A leading human-rights lawyer is considering suing Alex Salmond, claiming that the First Minister has undermined his professional integrity.
Tony Kelly sought legal advice after he was criticised by Mr Salmond in a magazine interview in which the SNP leader claimed that the lawyer believed that the judicial system was there to "make sure" he could make an "incredibly comfortable living". (...)
Prof Kelly, a visiting professor at Strathclyde University, said he was "sad" that the First Minister had called into question his "professional integrity" and described Mr Salmond's comments as a "personal slur".
He added: "For a politician to attack me for the work that I do and to mistake so seriously my motivation cannot be left unremarked upon.
"With regret, I have had to take legal advice and following upon that, given the nature of attacks upon me, I have decided to formalise my position."
The Scotsman understands that Prof Kelly is waiting to see what response he receives from Mr Salmond before deciding how far to take his legal action. (...)
Referring to compensation paid out to prisoners, Mr Salmond suggested that Prof Kelly "believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999".
The interview [in Holyrood magazine] also saw Mr Salmond make an unprecedented personal attack on Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges who sit on the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. (...)
Tony Kelly's most famous client was undoubtedly Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent who was freed by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill despite being convicted of the Lockerbie [bombing].
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. A similar report in The Herald contains the following:]
The First Minister told Holyrood magazine: “The judicial system does not exist to serve Professor Kelly, it exists to serve the people and any judicial system which allows that to happen would fall into disrepute, and what’s more, it costs lives because if you take £100 million out of the justice budget you cost lives; less police, less courts, less effective justice and incidentally, less Legal Aid and it is an inevitable consequence of that sort of thing.”
Prof Kelly, who represented the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, initially said he was “upset” at the remarks, claiming they were “wholly without foundation”.
But he raised the stakes last night when he announced he had taken the first steps towards suing Mr Salmond through the English courts, where the legal system allows the use of controversial conditional fee arrangements in defamation cases.
He added: “I am sad that the First Minister has called into question my professional integrity.
“I act for the most maligned in our society and in so doing fully expect that such a role is disliked and at times misunderstood by others.
“However, for a politician to attack me for the work that I do – and to mistake so seriously my motivation – cannot be left unremarked upon.”
Prof Kelly continued: “Human rights for those imprisoned are not popular. They tell us some things that we do not like to hear – the courts have repeatedly told the Government that it has breached human rights – including some of the most important articles on the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is a matter of regret that the First Minister appears to lay blame at the door of the law, the judges, the courts and now, finally, the lawyers for taking them forward.
“Mr Salmond, in directing his comments in my direction, fails once again to deal with the issues of principle involved in the matters that I take forward on behalf of clients.
“The continued violation of human rights by the Government will, I hope, still be able to be challenged, or – as with his Justice Secretary’s comments about the Supreme Court – is this Mr Salmond telling me that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’?”
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Tony Kelly. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Tony Kelly. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday 16 June 2011
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Labour MSP criticised for not declaring he is brother of Lockerbie lawyer
[This is the headline over a report on the heraldscotland website. It reads in part:]
An MSP has been criticised for not declaring that he is related to the Lockerbie bomber's lawyer.
Labour's James Kelly is Tony Kelly's brother and sits on the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government's handling of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's release from jail.
He was among those on the committee to question Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill as the inquiry got under way today.
The Glasgow Rutherglen MSP joined the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee on November 10 and told the convener he had no declarations of interest.
Mr Kelly insisted today the SNP criticism was "frankly ludicrous" and that his relationship was "well known".
But SNP committee member Stewart Maxwell said: "In the interests of transparency I am surprised that Mr Kelly did not see fit to declare his personal relationship to Mr Megrahi's lawyer.
"In a case which has caused such controversy, for any cloud to hang over today's hearing is deeply unfortunate.
"There is so far no suggestion that anything Mr Kelly asked was inappropriate, but without this potential conflict on the record, members and the public are unable to judge." (...)
Mr Kelly said: "The fact that Tony Kelly is my brother is well known and has been for years. It has certainly been reported in national newspapers.
"The fact is, myself and my brother have differing views and the idea that there was any conflict of interest is frankly ridiculous."
[Just how ridiculous the conflict of interest claim is, can be seen from Mr James Kelly's voting record on 2 September 2009 on the motions and amendments following the Scottish Parliament debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. In each one of these votes Mr Kelly supported the Labour Party's criticism of Kenny MacAskill for repatriating his brother's client.]
An MSP has been criticised for not declaring that he is related to the Lockerbie bomber's lawyer.
Labour's James Kelly is Tony Kelly's brother and sits on the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government's handling of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's release from jail.
He was among those on the committee to question Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill as the inquiry got under way today.
The Glasgow Rutherglen MSP joined the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee on November 10 and told the convener he had no declarations of interest.
Mr Kelly insisted today the SNP criticism was "frankly ludicrous" and that his relationship was "well known".
But SNP committee member Stewart Maxwell said: "In the interests of transparency I am surprised that Mr Kelly did not see fit to declare his personal relationship to Mr Megrahi's lawyer.
"In a case which has caused such controversy, for any cloud to hang over today's hearing is deeply unfortunate.
"There is so far no suggestion that anything Mr Kelly asked was inappropriate, but without this potential conflict on the record, members and the public are unable to judge." (...)
Mr Kelly said: "The fact that Tony Kelly is my brother is well known and has been for years. It has certainly been reported in national newspapers.
"The fact is, myself and my brother have differing views and the idea that there was any conflict of interest is frankly ridiculous."
[Just how ridiculous the conflict of interest claim is, can be seen from Mr James Kelly's voting record on 2 September 2009 on the motions and amendments following the Scottish Parliament debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. In each one of these votes Mr Kelly supported the Labour Party's criticism of Kenny MacAskill for repatriating his brother's client.]
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Alex Salmond will not publish Lockerbie bomber medical records
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. The following are extracts:]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Saturday 11 July 2009
Col Gadaffi lobbies Gordon Brown for Lockerbie bomber release
[The following are excerpts from a report under this headline in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It is of particular importance because of the reported comments of Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly, and because of the (belated) recognition by the Scottish Government Justice Department that compassionate release does not require an application to have been made by the prisoner concerned. The complete article can be read here.]
