Justice Committee papers relating to Megrahi petition

[The papers pertaining to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s forthcoming consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1307) at its meeting on 11 December 2012 in Holyrood’s Committee Room 2 (note change of venue) can be read here (agenda item 4).  JFM’s written submission to the Justice Committee reads as follows:]

At PE1370’s last consideration before the Justice Committee, on 25th September 2012, committee members resolved to maintain its ‘open’ status pending further information regarding allegations of criminality submitted to Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials involved the Lockerbie inquiry and the 2000-01 trial at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

This submission and its attachments provide an update for members on these matters.

Allegations of criminality
On 13th September 2012, in a letter (see appendix A) marked ‘private and confidential’, Justice for Megrahi (JFM) wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Kenny MacAskill, specifying a series of six allegations (now eight) of serious criminal wrongdoing, ranging from perjury to perverting the course of justice. The allegations were against a number of named individuals in relation to their involvement in the investigation into the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21st December 1988, and the subsequent trial of Messrs Fhimah and al-Megrahi.  

The letter requested that Mr MacAskill appoint an individual or body independent of the original investigation and trial to examine our allegations fully. We made it clear that, given the history of the case, the seriousness of the allegations and because certain of them involved the Crown Office and Scottish Police service, we believed their involvement in any independent investigation of our allegations would be inappropriate.  

We also informed the Justice Secretary that we shared the current concern being expressed about the ‘perceived lack of independence in Scotland between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government’ and requested, ‘that your response to this letter will be free from Crown Office influence of any kind.’

Finally, we placed a self-imposed media embargo on the letter’s contents of 30 days in order to permit the Justice Secretary sufficient time to deal with the request without intrusion from the growing media interest.

A reply dated 8th October (see appendix B) was received from Mr Neil Rennick, the Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate, on behalf of Mr MacAskill in which he stated among other things:

‘It is not the function of the Scottish Government to investigate allegations that criminal offences have been committed. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate who operates independently of the Scottish Government in such matters and your letter acknowledges the importance of this separation of duties within Scotland’s justice system.’

Moreover, we were informed that if we wished to take the allegations further we should refer them to two of the organisations cited in the allegations, namely, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the Crown Office.
 
In our response dated 17th October (see appendix C) we expressed our disappointment at Mr MacAskill’s response which we maintained, ‘distorts and utterly misrepresents our request to you’.

We pointed out that we had not requested that the Justice Secretary, or any other member of the executive, investigate our allegations but that, because the Scottish Police and Crown Office were among those complained of, the allegations should be independently investigated.

‘As Secretary for Justice you have a clear duty to make sure that our justice system is administered in a way that instils public confidence in that system. We will leave it to you to decide if, by failing to facilitate a full and independent enquiry into our allegations, you have abrogated that responsibility to the people of Scotland.’

We also expressed our considerable surprise that our confidential letter of 13th September, which contained allegations against the Crown Office, had not only been passed on to them but that the Crown Office had clearly been authorised to act as respondent via the medium of the press. They did so in a confrontational manner by accusing JFM of:
 
1. ‘making deliberately false and misleading allegations’, when the Crown Office had obviously not had sight of the supporting evidence;
2. suggesting that ‘police officers’ and ‘officials fabricated evidence’, when JFM had done no such thing;
3. making  ‘defamatory and entirely unfoundedallegations’, when, again, the Crown Office had not had sight of the supporting evidence, and it is clearly a self evident truism that when making an allegation against an individual, one will inevitably impugn that person’s reputation.
(See: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/lockerbie-cover-up-like-hillsboroughclaim-campaigners-1-2543953)

We considered it to be highly improper for the Crown Office to respond, and, furthermore, to respond inaccurately, to a private and confidential letter to the Justice Secretary, which had contained criminal allegations against that very organisation, via the media and without any recourse to us.
 
In the event and under protest, because we were left with no alternative, we have since reported our allegations to Chief Constable Patrick Shearer of Dumfries and Galloway Police and on 9th November supplied him with a 41 page paper detailing evidence in support of our allegations. We await a response on how he intends to proceed.

