed or tampered with evidence to ensure Libya took the blame for the 1988 atrocity.

“Last week, members of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee declared support for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to ensure public confidence in further investigations and agreed to seek assurances from the lord advocate that he would play no part in fresh prosecutions. Concerns were also raised that Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate, cannot be objective and impartial because he has expressed confidence in the guilt of Abdelbaset Ali al- Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing, and the integrity of the case against him.

“‘Frankly, some of the lord advocate’s comments during hearings on the petition were not helpful,’ said Christine Grahame, the committee’s convener. ‘That may in some ways colour one’s feeling of being content that there is — I hesitate to say — an independence of spirit.’

“John Finnie, an independent MSP, added: ‘When the police come to submit their report, they are, as things stand, submitting it to someone who has already prejudged the situation with intemperate remarks.’ Finnie said it would be ‘interesting to hear the lord advocate’s views’ on the merits of an independent prosecutor.

“On Friday, the Crown Office said moves had already been made internally to appoint an independent prosecutor. ‘The lord advocate already anticipated this as an issue some time ago and decided it would be improper for him to personally deal with the matter. Arrangements have already been put in place for an independent crown counsel, who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case, to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.’”

The Lord Advocate’s official reply to the convener of the Justice Committee is a letter dated 8 May 2015, twelve days after the report in The Sunday Times. This now appears on the Justice Committee’s website. Its only substantive paragraph reads as follows:

“I had anticipated this as a potential issue some time ago given my involvement in the investigation and the nature of the allegations which have been made.  Arrangements were therefore put in place for an independent Crown Counsel who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.”

The comment that I made at the end of the blogpost of 26 April continues to apply.

Lockerbie inquiry petition remains open

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2011. It reads as follows:]

A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.

The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.

It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.

The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.

The JFM group claimed it was "imperative" that the case be examined once more.

However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction".

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 in 2009.

Megrahi had previously been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.

About 1,500 people signed the JFM petition before it was lodged at Holyrood.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.

He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.

Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.

"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."

[RB: Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) remains open five years later. A link to the most recent discussion in the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee can be found here.]