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has urged Gordon Brown to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and allow him to return home.
Col Gadaffi made the plea at a meeting with the Prime Minister on the fringes of the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.
Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, is terminally ill with prostrate cancer.
Earlier this week it was revealed there is a "very real risk" he will die before his ongoing appeal against his conviction ends because of his deteriorating condition and further delays to the legal proceedings.
But Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the latest postpontment changes nothing, and did not mean his client would automatically drop his case. (...)
Col Gaddafi used his first meeting with Mr Brown to call for Megrahi to be returned home but aides said the Prime Minister told him that the case was "a matter for the Scottish government".
The Libyan government made an application under a prisoner transfer agreement two months ago to move Megrahi from Greenock Prison to the North African country.
This is currently being considered by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, who has held discussions with Libyan and US government officials, as well as victims' families.
However, Megrahi, 57, would have to drop all legal proceedings for a decision to be made, thereby losing his last chance to clear his name.
A further delay has been announced as one of judges hearing the case at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery.
The case is not expected to resume until September, by which time Megrahi may have passed away.
However, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the delay "does not change anything really".
He added that Mr MacAskill could unilaterally release his client on compassionate grounds, without an application being made by Megrahi or a third party.
A Scottish Executive spokesman said this was technically possible, but it was normal procedure for an application to be made.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has urged Gordon Brown to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and allow him to return home.
Col Gadaffi made the plea at a meeting with the Prime Minister on the fringes of the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.
Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, is terminally ill with prostrate cancer.
Earlier this week it was revealed there is a "very real risk" he will die before his ongoing appeal against his conviction ends because of his deteriorating condition and further delays to the legal proceedings.
But Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the latest postpontment changes nothing, and did not mean his client would automatically drop his case. (...)
Col Gaddafi used his first meeting with Mr Brown to call for Megrahi to be returned home but aides said the Prime Minister told him that the case was "a matter for the Scottish government".
The Libyan government made an application under a prisoner transfer agreement two months ago to move Megrahi from Greenock Prison to the North African country.
This is currently being considered by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, who has held discussions with Libyan and US government officials, as well as victims' families.
However, Megrahi, 57, would have to drop all legal proceedings for a decision to be made, thereby losing his last chance to clear his name.
A further delay has been announced as one of judges hearing the case at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery.
The case is not expected to resume until September, by which time Megrahi may have passed away.
However, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the delay "does not change anything really".
He added that Mr MacAskill could unilaterally release his client on compassionate grounds, without an application being made by Megrahi or a third party.
A Scottish Executive spokesman said this was technically possible, but it was normal procedure for an application to be made.
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Lockerbie: Megrahi reported dead
[This is the headline over a report which has just gone up on the heraldscotland website. It reads as follows:]
The man accused of the Lockerbie bombing has died, according to reports.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had been released home to die in Libya from prison in Scotland in August.
In his only full-length interview since being released from prison, Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."
Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain.
Megrahi, who had terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family.
"It is all about my family, " he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."
Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison.
"I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."
From a report on The Scotsman website:
'But Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, told Reuters: "It's absolutely untrue. He's definitely not dead."
'"I'm not saying anything about his health condition other than the fact he is alive and breathing," Kelly said.'
The following report is from the website of The Tripoli Post:
'The family of the Libyan citizen Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi has denied that he had died and said reports in some British media outlets today are totally incorrect, and that he is doing fine.
'Speaking to The Tripoli Post by phone at 5:50 p.m. local time on Wednesday, Mr. Abdul Hakim Al-Megrahi, a brother of Abdulbaset, said he is doing fine and is receiving his treatment as scheduled by his doctor.
'Abdul Hakim Al-Megrahi said that his brother Abdulbaset was on the phone speaking to his mother less than half an hour ago.
'Al-Megrahi was unjustly convicted in the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 by a Scottish court and has been released on compassionate grounds on 20 August 2009.
'Legal experts around the world including those in UK and the US have said that Al-Megrahi has been innocent all the way and that the Scottish judicial system clearly committed a miscarriage of justice when it found him guilty in the Lockerbie case.'
The following is an extract from a report in The Scotsman of Thursday, 22 October:
'The Lockerbie bomber's lawyer last night called for an apology from the satellite broadcaster Sky News after it reported that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had died.
'Tony Kelly said he had spoken to his client yesterday afternoon in the minutes after Sky had reported that Megrahi had passed away. The report, which aired at about 4pm, was quickly altered to include Kelly's denial.'
The man accused of the Lockerbie bombing has died, according to reports.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had been released home to die in Libya from prison in Scotland in August.
In his only full-length interview since being released from prison, Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."
Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain.
Megrahi, who had terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family.
"It is all about my family, " he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."
Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison.
"I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."
From a report on The Scotsman website:
'But Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, told Reuters: "It's absolutely untrue. He's definitely not dead."
'"I'm not saying anything about his health condition other than the fact he is alive and breathing," Kelly said.'
The following report is from the website of The Tripoli Post:
'The family of the Libyan citizen Abdulbaset Al-Megrahi has denied that he had died and said reports in some British media outlets today are totally incorrect, and that he is doing fine.
'Speaking to The Tripoli Post by phone at 5:50 p.m. local time on Wednesday, Mr. Abdul Hakim Al-Megrahi, a brother of Abdulbaset, said he is doing fine and is receiving his treatment as scheduled by his doctor.
'Abdul Hakim Al-Megrahi said that his brother Abdulbaset was on the phone speaking to his mother less than half an hour ago.
'Al-Megrahi was unjustly convicted in the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 by a Scottish court and has been released on compassionate grounds on 20 August 2009.
'Legal experts around the world including those in UK and the US have said that Al-Megrahi has been innocent all the way and that the Scottish judicial system clearly committed a miscarriage of justice when it found him guilty in the Lockerbie case.'
The following is an extract from a report in The Scotsman of Thursday, 22 October:
'The Lockerbie bomber's lawyer last night called for an apology from the satellite broadcaster Sky News after it reported that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had died.