Documentation
In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the redacted correspondence between JFM and the Justice Directorate may be viewed by committee members by referring to the appendices [RB: to be found at pages 8 to 15 of the agenda item 4 papers] to this submission:
 
A. JFM’s 13th September 2012 letter
B. Justice Directorate’s 8th October 2012 letter
C. JFM’s 17th October 2012 letter  

Discussion
It is clear from the above that we are extremely concerned at the way the Secretary for Justice and Crown Office are handling the serious allegations we have made. Our initial pleas for a confidential and independent examination of our allegations have been summarily dismissed and we have been forced to report matters to a police force intimately involved in the Lockerbie tragedy since day one. It seems almost inevitable given the seriousness of these allegations that the matter will require to be passed back to the Crown Office for advice, and, yet again, an accused organisation will be acting as judge and jury in its own cause.

JFM firmly believes it has sound and compelling evidence to back up its allegations, and that this evidence submitted to support them (contained in its 41 page paper) is not susceptible to the customary type of blanket dismissal by the Crown Office, namely, that the matter has already been attended to by the courts, or by that normally employed by the Scottish Government, namely, that it has no doubt as to the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction.  

We also believe that the Crown’s suggestion that the only course of action is for the al-Megrahi family to lodge an appeal is not a viable one given the rampant political factionalism in today’s Libya that must be placing the family under extreme pressure not to do so. 

Additionally, for the bereaved to step into the breach would no doubt result in their efforts falling foul of the double standards and conflict of interest embodied in section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. Ultimately, should it not be the responsibility of the Crown to serve the interests of justice in Scotland rather than that of an embattled and isolated Libyan family or the Lockerbie bereaved?

We believe that the official response to our allegations clearly demonstrates:

1. An abrogation of his responsibilities by the Secretary for Justice.
2. A cynical placing of the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in the invidious and unenviable position of either having to investigate his own force or refer the matter to the Crown Office against whom some of the allegations are made (this aspect of the matter is of course compounded by the fact that Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is working together with the Crown on the ‘live’ investigation which is attempting to seek out Libyans whom they believe may have been co-conspirators in Lockerbie).  3. A blatant disregard for the public interest which clearly demands that after nearly 25 years the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated within the UK is fully investigated and those responsible held to account.
4. A failure to exercise the power to appoint an independent body invested in the Justice Secretary by the electorate.
5. Evidence of an unhealthy and unconstitutional relationship between the Secretary for Justice and the Crown Office.

The allegations and PE1370
As referred to above we firmly believe our allegations to be both compelling and immune to the usual blanket rebuffs so commonly presented by the Crown. JFM took the decision to lodge its allegations in order to break the logjam which is currently blocking its request for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. 
 
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the Crown Office insist that their enquiry is still ‘live’. In 11 years they have interviewed Mr Moussa Koussa in London, visited Tripoli to persuade the new Libyan Government to produce concrete evidence, and conducted in camera hearings on Malta in an effort to locate others responsible for the downing of PA103, and yet, all this has produced is a succession of ‘no comments’ and a feeling of extreme frustration among the Lockerbie relatives and others committed to the truth being revealed.

Meanwhile, in the space of two months, JFM has assembled a total of now eight allegations of criminality against employees, former or otherwise, of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, other police forces, the Crown Office and forensic investigators backed up with copious evidence, all of which points in an entirely different direction to the Zeist conviction and the Crown’s current quest.

It is extremely important that this matter remains a ‘live’ issue within the Scottish Parliament so that it cannot be arbitrarily closed down by the very people we believe might have culpability in the matter. It is vital that clear and unambiguous answers are forthcoming from the appropriate authorities.

In light of the integral relationship between PE1370 and the allegations we have lodged with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, we would request that the Justice Committee maintain the status of PE1370 as ‘open’ whilst decisions are made in respect of these allegations. It is obvious that we have raised many important questions that the ongoing Crown Office/police enquiry has failed to answer.

The case for an independent public enquiry into the whole Lockerbie/Zeist affair, as petitioned for, is growing and we hope that the Justice Committee will do all that it can to ensure that all the relevant questions are answered and that the actions of the government and their officials are carefully scrutinised. Justice must be done and as importantly be seen to be done by those directly involved in the Lockerbie tragedy and the Scottish people in whose name the government is acting.

The detailed evidence recently presented to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is not being released at this time to maintain the integrity of the whole enquiry.

Please do not hesitate to contact Justice for Megrahi should further information be required.

