Megrahi petition on Justice Committee agenda for 23 February meeting

[The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will be resuming consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) at its meeting on 23 February 2016 commencing at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The relevant note by the committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): 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

17. “Operation Sandwood‟ is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s report of this operation is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The Committee has received a number of updates from JFM asking that an “independent prosecutor‟ be appointed to assess the findings of Operation Sandwood.

18. The Committee previously wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an „independent prosecutor‟ as proposed by JFM. His response outlined arrangements made by COPFS to employ independent Crown Counsel not involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have rejected the involvement of independent Crown Counsel as they consider it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach”. The Committee sought further information regarding the appointment of an independent prosecutor in September 2015 to which the Lord Advocate reiterated his earlier response.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

19. On 5 November 2015, 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.”

Latest developments

20. On 5 January 2016, the Committee agreed to write again to the Lord Advocate, asking him to respond to JFM‟s most recent submission to the Committee which questions the Lord Advocate‟s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for co-ordinating matters with the “independent counsel‟. The Committee requested the Lord Advocate‟s response by 5 February. At the time of writing this response has not been received. It will be circulated to members and published on the Committee‟s website as soon as it is received.

21. In the interim, JFM has provided a submission to the Committee outlining their disappointment that a response from the Lord Advocate has not yet been received (Annexe D).

Options for action on petition PE1370

22. The Committee may wish to agree to:

• keep the petition open and recommend that a future justice committee continues to monitor these issues and, in particular, progress with Operation Sandwood, or

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

ANNEXE D

Justice for Megrahi submission for the consideration of PE1370 by the Justice Committee on 23 February 2016

Since the last consideration of PE 1370, on 5 January 2016, nothing of import has emerged from either the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) that clarifies their position re JfM‟s request that a prosecutor entirely independent of COPFS, and who had been appointed independently of said body, receive and consider the final Police Scotland Operation Sandwood report.

On 12th January 2016, the Deputy Convenor of the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate asking that he address JFM‟s concerns over the manner in which he was dealing with our request for total independence from the Crown Office in the consideration of the Operation Sandwood report.

When this letter was posted on the Parliament website JfM expressed some concern that the terms of the agreement reached at the Justice Committee on 5th January to write to the Lord Advocate appeared not to have been fully met in that the 8 questions we asked the committee to put to the Lord Advocate had not been referred to. We are unaware if this issue had been resolved.

The Deputy Convenor afforded the Lord Advocate a full month in which to respond. At the time of writing, we believe that he is in default as no reply has yet been received by the Justice Committee.

Given that the submission of Police Scotland‟s Operation Sandwood report to the Crown Office is imminent this is a most unsatisfactory position.

It is clearly against the public and a constitutional interest that the Lord Advocate has so far failed to confirm that the police report will be considered by an authority entirely separate from the Crown Office and totally free from its influence or to lay out clearly what his intentions are.

Thus, JFM appeals to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament to exercise whatever means it has at its disposal to ensure that before the Operation Sandwood Report is submitted that your committee and JfM are fully briefed on how this report will be considered and who will consider it.

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).

Megrahi petition on agenda for Justice Committee meeting on 1 March

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi is once again on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee for the meeting to be held on 1 March 2016 commencing at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 6. A paper prepared for the meeting by the committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): 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

1. “Operation Sandwood‟ is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into Justice for Megrahi‟s (JFM) nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. The Committee was previously advised that Police Scotland‟s report on this operation would be completed before the end of the 2015 but clerks understand that this is not the case.

Latest developments

2. On 21 September 2015 the Committee received a letter from JFM (Annexe A), which posed eight specific questions relating to the appointment of independent Counsel to evaluate the report arising at the conclusion of Operation Sandwood. Because the letter referred to information provided to JFM by the Lord Advocate, and had arrived so close to the date of the meeting (on 22 September), the Convener took the decision not to circulate it to members until the Lord Advocate had confirmed he was happy for it to be published. The response was circulated to Members after the meeting on 22 September and has been published on the Committee‟s webpage.

3. At the 22 September meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate (Annexe B) seeking further information regarding the appointment of independent Counsel to evaluate the report arising from Police Scotland‟s Operation Sandwood. The letter asked for more information about (1) the appointment process itself, (2) whether the person appointed is a current or former prosecutor with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or is a practising lawyer in another jurisdiction, and (3) what other measures or protocols have been put in place to guarantee the Counsel’s independence.