'Tony Kelly said he had spoken to his client yesterday afternoon in the minutes after Sky had reported that Megrahi had passed away. The report, which aired at about 4pm, was quickly altered to include Kelly's denial.'
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Justice Committee votes to keep Megrahi petition open
[The following account of this morning's discussion of the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370) in the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee comes from Patrick Haseldine:]
On 8 November 2011, the Justice Committee decided by six votes in favour [SNP and Lib-Dem] and three against [Labour and Conservative] to keep open the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370), which calls upon the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry into Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
James Kelly MSP [Labour, deputy convener], brother of Megrahi's former solicitor Tony Kelly, argued strongly that the court is the correct route for testing the soundness of criminal convictions. He could see no role for the Justice Committee to consider the JFM petition further.
However, Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP [Scottish National Party], said the petition should be kept open until all the parts of the legislative jigsaw come together: there was unfinished business in relation to the Lockerbie trial; the conclusions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's unpublished report remain untested; the SCCRC's power to refer cases back to the Appeal Court is being restricted; and Lord Carloway, who is currently reviewing law and practice of criminal investigations, is due to publish his report on 17 November 2011.
[The report just published by The Press Association news agency reads as follows:]
MSPs have voted to continue a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for his role in the Lockerbie bombing.
Holyrood's Justice Committee met to consider the petition by the Justice for Megrahi campaign, a group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 which killed 270 people.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame, the committee's convenor and a member of the Justice for Megrahi group, went head-to-head with Labour's James Kelly, vice-convenor and brother of Scottish lawyer Tony Kelly, who has acted for Megrahi, over whether the petition should continue.
He added: "Obviously it's an ongoing situation, particularly after recent events, and new information is continuing to come to the fore. I think the relevant place for that information to be considered is by the Scottish police and Scottish prosecutors, and as such I don't think there's a role for this committee to consider this petition further."
Ms Grahame declared her membership of Justice For Megrahi and her "particularly high profile in arguing that his conviction is unsound".
She said: "The Justice Committee is not being asked to conduct a public inquiry via the committee. We're being asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry. I think the committee will agree that this is unfinished business. We had the abandonment of the second part of the appeal, with the SCCRC report untested, in extraordinary circumstances."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government would welcome a wide-ranging inquiry into the circumstances of the Lockerbie atrocity and we stand ready to assist in any way we can.
"However, given the international dimensions to this issue, the scope of any such inquiry goes well beyond the restricted remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament, and would therefore have to be convened by those with the required powers. Scottish authorities would co-operate in full in any such inquiry.
"Scotland's justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for nearly 23 years, and in every regard the due process of Scots Law has been followed - in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.
"We believe that the SCCRC Statement of Reasons should be in the public domain and that is precisely why we are introducing a Bill later this year to facilitate publication. The Bill is necessary in order to overcome objections by interested parties preventing any publication."
[The report in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday, 9 November can be read here; that in The Scotsman can be read here.]
On 8 November 2011, the Justice Committee decided by six votes in favour [SNP and Lib-Dem] and three against [Labour and Conservative] to keep open the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370), which calls upon the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry into Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
James Kelly MSP [Labour, deputy convener], brother of Megrahi's former solicitor Tony Kelly, argued strongly that the court is the correct route for testing the soundness of criminal convictions. He could see no role for the Justice Committee to consider the JFM petition further.
However, Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP [Scottish National Party], said the petition should be kept open until all the parts of the legislative jigsaw come together: there was unfinished business in relation to the Lockerbie trial; the conclusions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's unpublished report remain untested; the SCCRC's power to refer cases back to the Appeal Court is being restricted; and Lord Carloway, who is currently reviewing law and practice of criminal investigations, is due to publish his report on 17 November 2011.
[The report just published by The Press Association news agency reads as follows:]
MSPs have voted to continue a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for his role in the Lockerbie bombing.
Holyrood's Justice Committee met to consider the petition by the Justice for Megrahi campaign, a group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 which killed 270 people.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame, the committee's convenor and a member of the Justice for Megrahi group, went head-to-head with Labour's James Kelly, vice-convenor and brother of Scottish lawyer Tony Kelly, who has acted for Megrahi, over whether the petition should continue.
He added: "Obviously it's an ongoing situation, particularly after recent events, and new information is continuing to come to the fore. I think the relevant place for that information to be considered is by the Scottish police and Scottish prosecutors, and as such I don't think there's a role for this committee to consider this petition further."
Ms Grahame declared her membership of Justice For Megrahi and her "particularly high profile in arguing that his conviction is unsound".
She said: "The Justice Committee is not being asked to conduct a public inquiry via the committee. We're being asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry. I think the committee will agree that this is unfinished business. We had the abandonment of the second part of the appeal, with the SCCRC report untested, in extraordinary circumstances."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government would welcome a wide-ranging inquiry into the circumstances of the Lockerbie atrocity and we stand ready to assist in any way we can.
"However, given the international dimensions to this issue, the scope of any such inquiry goes well beyond the restricted remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament, and would therefore have to be convened by those with the required powers. Scottish authorities would co-operate in full in any such inquiry.
"Scotland's justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for nearly 23 years, and in every regard the due process of Scots Law has been followed - in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.
"We believe that the SCCRC Statement of Reasons should be in the public domain and that is precisely why we are introducing a Bill later this year to facilitate publication. The Bill is necessary in order to overcome objections by interested parties preventing any publication."
[The report in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday, 9 November can be read here; that in The Scotsman can be read here.]
Friday 6 November 2015
Urgent questions posed to SCCRC by John Ashton
[What follows is the text of an email sent this morning to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by John Ashton. It is reproduced here with Mr Ashton’s approval:]
I am the biographer of Mr Megrahi and from 2006 until his return to Libya in 2009 worked as a researcher with his legal team.