Megrahi petition on agenda for 2 May meeting of Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi features on the agenda for the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee meeting to be held on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. JfM’s written submission to the committee reads as follows:]

INTRODUCTION
As you are aware the above petition has been kept open by the Justice Committee since 8 November 2011 to allow various developments related to the Lockerbie case to be monitored by the committee.

A full record of the relevant correspondence with the Justice Committee is reproduced on the Scottish Parliament website.

In this submission JfM wishes to bring the committee’s attention to developments since the petition was last considered on 17th January 2017.

Clarification: In our submission to the 17th January meeting of the Justice Committee, JfM requested that the Committee continue its review of our petition until the Operation Sandwood, ‘police report has been fully considered by Crown Office and its conclusions have been announced.’

In their contributions at this meeting, MSP’s Stewart Stevenson and Mary Fee stated that they agreed with our request for, ‘the petition to remain open until the conclusions of Operation Sandwood have been announced.’

In a letter informing us that the petition would be heard again by the committee on 2nd May, the Deputy Clerk to the committee informed us that it had been, ‘agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood.’

It would be helpful to clarify that as requested in our last submission, and agreed by your committee, the petition will remain open until Crown Office consideration of the police report is complete and any related decisions are made.

Crown Office: As committee members will be aware, a series of Operation Sandwood related parliamentary questions to the Lord Advocate by MSP Alex Neil have been responded to and published.

Mr Neil thereafter wrote to the Lord Advocate and received a response on 20th April. Copies of Mr Neil’s questions and the Lord Advocates answers, his letter to the Lord Advocate and the LA’s response, are attached for member’s information.

Operation Sandwood: JfM continues to hold regular meetings with the Operation Sandwood police team providing mutual updates on the enquiry process and related matters, and continues to have faith in the integrity and completeness of the police enquiry.

The submission of the police report to Crown Office has been delayed and our latest understanding is that it should be submitted in the next few months.

Megrahi Family Appeal: JfM has noted the recent publicity suggesting that the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi will launch a bid to appeal against his conviction in the next few weeks.

If these reports are accurate then this is a significant development for those pursuing the truth about Lockerbie.

CONCLUSION
JfM appreciates the Justice Committee’s continuing oversight of the Operation Sandwood enquiry and report.

Given the central importance of the findings of Operation Sandwood to any future prosecutions, enquiries or appeals, JfM believes it is critical, and very much in the public interest, that the committee continues to monitor these findings until Crown Office has fully considered them and announced its conclusions.

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

Justice Committee resumes consideration of Megrahi petition on 5 January

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (PE1370) features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee to be held on 5 January 2016 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 4. The Committee Clerk’s paper on the agenda item reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction – Lodged: 01 November 2010

Terms of the petition

The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an 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.

Background

Operation Sandwood

At its meeting on 21 April 2015, the Committee considered an update received from Justice for Megrahi, which included a request to consider the appointment of an “independent prosecutor” to assess the findings of the forthcoming Police Scotland investigation known as “Operation Sandwood”. 'Sandwood' is the operational designation for Police Scotland's investigation of JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to the Lockerbie/Zeist affair which led to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perversion of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s final “Sandwood” report is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

The Committee previously agreed to write to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an “independent prosecutor”. His response outlined arrangements made by the Crown Office to employ an independent Crown Counsel who had not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have reject the involvement of an independent Crown Counsel because it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach.‟

Police Scotland regularly meets with JFM to discuss ongoing issues regarding the case. At its meeting of 28 April officers highlighted the appointment of an independent QC to enhance the professional integrity of the investigation separate from the appointment by the Crown office.

High Court ruling

Separately, in December 2014 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission asked the High Court for a ruling on the legal status of the victims’ relatives, to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on Megrahi‟s behalf. It ruled in July that the victims’ relatives had no legitimate interest to institute an appeal against the deceased‟s conviction.  It appears that the only method by which an appeal against the deceased conviction could be instigated is through the deceased‟s relatives or the executor of his estate. Whilst there have been some reports indicating that Megrahi’s family wish to be involved in an appeal, the Court proceeded on the basis that the SCCRC‟s reference was on behalf only of certain victims of the bombing.