4. The Lord Advocate‟s short response dated 6 October (Annexe C) does not provide a direct response to these three points. It explains that he has not been involved in the Operation Sandwood investigation nor the appointment of independent counsel. The letter also states that the appointment was dealt with by officials who had no involvement in the Lockerbie investigation. The letter states that issues raised had been dealt with by the Lord Advocate‟s Office in their response to JFM‟s letter (Annexe D) dated 24 August, although again this letter does not directly address the three points the Committee raised.

5. JFM provided an additional submission to the Committee on 5 November 2015, (Annexe E) (forwarded to Members 9 November 2015) which includes reference to the eight specific questions posed to the Lord Advocate.

6. On 5 January 2016, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate (Annexe F), asking him to respond to JFM‟s most recent submission to the Committee (Annexe G) which questions the Lord Advocate‟s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for coordinating matters with the “independent counsel‟. The Committee requested the Lord Advocate‟s response by 5 February. The response was not received until 9.44am on 23 February just before the start of the Committee meeting at 10 am.

7. The Lord Advocate‟s letter of 23 February (Annexe H) explains that an independent senior counsel at the Scottish bar, with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution, has been appointed to undertake prosecutorial functions in relation to the Police investigation. This role includes providing an independent legal overview of the evidence, conclusions and recommendations and directing the inquiry when required.

8. The letter makes specific points in response to JFM’s criticism that the Crown Agent lacks sufficient impartiality to have any role in the investigation. No general comment is made in response to the Deputy Convener’s query as to “what procedures are in place to ensure an appropriate level of impartiality in instances where there have been complaints involving the COPFS’s handling of a case.”

9. The Committee has since received an additional submission from JFM dated 24 February 2016 (Annexe I). The letter reiterates their position with regards to the role of the current Crown Agent in the process and seeks clarification as to the appointment of the independent counsel. It also raises the question of the powers the COPFS might have to ignore or change the recommendations made by the independent counsel.

Options for action on petition PE1370

10. The Committee may wish to agree to:  

• request more information regarding the progress of Operation Sandwood,
• ask for more specific information about the appointment of the “independent” Crown Counsel, in line with the points made above,  
• take no further action on the petition before dissolution (without closing it) and leave it for a future justice committee to decide what further action, if any, to take on it.

[RB: Annexes A to I, referred to above, can be accessed here.]

MSPs hear petition calling for inquiry into al-Megrahi's Lockerbie trial

[This is the headline over a report published in today’s edition of The National. It reads in part:]

A call for an independent inquiry into the conviction of the man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing will come before MSPs when they return to Holyrood next week.

Justice for Megrahi (JfM), a campaign group whose members believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is not guilty of planting the device that brought down Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, first lodged the petition in 2010.

It has been kept open pending completion of a Police Scotland report into allegations made by them against the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), the police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi’s conviction after his trial at the specially convened Scottish Court at Kamp van Zeist in the Netherlands.

The allegations range from perverting the course of justice to perjury. MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will discuss the petition on Tuesday.

Operation Sandwood is the Police Scotland investigation into the group’s claims. Papers lodged at Holyrood indicate that committee clerks understand that inquiries are continuing and, “although in its final stages, there are certain aspects that are not fully concluded”.

Police Scotland are not yet in a position to suggest when the Operation Sandwood report will be made public.

Once it is completed, the report will be submitted “to an independently appointed Queen’s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland before going to the Crown Office”.

Megrahi died five years ago, and the latest move comes as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) considers an application from his family to appeal against his conviction.

His relatives joined lawyer Aamer Anwar in Glasgow in July to lodge the appeal papers with the SCCRC.

In a letter to the committee last month, JfM said the Sandwood report was of “direct significance” to the SCCRC’s considerations.

“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,” they said. “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.”

They and Police Scotland maintained a “highly valued and constructive rapport”, the group said, adding: “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.”

Megrahi had previously applied to the SCCRC in 2003, when his case was referred to the High Court for appeal in 2007.

However, the appeal was abandoned in 2009, ahead of his return to Libya after being released from Greenock jail on compassionate grounds.

He died from prostate cancer in 2012, and a new application was made on his behalf in 2014, but this was rejected the following year because the commission did not have access to appeal materials from 2007-09. (...)