I have a number of urgent questions, which are listed below, about the statement issued by SCCRC yesterday, in particular, the following passages:
The Commission received the current application from Messrs Aamer Anwar & Co., solicitors, in June 2014. At the time it was clear that the application was made on behalf of the “Justice for Megrahi” group, in the form of Dr Jim Swire, the Rev'd John Mosey and a number of other family members of the victims of the bombing. The application also appeared to be supported by the members of the family of the late Mr Megrahi…
...The Commission also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s previous appeal. To enable it to do so it was imperative that the Commission be provided with the defence appeal papers. After a period of 14 months, and despite various requests having been made of the Megrahi family and of the late Mr Megrahi’s previous solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, these have not been forthcoming...
[Quote by SCCRC Jean Couper:]
...“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…”
...The Commission has written to the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and to his family requesting access to the defence papers in order to allow it to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal. No papers were forthcoming despite repeated requests.
Points to note
1. The application, which the SCCRC yesterday rejected, was not made of behalf of the Justice for Megrahi group but on behalf of a number of the UK Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of Mr Megrahi’s family.
2. The application stated, in schedule 3:
The circumstances in which Abdelbaset al-Megrahi came to abandon his second appeal are set out in Chapter 14 (pages 346 to 365) and Appendix 4 (pages 420 to 425) of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury — The Lockerbie Evidence (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2012, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 015 9) and (much more briefly) on page 119 of John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2013, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 167 5) to which the Commission is respectfully referred.
Having been diagnosed as suffering from terminal prostate cancer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was desperate to achieve his repatriation to Libya so that he could die surrounded by his family. In these circumstances he applied for compassionate release on 24 July 2009. The Libyan Government had already submitted an application for prisoner transfer on 5 May 2009. Abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal was not a requirement for compassionate release, but it was a requirement for prisoner transfer; and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice intimated that, although prisoner transfer had been applied for more than two months before application was made for compassionate release, both applications would be dealt with by him simultaneously (see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/07/megrahi-deadline-will-be-missed.html). Accordingly, if both routes to repatriation were to remain open to him, Megrahi had to abandon his appeal.
In a press release issued through his solicitor, Tony Kelly, a short time after his return to Libya, Megrahi stated: “I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a result of the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.” (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-release-regarding-publication-of.html). Until the end of his life, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi continued to protest his innocence of the crime of which he had been convicted: see eghttp://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-are-my-last-words-i-am-innocent.html.
3. The application was accompanied by an affidavit by me, which provided a detailed account of why, according to Mr Megrahi, he abandoned his previous appeal. It named three Libyan witnesses who could verify this account.
4. Mr Megrahi gave me access to all his legal appeal papers, which I still have.
5. In response to the SCCRC’s statement, Taylor & Kelly solicitors yesterday issued the following statement:
It is with some surprise that we learn today that the Commission have come to the view that papers have not been forthcoming from us as Mr Megrahi’s appeal representatives. As soon as a request was made from the commission we asked to be advised of the basis of the request – the power of the commission to ask for access to material. Despite making clear that we were anxious to assist, we have not as yet been told of the Commission’s authority to have access to amongst other things private communications. As solicitors we cannot deliver up papers in our possession simply upon request, even to a body such as the Commission.
No indication was given to us until today that the Commission were interested in the part of our actings relating to Mr Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned. The Commission have very wide powers indeed. They could have made application to the Court for access to materials. In any such application, they would clearly have been required to state the basis of the request, and the basis for any court to order us as solicitors to have to part with confidential papers. We prefaced that in communications with them and asked them to provide authority for any application. We remain in the dark on this important point.
As solicitors we are bound by professional obligations which are the subject of regulation by the Law Society of Scotland. In the event that we have in some way not met our professional obligations the Law Society could have been consulted.
As it was, at the conclusion of our actings in this case we sought and obtained our own legal advice about the custody of the papers.
No further enquiry was made of our solicitors individually or any others who formed part of the legal team. The Commission in its previous consideration of Mr Megrahi’s case interviewed each member of Mr Megrahi’s team about decisions made in the course of the trial. If focus had centred on the abandonment of the appeal then that could have been pursued by seeking to interview those involved in that aspect of the case.
Questions
1. Why did the commission state that the application had been brought on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi group, when it was in fact brought on behalf on some of the Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of Mr Megrahi’s family?
2. Why did the commission not approach me to request access to the paperwork that I hold?
3. Why did the commission not interview me about the reasons that Mr Megrahi gave for abandoning his appeal?
4. Why did the commission not attempt to speak to the Libyan witnesses named in my affidavit?
5. Why did the commission not advise Taylor & Kelly solicitors of the legal basis of its request for documentation?
6. Why did the commission not seek to interview solicitor Tony Kelly about Mr Megrahi’s abandonment of his appeal?
I look forward to your early response.
Saturday 29 August 2009
Megrahi's lawyer to release dossier 'proving' his innocence
[The following are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Chief Reporter Andrew Alderson.]
Tony Kelly, a Scottish solicitor, said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who returned to his homeland ten days ago after being released from prison on compassionate grounds, remains determined to show his guilty verdict was unjust.
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail, eight years after being convicted of murdering 270 people.
The disclosure will further enrage critics of the decision to free Megrahi, the only man convicted of the atrocity.
It also raises the likelihood of further embarrassment for Scotland over the handling of the original trial and it could lead to fresh questions over whether Megrahi was innocent and, if so, who was really behind the bombing.
Mr Kelly intends to fly to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, within days to receive instructions from his client.
Mr Kelly said: "Mr Megrahi wants all the information that has been gathered made public at some point.
"But how and when this takes place is ultimately a matter for him to decide. It is my intention to travel to Tripoli in the course of the next week or so to obtain his instructions on this."
The lawyer said he had been unable to discuss this issue with Megrahi after his release because things were "fraught" and the Libyan had been rushing to get a plane to his homeland.
Mr Kelly confirmed that Megrahi had left the relevant legal documents supporting his second appeal in the UK rather than take the evidence back with him to Libya.
Although Mr Kelly declined to reveal the new evidence which would have been presented to appeal hearing, it is understood that Megrahi's legal team had planned to list some 20 grounds why his conviction was unsafe, including:
*Potentially crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from Megrahi's first trial.