Recent developments

Operation Sandwood

Following consideration of the petition on 22 September, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate again requesting more information about the appointment of an independent prosecutor to examine the findings of the Police investigation “Operation Sandwood”. The response, attached in Annexe C does not add to the earlier response provided and cites an earlier response sent to JFM (Annexe D) which the committee had sight of last time I considered the petition. [RB: These two annexes are to be found at the end of the committee papers.]

JFM have now responded directly to members reiterating their concerns about the impartiality of the COPF in handling this case and have sought assurances that independent consideration of the police investigation be agreed to. To date both the Scottish Government and COPF have concluded this is not necessary.

Clerks expect a further response from JFM in due course. This will be forwarded to members as soon as it is received. [RB: A lengthy response has been submitted by JFM to the committee. Once it appears on the Justice Committee’s section of the Scottish Parliament website, I shall reproduce it on this blog.]

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

On 5 November the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced that: “it is not in the interests of justice” to continue with a review of the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Consequently, the application has been refused.”

In a news release published that day The Commission‟s Chairman, Jean Couper said:

“A great deal of public money and time was expended on the Commission‟s original review of Mr Megrahi‟s case which resulted, in 2007, in him being given the opportunity to challenge his conviction before the High Court by way of a second appeal. In 2009, along with his legal team, Mr Megrahi decided to abandon that appeal. Before agreeing to spend further public money on a fresh review the Commission required to consider the reasons why he chose to do so. It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review. It remains open in the future for the matter to be considered again by the Commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers. This will require the cooperation of the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and his family.”

Options

The Committee can:  

Keep the petition open and monitor the progress of “Operation Sandwood”,  

Take any other action in relation to the petition that the Committee considers appropriate (including closing the petition).

The Justice Committee and the Crown Office

[The Official Report (Hansard) relating to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s consideration on 3 February 2015 of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial can be accessed here. What follows is an excerpt:]

The Convener (Christine Grahame):

PE1370 is on an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. The committee has received the record of the latest meeting between the Justice for Megrahi campaign and Police Scotland and correspondence from JFM highlighting recent comments by the Lord Advocate on the Megrahi investigation. Do members have any comments to make on the material that we have received, or are we content simply to note the updates and the developments with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission application that are referred to in the paper? I should say that the application to the court will be sub judice—that is a little cautionary line for you. Are members content to continue the petition until we see the outcome of the other matters that are on-going?

John Finnie:

I think that the committee is content to do so and I am pleased about that. However, it is important to pick up on some of the comments that were made by the Justice for Megrahi people, not least those on the role of the Lord Advocate in the broadest sense and not relating specifically to any on-going matter.

In September and December 2012 and, more recently, in December last year, the Lord Advocate compromised—to my mind—the potential for him to be viewed as an honest broker when it comes to receiving the report from Police Scotland. Although I am delighted that Police Scotland gets a ringing endorsement from the Justice for Megrahi committee for the diligent work that it is doing, there are challenges ahead that will relate not only to the delivery of the reports to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and that we might have some regard to in the future.

Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP):

My point is similar but I go in the opposite direction, so I would need to get advice on this at some point. Setting aside the case in question and talking about the generality of people who have been convicted, I think that the Crown Office automatically assumes that they are guilty and will defend that position except when new evidence is brought forward for it to consider, perhaps for an appeal. My understanding has always been that, no matter what crime has been committed, the Crown Office cannot take a “mebbes aye, mebbes naw” attitude but must be clear that, if somebody has been convicted, that is how it is. My view is that the Crown Office will defend that position until new evidence comes forward, but I would need some advice on that.

The Convener:

I think that it is appropriate that, if somebody has been convicted, they are considered guilty—otherwise we would have turmoil within the justice system. However, I take your point and I have some comments to make on that myself.

Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP):

I highlight the fact that, as Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone says in the note that the committee has received, “an independent QC” was appointed to provide “the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to Crown Office, which was clearly not the normal procedure.” There is an acceptance that it is an unusual situation. I think that Mr Finnie’s comments should be tempered with that point.

The Convener:

“Tempered” was the word that I was thinking about. Another issue—however we get to the nub of it—is who investigates the Crown Office. The Crown Office cannot investigate itself. I think that that is where you are going with your comments, John, is it not?

John Finnie:

Yes, indeed, and we looked at that area before. I should say that Mr Finnie always seeks to temper his comments and, believe you me, these are extremely tempered comments given what I would like to say.