JfM have asked the Justice Committee to keep the petition open until the Crown Office considers the Operation Sandwood report and “any related decisions are made”.

MSP pushes for Sandwood conclusion

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday in The Southern Reporter. It reads as follows:]

Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale MSP Christine Grahame this week called for Holyrood’s justice committee to press for progress on Police Scotland’s Operation Sandwood Enquiry, which is investigating possible police criminality in the enquiry into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. 

The atrocity claimed 270 lives and resulted in the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, but this conviction has been a source of deep controversy. 

Operation Sandwood was set up in February 2014 with the Justice Committee told in March 2016 by Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone it was in its “final stage”, however no further indication has been given that it is near a conclusion. 

The ongoing nature of the enquiry poses an obstacle to the family of the late Al-Megrahi as the application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) likely cannot progress until it is concluded. 

Ms Grahame said: “I have a longstanding interest in this matter and I do believe the case as to whether Megrahi was rightly convicted or not needs to be concluded. 

“The process for this is for the SCCRC to consider the application by Al-Megrahi’s family to have his conviction appealed and for that to happen Operation Sandwood must conclude and report to the Crown Office. 

“This cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely –nearly 30 years have now passed since this atrocity and we find ourselves in the position where there are victims’ families who may die without knowing the truth about Lockerbie, whatever it turns out to be.” 

The committee agreed to Ms Grahame’s request. 

We asked Police Scotland when the Sandwood report is likely to be concluded. Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone said: “The investigation has reached its concluding phase and the full report will follow with a submission process through the Deputy Chief Constable to the independent QC appointed by Police Scotland, prior to submission to the Crown.”

Genuinely independent prosecutor needed for JFM criminality allegations

[At its meeting on 21 April 2015 the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee resolved to write to the Lord Advocate enquiring how the Crown Office proposed to deal with the forthcoming Police Scotland report on Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of police officers, prosecutors and Crown forensic scientists in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. This arose 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. 

The Lord Advocate replied to the committee’s inquiry in a letter dated 8 May: “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.”

JFM’s response to the Lord Advocate’s letter has now been posted on the Justice Committee’s website. It reads as follows:]

Following the Lord Advocate’s 8th May response to the 28th April letter from the Convener of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee, the Committee of Justice for Megrahi (JFM) wishes to make the following observations. 

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. 

1. JFM has on several occasions drawn the attention of the Justice Committee to the unprecedented, highly irresponsible and prejudicial public outbursts in which both the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office as a whole have not only grossly distorted the content of our allegations but also vilified us for having had the temerity to level the allegations in the first instance. How can any representative of a body that has described, in the media, JFM’s allegations as being ‘without exception, defamatory and entirely unfounded’ and ‘false and deliberately misleading’ make a fair and unprejudiced consideration of any evidence presented by the police? We believe that by ‘going public’ these authorities, being fully aware of ‘Sandwood’, have destroyed their constitutional independence and have threatened the integrity of that enquiry.  

2. It appears inevitable that these public interventions will have had an effect on potential witnesses. Witnesses are now expected to give evidence against a background of this very public ‘interference’ by Scotland’s senior prosecution authorities. Those authorities have consistently sought to dismiss the ‘conspiracy theorists’ behind the ‘Sandwood’ criminal allegations and to underline their opinion that Mr Megrahi and his accomplices are the only guilty parties in the case. We fear that certain Crown, Police and both expert and ordinary witnesses, encouraged by these statements, might seek to withhold or alter legitimate evidence which they could otherwise give to Operation Sandwood. 

3. In his letter of 8 th May, the Lord Advocate gives the impression that he is disengaging from involvement in consideration of the final police report on the matter. However, if he is responsible for the appointment of the ‘independent Crown Counsel’, from the outset, he clearly plays a pivotal role in the outcome of the prosecutor’s consideration of the report. Any such counsel should be chosen by a person or body entirely outwith the Crown Office. 

4. It is naïve to expect that an advocate depute in the Crown Office, appointed by the Lord Advocate and subject to his instructions, and whose tenure of that office depends entirely upon his decision, is likely to instruct proceedings of any kind and thus effectively say that the Lord Advocate was so publicly wrong. It is also extremely unlikely that he/she will easily set themselves against their colleagues in the Crown Office who have already made their position clear on several occasions. Equally importantly it is certain, no matter the decision reached, that in the minds of the protagonists on either side of the Lockerbie debate, the general public, the media and other commentators, justice will not have been seen to be done. It should be made clear that both the final decision on prosecution and the conduct of any prosecution rest with the independent (and independently appointed) counsel not tainted by any association with the Lord Advocate or any member of the Crown Office. 