*One crucial witness was paid $2 million (£1.25 million) for his suspect evidence.
*Allegations of tampering with key evidence.
*American intelligence believed Iran – not Libya – was responsible for Lockerbie. (...)
Professor Robert Black QC, the lawyer who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said Megrahi had been caught in a difficult position prior to his release.
This was because Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was considering either releasing him on compassionate grounds or as part of a prisoner exchange programme between Britain and Libya that was first agreed by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, two years ago.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate ground without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under the exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
"Megrahi [had] reached a stage where he was so concerned to get back to Libya to die that he was prepared to do even unpalatable things [drop his appeal] to achieve that objective," Professor Black said.
He added that the new evidence relating to Megrahi's second appeal ought still to be made public – initially through a limited inquiry in Scotland into the entire Lockerbie criminal case.
He said there was also a chance of a larger EU or United Nations investigation into the case. (...)
Megrahi's second appeal had been permitted in 2007 after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Under Scottish law, provided the appeal was ongoing, Megrahi's family could have continued it after his death, but the legal action was halted by the appeal being withdrawn.
Tony Kelly, a Scottish solicitor, said that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who returned to his homeland ten days ago after being released from prison on compassionate grounds, remains determined to show his guilty verdict was unjust.
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, withdrew his second appeal against conviction just two days before he was allowed to return to Libya.
Those close to him say he did so reluctantly because he was convinced it would improve his chances of being freed from a Scottish jail, eight years after being convicted of murdering 270 people.
The disclosure will further enrage critics of the decision to free Megrahi, the only man convicted of the atrocity.
It also raises the likelihood of further embarrassment for Scotland over the handling of the original trial and it could lead to fresh questions over whether Megrahi was innocent and, if so, who was really behind the bombing.
Mr Kelly intends to fly to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, within days to receive instructions from his client.
Mr Kelly said: "Mr Megrahi wants all the information that has been gathered made public at some point.
"But how and when this takes place is ultimately a matter for him to decide. It is my intention to travel to Tripoli in the course of the next week or so to obtain his instructions on this."
The lawyer said he had been unable to discuss this issue with Megrahi after his release because things were "fraught" and the Libyan had been rushing to get a plane to his homeland.
Mr Kelly confirmed that Megrahi had left the relevant legal documents supporting his second appeal in the UK rather than take the evidence back with him to Libya.
Although Mr Kelly declined to reveal the new evidence which would have been presented to appeal hearing, it is understood that Megrahi's legal team had planned to list some 20 grounds why his conviction was unsafe, including:
*Potentially crucial evidence was deliberately withheld from Megrahi's first trial.
*One crucial witness was paid $2 million (£1.25 million) for his suspect evidence.
*Allegations of tampering with key evidence.
*American intelligence believed Iran – not Libya – was responsible for Lockerbie. (...)
Professor Robert Black QC, the lawyer who was the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said Megrahi had been caught in a difficult position prior to his release.
This was because Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, was considering either releasing him on compassionate grounds or as part of a prisoner exchange programme between Britain and Libya that was first agreed by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, two years ago.
Megrahi could have been released on compassionate ground without dropping his appeal – but he could not have been freed under the exchange programme if legal action was ongoing.
"Megrahi [had] reached a stage where he was so concerned to get back to Libya to die that he was prepared to do even unpalatable things [drop his appeal] to achieve that objective," Professor Black said.
He added that the new evidence relating to Megrahi's second appeal ought still to be made public – initially through a limited inquiry in Scotland into the entire Lockerbie criminal case.
He said there was also a chance of a larger EU or United Nations investigation into the case. (...)
Megrahi's second appeal had been permitted in 2007 after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice.
Under Scottish law, provided the appeal was ongoing, Megrahi's family could have continued it after his death, but the legal action was halted by the appeal being withdrawn.
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Megrahi's solicitor on threat to UK Supreme Court
[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]
Kenny MacAskill wants to cancel Scottish funding for the UK Supreme Court.
The Justice Secretary has ordered civil servants to investigate whether the Scottish Government can pull the financial plug on Britain’s most senior justices over what he sees as the threat they pose to centuries-old Scots Law.
Scotland currently contributes just under £500,000 a year to the London-based court but it is far from clear if the Scottish Government could stop its cheque.
The unprecedented threat to do so underlines just how angry Mr MacAskill is over two humiliating defeats at the UK Supreme Court, including last week’s decision to overturn the conviction of Nat Fraser for murdering his wife Arlene. (...)
Some lawyers last night warned that Mr MacAskill, an experienced defence solicitor, was risking a major constitutional crisis just by giving the impression of trying to undermine the finances of the UK Supreme Court.
Professor Tony Kelly, who acted for human rights group Justice in backing the Cadder appeal, said: “This is a politician interfering with the judicial branch of government. That is simply constitutionally impermissible. [RB: Tony Kelly is a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde.]
“It’s an attack on judicial independence which we have never seen the like of in the UK. We have a politician issuing threats against a court because he does not like its decisions.”
Mr Kelly added: “I don’t see any evidence that the Supreme Court has committed any grievous error. If there were English judges importing English doctrines into Scots Law, I am sure there would be a raft of evidence for Nationalist politicians. But there isn’t.”
Solicitor-advocate John Scott said he did not believe withdrawing funding from the Supreme Court would have any impact on the court’s jurisdiction over Scottish matters.
He said: “This is just political tub-thumping. It is a bit like somebody withholding part of their taxes because they don’t want to pay for nuclear weapons. It doesn’t work like that.”
Kenny MacAskill wants to cancel Scottish funding for the UK Supreme Court.
The Justice Secretary has ordered civil servants to investigate whether the Scottish Government can pull the financial plug on Britain’s most senior justices over what he sees as the threat they pose to centuries-old Scots Law.
Scotland currently contributes just under £500,000 a year to the London-based court but it is far from clear if the Scottish Government could stop its cheque.
The unprecedented threat to do so underlines just how angry Mr MacAskill is over two humiliating defeats at the UK Supreme Court, including last week’s decision to overturn the conviction of Nat Fraser for murdering his wife Arlene. (...)