There is an obligation on the committee to consider the issue when respected citizens are called “conspiracy theorists” and accusations that they make in good faith are described as deliberately false and misleading. That does not suggest that an open posture is being adopted by the COPFS.

The Convener:

Do you think that we are conspiracy theorists, John, as members of JFM?

John Finnie:

I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist.

The Convener:

Neither do I.

Justice for Megrahi petition further considered

The new Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament meets on Tuesday, 28 June at 10.00am in Committee Room 2. Amongst the items on the agenda is the Justice for Megrahi petition seeking an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The committee clerk's note on the agenda item reads as follows:

Note by the Clerk

PE1370 – lodged November 2010
Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling 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.

Purpose
1. The Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition. This petition has been carried over from the previous session. At the meeting on 1 March 2011, the previous PPC discussed the petition and agreed to keep it open in order to let the incoming committee decide what it wishes to do. The option of passing it on to the Justice Committee was canvassed but given the proximity to dissolution was not acted upon.

Background
2. The previous PPC asked the then Scottish Government whether it would open an independent inquiry. By letter of 7 January 2011, the then Scottish Government responded, saying:
“The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr AlMegrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful. A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors. The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system i.e. inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. The criminal justice system already provides a mechanism for that to happen. The fact that Mr Al-Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal rather than pursue it is entirely a matter for him and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry as a result.”

In response to the question who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition, the Scottish Government responded in the same letter:
“The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government. Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.”

3. The previous Committee received written evidence from the following—
Scottish Government letter of 7 January 2011
Petitioner letter of 13 January 2011
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission letter of 7 February 2011
Scottish Government letter of 3 February 2011
Lord Advocate letter of 9 February 2011
Petitioner letter of 16 February 2011

4. More recently, the Petitioner submitted the following further evidence (enclosed with these papers):
• PE1370/G: Petitioner letter of 17 June 2001
• A copy of an article by Stephen Raeburn in The Independent Law Journal [The Firm]

Action
5. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take; there are three possible options:
(1) To continue the petition in order to seek an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the SCCRC;
(2) To refer the petition on to another Committee (the Justice Committee) under Rule 15.6.2; or
(3) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. On a strict reading of the petition the Parliament has done what was asked to do and the Scottish Government has responded to say that it does not intend to open an independent inquiry.

Megrahi petition again on Scottish Parliament Justice Committee agenda

Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling on the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday 19 December 2017 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The agenda and accompanying papers can be accessed here. The two documents submitted by Justice for Megrahi for this meeting appear among the papers as Annexe A and Annexe B.

Annexe A reads as follows:

Introduction

As you are aware the above petition has been kept open by the Justice Committee

since 8 November 2011 to allow various developments related to the Lockerbie

case to be monitored by the Committee.

The Committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 5 September 2017,

when it agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation

Sandwood.

In this submission JFM wishes to bring the committee’s attention to matters which

have developed since the petition was last considered.

Developments

Operation Sandwood: JfM has continued to co-operate fully with Police Scotland

and had a further process meeting with them in October. Another meeting is

planned for 15th December.

Our understanding is that in respect of Operation Sandwood, the main enquiry

is completed and essential forensic reports received. It is anticipated the final

report will shortly be passed to Police Scotland’s independent QC as a preliminary

to its being submitted to Crown Office.

We continue to have complete faith in the police to deliver a thorough and

objective report and in particular value the close liaison they have encouraged

as their investigation proceeded.

Crown Office Consideration of Police Report: As previous correspondence with the

Committee shows we continue to have concerns about the objectivity and

independence of Crown Office personnel who will consider the Operation

Sandwood report.

While acknowledging the appointment of James Wolffe QC as Lord Advocate,

we would ask the committee to note that when the Police report is received by

Crown Office, it must be subject to objective, unbiased and independent

consideration.

It remains essential that the ongoing political scrutiny of the process by the

Justice Committee continues and does not stop when the report goes to Crown

Office. It is in the public interest that political monitoring continues while Crown

Office considers the Operation Sandwood report and makes its final conclusions

public.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC): We understand that

an application for another appeal has been made to the SCCRC by Mr Megrahi’s

family.  We are not aware of the details of their submission but believe that

the findings of the Operation Sandwood report will be critical to the appeal

consideration.