5. Moreover, given that the Lord Advocate is head of Scotland’s prosecution service, it would seem inevitable that any final conclusions arrived at by the ‘independent’ prosecutor he mentions would, by dint of his position, find their way onto the Lord Advocate’s desk for the ultimate stamp of approval.  

6. Whilst JFM is, quite correctly, not privy to the operational detail relating to ‘Sandwood’, we have been most impressed by the diligence and professionalism of the officers working on the allegations. In the course of their investigations, Police Scotland have been working in tandem with an independent QC: how then will the Lord Advocate’s proposal fit together with the role already being played by Police Scotland’s QC? 

It is plain to see from the unethical, prejudicial and ill-judged statements issued by the Crown Office that there is a straightforward conflict of interests with respect to any role which that body can play in this case. 

The UK is signed up to the United Nations International Association of Prosecutors (IAP). In its pronouncements, the Crown Office has displayed a flagrant contempt for and disregard of the IAP principles as laid out in the IAP document Standards of Professional Responsibilities and Statement of Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors. Particularly, but not exclusively, these responsibilities include the duty of a prosecutor not to act in their own interest but always to serve and protect the public interest, be free from political interference, and generally be consistent, independent, impartial and transparent (as outlined in articles 1 through 4). The Crown Office is clearly in breach of these principles, and, as previously mentioned, no person currently in Crown Office can be impartial. The Report must be made to a totally independent person. http://www.iap-association.org/getattachment/34e49dfe-d5db-4598-91da-16183bb12418/ Standards_English.aspx 

The UK is also signed up to the Council of Europe. In its document The Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 6th October2000.

Article 1 states: ‘Public prosecutors’ are public authorities who, on behalf of society and in the public interest, ensure the application of the law where the breach of the law carries a criminal sanction, taking into account both the rights of the individual and the necessary effectiveness of the criminal justice system.’

Article 9 states: ‘With respect to the organisation and the internal operation of the Public Prosecution, in particular the assignment and re-assignment of cases, this should meet requirements of impartiality and independence and maximise the proper operation of the criminal justice system, in particular the level of legal qualification and specialisation devoted to each matter.’ 

Article 24 states: ‘In the performance of their duties, public prosecutors should in particular: a. carry out their functions fairly, impartially and objectively.’ 

Article 34 states: ‘Interested parties of recognised or identifiable status, in particular victims, should be able to challenge decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute; such a challenge may be made, where appropriate after an hierarchical review, either by way of judicial review, or by authorising parties to engage private prosecution.’ http://www.procuracassazione.it/procuragenerale-resources/resources/cms/documents/ COE_CM_20001006_Recommendation_2000_19_en.pdf

The Crown Office has turned Scottish justice into an embarrassing, laughing stock and developed this case into a running sore. 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. 

On 28th February 2007 the then Lord Advocate, Dame Elish Angiolini, in giving the inaugural KPMG Annual Law Lecture highlighted the position of the Lord Advocate in the 21st century by stating:  

‘The fact that prosecution decisions are taken independently does not mean that they are taken unaccountably. It is for the Parliament to decide whether the Lord Advocate is carrying out that vital function to its satisfaction, not as a matter of party politics, but as a matter of sound administration. 

‘The result is that the present system leaves an inefficient Lord Advocate, or an irresponsible Scottish Executive, nowhere to hide. If the prosecution system fails, then Parliament can hold the Lord Advocate, and the administration of which she forms a part, accountable for that failure. 

‘As Lord Advocate, I exercise considerable powers, and carry great responsibilities. And no sensible Minister ever takes Parliament lightly. I note, in passing, that the Justice Committees of the Scottish Parliament routinely scrutinise the work of the Law Officers. That notion is also now being discussed at Westminster. I would like to make one further point, touching on accountability. The prosecutor's judgement in starting a prosecution is clearly justiciable in the courts. That is as it should be.’ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/ cmconst/ 306/306we13.htm  

This seems to be pertinent and timely advice to the present holder of this historic office.

Throughout all of this, it appears that the Crown Office, in pursuit of obtaining and maintaining convictions above any other principle, has lost sight of its most fundamental raison d’être: the service of justice.

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.