Some lawyers last night warned that Mr MacAskill, an experienced defence solicitor, was risking a major constitutional crisis just by giving the impression of trying to undermine the finances of the UK Supreme Court.
Professor Tony Kelly, who acted for human rights group Justice in backing the Cadder appeal, said: “This is a politician interfering with the judicial branch of government. That is simply constitutionally impermissible. [RB: Tony Kelly is a visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde.]
“It’s an attack on judicial independence which we have never seen the like of in the UK. We have a politician issuing threats against a court because he does not like its decisions.”
Mr Kelly added: “I don’t see any evidence that the Supreme Court has committed any grievous error. If there were English judges importing English doctrines into Scots Law, I am sure there would be a raft of evidence for Nationalist politicians. But there isn’t.”
Solicitor-advocate John Scott said he did not believe withdrawing funding from the Supreme Court would have any impact on the court’s jurisdiction over Scottish matters.
He said: “This is just political tub-thumping. It is a bit like somebody withholding part of their taxes because they don’t want to pay for nuclear weapons. It doesn’t work like that.”
Sunday 12 July 2009
MacAskill in offer to meet Megrahi
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has offered to meet the Lockerbie bomber in prison as he decides if the convicted mass murderer ought to be allowed home to Libya.
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
Friday 11 December 2015
New appeal 'may risk Megrahi lives'
[This is the headline over a report published in the Daily Express on this date in 2012. It reads as follows:]
The family of the Lockerbie bomber could be risking their lives if they raise the prospect of launching a fresh appeal against conviction, according to a leading figure in the campaign for a new inquiry into the court's decision.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing in December 1988, said the new Libyan regime wants nothing to do with links to Colonel Gaddafi. He sounded the warning as it emerged that Tony Kelly, the lawyer who represented Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, is seeking a visa to visit family members in the capital, Tripoli.
Dr Swire, who was in the Scottish Parliament to hear MSPs keep alive a petition for an inquiry, said expert advice suggests the Megrahi family would be first in line to make any appeal, with relatives of the bombing "second on the list".
After Holyrood's Justice Committee met, he said: "The situation as regards the Megrahi family is that Tony Kelly, the lead figure for the defence of the Megrahi case, is seeking a visa to go to Libya for talks with the family. The situation in Libya is very difficult indeed. I can hardly see how the family will be able to make a decision whether to ask for a further appeal or not.
"It's hard to see where they would get any funding from to do it and, indeed, they might be risking their lives to do it because the subsequent regime following Colonel Gaddafi have been hell-bent on passing all blame to the Gaddafi regime. They have a position where they say that everything they did wrong was Gaddafi's fault, not Libya's fault.
"If the Megrahi family put their heads above the parapet and say 'although our dad was, before he died, a member of the Gaddafi regime, he wasn't guilty and we're going to contest the issue in Scotland again', it would be, to say the least, extremely unpopular.
"Having been to Libya fairly recently, where you can hear the stutter of AK-47s in the back streets at night still, if I were the Megrahi family I'd be very, very nervous about raising the issue of an appeal."
Mr Kelly confirmed he is seeking a visa to visit Megrahi's relatives but would not comment on the purpose of the visit and said any link to an appeal would be speculation. "I'd arranged a visa but there were problems picking it up from the embassy, so I'm trying to secure another and visit Libya," he said.
MSPs of all parties on the committee agreed to keep the Justice for Megrahi petition open. It calls for the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the conviction of Megrahi at a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands in 2001.
Megrahi, who had cancer, died in May this year. He was sentenced to life in prison for the bombing of a US airliner over Lockerbie in 1988, which claimed 270 lives.
[RB: The real risk that the Megrahi family took in making an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in May 2014 makes it especially galling that the Commission in November 2015 refused to proceed with the consideration of that application. The same risk would attend any further application.]
Thursday 4 November 2010
Megrahi lawyer attacks Bill that axes safety net on right to appeal
[What follow are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Times. It can be read -- but only, of course, by subscribers -- here.]
A leading human rights lawyer last night alleged that ministers had “pulled up the drawbridge” on victims of miscarriages of justice.
Tony Kelly, best known for representing Abdul Ali Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, said he was astonished by the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, passed by MSPs in an emergency session last Wednesday, which seemed designed to reduce the number of cases going to appeal. (...)
He said the new law would cut across the powers of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to have potential miscarriages of justice reviewed and would discourage individuals from embarking on the appeal process.
“Loud and clear, the message from this legislation is ‘Don’t appeal’,” he said.
His intervention followed the remarks of Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh, who earlier claimed that new legislation created a conflict of interest within the High Court, which had effectively been handed the power to block any appeal.
Section 7 of the Bill deals with references from the SCCRC and says: “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.”
Mr Kelly said that in relation to “certainty” and “finality”, the SCCRC had been established to deal with cases that were final and certain.
Between 1999 and 2010, it received a total of 1186 cases, completed the review of 1136 cases and referred 97 cases to the High Court for determination. Theoretically, under the terms of the new legislation, all 97 could simply have been turned away by the High Court.
Mr Kelly said: “The SCCRC, when it was set up, was viewed as a safety net, it examined cases that fell out with the normal run of evidence and admissibility. Those included miscarriages of justice — and Scotland has had its fair share of those.
“There was a specific exception from that finality clause — enabling the commission to exercise its discretion in certain cases. How can you possibly pull back from that?”
Mr Kelly, who is visiting professor in human rights law at the University of Strathclyde, added: “Most concerning, is the fact that the High Court has two separate powers.
“It can immediately bounce a reference from the Commission if it doesn’t consider it in the interests of justice, and, in determining any appeal, it has got to have regard to ‘finality’. Loud clear, the message is: ‘Don’t appeal’.” (...)
Mr Kelly said that he was at loss to explain why the Cadder ruling had been extended to the right to appeal.
“The only rationale I can see is that they are pulling up the drawbridge, making it more difficult for people to submit applications to the Commission and for the Commission to refer cases to the High Court,” he said.