Conclusion

We believe that the political oversight being provided by the Justice Committee

into this major criminal investigation is very much in the public interest. Having

monitored the progress of the police investigations for nearly 4 years it is essential

that Crown Office, an organisation that has shown provable bias in the past, is

held to political account to ensure the openness and objectivity of its consideration

and the probity of its eventual decision.

Given the central importance of the findings of Operation Sandwood to any future

prosecutions, enquiries or appeals, we would respectfully urge the Committee

to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.

Official Report of Justice Committee's deliberations on Megrahi petition

[The Official Report of the session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on 11 December 2012 at which Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) was considered is now available.  The relevant section reads as follows:]

The Convener (Christine Grahame):  I do not use the bing-bong button very often, but I used it there. I will not name names, but members have had 10 minutes. Agenda item 4 is petition PE1370, from the Justice for Megrahi campaign. Members have a paper from the clerk, which sets out the background for our consideration of the petition and includes a submission from the petitioners. Members will note that paragraph 7 of the clerk’s paper says that the petitioners have asked that the committee keep the petition open while Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary considers their allegations. I declare that I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.Do members have any comments?

John Finnie: I hope that the committee agrees to keep the petition open. The papers that we have from the Justice for Megrahi committee mention significant issues.We should draw a distinction between complaints about service delivery by organisations such as the Crown Office and the police service, and serious accusations against individuals who work for those organisations. There are issues for others to speak about relating to confidential covers that are put on letters and what the expectations about them are from all sides. I certainly understand why the Justice for Megrahi people feel aggrieved about the manner in which the issue came into the public domain. I refer to the end of the first paragraph under the heading “Discussion” on page 5 of paper 3. It seems to me that there is a classic catch-22 situation. There is understandable frustration where there are serious allegations for the Crown Office, which may be expected to act in the roles of judge, jury and accused.There are a number of unresolved issues. For that reason, I sincerely hope that committee members will agree to keep the petition open. That would certainly be the public expectation.

Roderick Campbell:  It remains the case that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can consider a previously abandoned appeal. I think that Mr Megrahi died in May. That is not that long a period of time for his family, for example, to have reached a full view on the matter, particularly given the current position in Libya. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to take any formal step and, given the position and the on-going Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary investigation, it seems inappropriate to take a final view on the matter. We should therefore keep the petition open for the  time being.

Colin Keir: I agree.

David McLetchie:  I concur with what John Finnie and Roderick Campbell have said. We should keep the petition open until we get information back from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in response to the complaint.There is one thing that I query. As I understood the legislation that we passed in the Parliament earlier this year, it is open to a family member of one of the bereaved to trigger a process. In light of the political background, I understand why that might be difficult for Mr Megrahi’s family who are based in Libya, but I do not quite see why a family member of one of the Lockerbie victims cannot institute that process. We would then be on our way.

The Convener: You may remember that there must be title and interest in pursuing a case. It would probably be a matter for the court to decide whether there was a close enough association, although I am not saying that a bereaved family member could not do that. Therefore, I think that it is not mandatory. I fully agree with keeping the matter open, but I would separate the possible appellate procedure—the resuscitation of it or somebody stepping into the appellant’s shoes—from allegations that are made about the way in which the case was handled. Those matters may collide at some point, but they are distinct from each other at the moment. I agree with John Finnie that, with both of those aspects still alive, there is a public interest issue, and people would expect the committee to allow this petition to continue to breathe oxygen.

Jenny Marra: I think that the petition should be kept open, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, but particularly because there seem to be unanswered questions with regard to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. I would like to see the conclusion of that investigation.

Sandra White: I concur.

Alison McInnes: I also concur.

Graeme Pearson: So do I.

The Convener: It is unanimous.

John Finnie:  It would be appropriate for the committee to keep a watching brief on the issue of the complaint against the Crown Office, which could have implications beyond this specific case. We would need to understand the position ofsomeone tendering such a complaint and how that would be responded to. I would hope, at the very least, that we would maintain an interest in the issue, even if we donot inquire further.

The Convener:  Can we think about what we might do in that regard on another occasion, rather than today? Rather than being proactive, we are keeping the petition open and allowing it to take its own course. The issue that you raise could be dealt with in more detail at another meeting.

John Finnie: Yes.

The Convener:  Thank you. We will keep the petition open, pro tem.