“You can talk about individual cases, but this is a blanket, covering every single appellant. It will be much more difficult, there will be fewer appeals.”
John McManus, project officer for Miscarriage of Justice Organisation (Mojo), said the legislation brought to mind the saying: “Who guards the guards?”
He added: “You are asking judges to judge themselves. They have passed verdict. Will they be willing to look at the failings of their own system?
“They seem to be closing the door even more on the appeals process.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said that it had been obliged to act swiftly following the Supreme Court ruling.
“The Scottish Government has worked closely with the appropriate bodies to prepare for every contingency arising from the case, helping mitigate the impact on the police and justice system in carrying out their day-to -day duties protecting the public and prosecuting crime,” she said.
A leading human rights lawyer last night alleged that ministers had “pulled up the drawbridge” on victims of miscarriages of justice.
Tony Kelly, best known for representing Abdul Ali Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, said he was astonished by the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, passed by MSPs in an emergency session last Wednesday, which seemed designed to reduce the number of cases going to appeal. (...)
He said the new law would cut across the powers of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to have potential miscarriages of justice reviewed and would discourage individuals from embarking on the appeal process.
“Loud and clear, the message from this legislation is ‘Don’t appeal’,” he said.
His intervention followed the remarks of Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Edinburgh, who earlier claimed that new legislation created a conflict of interest within the High Court, which had effectively been handed the power to block any appeal.
Section 7 of the Bill deals with references from the SCCRC and says: “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.”
Mr Kelly said that in relation to “certainty” and “finality”, the SCCRC had been established to deal with cases that were final and certain.
Between 1999 and 2010, it received a total of 1186 cases, completed the review of 1136 cases and referred 97 cases to the High Court for determination. Theoretically, under the terms of the new legislation, all 97 could simply have been turned away by the High Court.
Mr Kelly said: “The SCCRC, when it was set up, was viewed as a safety net, it examined cases that fell out with the normal run of evidence and admissibility. Those included miscarriages of justice — and Scotland has had its fair share of those.
“There was a specific exception from that finality clause — enabling the commission to exercise its discretion in certain cases. How can you possibly pull back from that?”
Mr Kelly, who is visiting professor in human rights law at the University of Strathclyde, added: “Most concerning, is the fact that the High Court has two separate powers.
“It can immediately bounce a reference from the Commission if it doesn’t consider it in the interests of justice, and, in determining any appeal, it has got to have regard to ‘finality’. Loud clear, the message is: ‘Don’t appeal’.” (...)
Mr Kelly said that he was at loss to explain why the Cadder ruling had been extended to the right to appeal.
“The only rationale I can see is that they are pulling up the drawbridge, making it more difficult for people to submit applications to the Commission and for the Commission to refer cases to the High Court,” he said.
“You can talk about individual cases, but this is a blanket, covering every single appellant. It will be much more difficult, there will be fewer appeals.”
John McManus, project officer for Miscarriage of Justice Organisation (Mojo), said the legislation brought to mind the saying: “Who guards the guards?”
He added: “You are asking judges to judge themselves. They have passed verdict. Will they be willing to look at the failings of their own system?
“They seem to be closing the door even more on the appeals process.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said that it had been obliged to act swiftly following the Supreme Court ruling.
“The Scottish Government has worked closely with the appropriate bodies to prepare for every contingency arising from the case, helping mitigate the impact on the police and justice system in carrying out their day-to -day duties protecting the public and prosecuting crime,” she said.
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Whole Lockerbie case must be reviewed
[This is the heading over three letters published in today's edition of The Scotsman. They read as follows:]
W Robert Durward (Letters, 10 August) points out that Megrahi's trial has never been officially acknowledged as a "travesty of justice". However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated: "The commission is of the view that based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
If we take into consideration that this was the biggest mass murder committed in Scotland in modern times, many are rightly of the belief we should rigorously review the whole case and investigate fully the glaring fragility of the evidence used in the Camp Zeist trial.
If the Scottish criminal justice system made a mistake and jailed an innocent man, then it needs to be open and honest if it ever hopes to retain the confidence of the concerned Scottish public.
David Flett
Monday's STV documentary on Lockerbie was interesting in that Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, seemed bullish about the new evidence for the SCCRC appeal and especially the fact that Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper had been given £2 million for giving the evidence that was pivotal to Megrahi's conviction. The US government official would not comment on this, but it does raise some questions as to Gauci's impartiality.
Surely former lord advocate Lord Fraser was mistaken when he told the Sunday Times that "Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he] was an apple short of a picnic". It would seem to me that Tony Gauci is very much "all there, and a wee bit mair", as they say in Fife. But whether justice was best served by this witness is another matter.
Tom Minogue
A year ago, at the height of the furore over the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Scotland was subjected to a barrage of (mostly ill-informed) hostile criticism from the United States.
At that time, you published a letter from me in which I suggested that, with Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition as examples of US justice at work, it ill-suited Hillary Clinton, amongst others, to lecture Scotland on the operation of any justice system, let alone a compassionate one. I have waited in vain for someone of influence in Scotland to express similar views in public. At last, Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out.
Rather than simply "welcoming" his views (your report, 9 August), is it not time for Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to reiterate the words of Cardinal O'Brien on every possible occasion?
Alan R Irons
[The following is a letter published in today's edition of The Herald.]
Jim Swire’s is one of the most uplifting letters I have ever read in your columns (The Herald, August 10). It is a privilege to share the planet with him.
He has suffered as great a blow as anyone can – the loss of a very close relative through personal malicious violence – and yet no rancour is there.
Although he acknowledges that in American culture there is some aspect of vengeance, he does not brand them all so. He says US Lockerbie relatives are the same kind of people he has encountered here and have the same desires as he has. I think we are too ready to assign national attributes. I have many American relatives and friends, and when asked how I find Americans, I reply, some I like, a few I dislike but the great majority I do not know well enough either to like or dislike. That answer would also apply to other nationals I know well: Indians, English and Scots. I imagine it would also apply to those whom I only know in small numbers or have not yet met. Perceived national stereotypes are poor guides to behaviour.
The problem of determining the truth is a persistent one, but I feel a chimera. I have spent my working life in science where hypotheses are tested in the laboratory. Having observed the most plausible hypotheses turn out to be defective, I have little faith in any inquiry yielding the truth. If a well-equipped laboratory cannot be absolutely certain of its results, what chance is there of a committee coming to an ultimately valid conclusion when its evidence is not only volatile but dependent on human observation, not of the directed kind as in the laboratory, but rather of a casual view of an event not recognised as important at the time? Human memory, even at the best of times, is frail.
Perhaps the best we can do is, as Dr Swire suggests, have the incident looked at by a group in whom we can trust, but that will lead to a never-ending regress if we look for faults in its findings. As Dr Swire says, the relatives want closure.
Chris Parton
[As someone who yesterday spent over four hours in the company of Dr Swire and Rev John Mosey, I wish to record how wholeheartedly, in respect of each, I endorse the second sentence of Mr Parton's letter.]
W Robert Durward (Letters, 10 August) points out that Megrahi's trial has never been officially acknowledged as a "travesty of justice". However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated: "The commission is of the view that based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
If we take into consideration that this was the biggest mass murder committed in Scotland in modern times, many are rightly of the belief we should rigorously review the whole case and investigate fully the glaring fragility of the evidence used in the Camp Zeist trial.
If the Scottish criminal justice system made a mistake and jailed an innocent man, then it needs to be open and honest if it ever hopes to retain the confidence of the concerned Scottish public.
David Flett
Monday's STV documentary on Lockerbie was interesting in that Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, seemed bullish about the new evidence for the SCCRC appeal and especially the fact that Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper had been given £2 million for giving the evidence that was pivotal to Megrahi's conviction. The US government official would not comment on this, but it does raise some questions as to Gauci's impartiality.
Surely former lord advocate Lord Fraser was mistaken when he told the Sunday Times that "Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he] was an apple short of a picnic". It would seem to me that Tony Gauci is very much "all there, and a wee bit mair", as they say in Fife. But whether justice was best served by this witness is another matter.
Tom Minogue
A year ago, at the height of the furore over the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Scotland was subjected to a barrage of (mostly ill-informed) hostile criticism from the United States.
At that time, you published a letter from me in which I suggested that, with Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition as examples of US justice at work, it ill-suited Hillary Clinton, amongst others, to lecture Scotland on the operation of any justice system, let alone a compassionate one. I have waited in vain for someone of influence in Scotland to express similar views in public. At last, Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out.
Rather than simply "welcoming" his views (your report, 9 August), is it not time for Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to reiterate the words of Cardinal O'Brien on every possible occasion?
Alan R Irons
[The following is a letter published in today's edition of The Herald.]
Jim Swire’s is one of the most uplifting letters I have ever read in your columns (The Herald, August 10). It is a privilege to share the planet with him.
He has suffered as great a blow as anyone can – the loss of a very close relative through personal malicious violence – and yet no rancour is there.
Although he acknowledges that in American culture there is some aspect of vengeance, he does not brand them all so. He says US Lockerbie relatives are the same kind of people he has encountered here and have the same desires as he has. I think we are too ready to assign national attributes. I have many American relatives and friends, and when asked how I find Americans, I reply, some I like, a few I dislike but the great majority I do not know well enough either to like or dislike. That answer would also apply to other nationals I know well: Indians, English and Scots. I imagine it would also apply to those whom I only know in small numbers or have not yet met. Perceived national stereotypes are poor guides to behaviour.
The problem of determining the truth is a persistent one, but I feel a chimera. I have spent my working life in science where hypotheses are tested in the laboratory. Having observed the most plausible hypotheses turn out to be defective, I have little faith in any inquiry yielding the truth. If a well-equipped laboratory cannot be absolutely certain of its results, what chance is there of a committee coming to an ultimately valid conclusion when its evidence is not only volatile but dependent on human observation, not of the directed kind as in the laboratory, but rather of a casual view of an event not recognised as important at the time? Human memory, even at the best of times, is frail.
Perhaps the best we can do is, as Dr Swire suggests, have the incident looked at by a group in whom we can trust, but that will lead to a never-ending regress if we look for faults in its findings. As Dr Swire says, the relatives want closure.
Chris Parton
[As someone who yesterday spent over four hours in the company of Dr Swire and Rev John Mosey, I wish to record how wholeheartedly, in respect of each, I endorse the second sentence of Mr Parton's letter.]
Sunday 2 October 2016
Crown’s breaches of duty of disclosure
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing today published more documents he claims prove his innocence.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi insisted the move was not meant to add to the upset of the people "profoundly affected by what happened in Lockerbie".
But he added: "My only intention is for the truth to be made known."
Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds earlier this year.
He had been serving a life sentence at Greenock prison for the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 in 1998, in which 270 people were killed.
Before his release, the bomber dropped his second appeal against that conviction.
His Scottish lawyers, Taylor and Kelly, said Megrahi remained ill in hospital in Tripoli, and that the documents published on the website www.megrahimystory.net related to his appeal.
In a statement Megrahi said: "I recognise that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland is the only authority empowered to quash my conviction. In light of the abandonment of my appeal this cannot now happen."
However he added: "I continue to protest my innocence - how could I fail to do so?"
Megrahi said much of the material published today was "buttressed by the independent investigations of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission".
It was the commission that referred Megrahi's case back to the courts for its second appeal.
Megrahi - who was convicted of the bombing in January 2001 at a Scottish court convened in the Netherlands - had mounted an unsuccessful appeal in 2002.
But in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, sent his case for a subsequent appeal.
Today he said: "The commission found documents which they concluded ought to have been disclosed to my defence."
And he claimed this included a "record of interest in financial reward" by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold clothing found to have been in the suitcase that contained the bomb.
Megrahi also said the commission had seen documents which should have been given to his defence team at the trial.
He stated: "The commission concluded that the non-disclosure of these documents and other material may have affected the trial process and caused a miscarriage of justice."
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made his decision to free Megrahi "based on the due process of Scots Law" and he "supports the conviction".
He added: "The Scottish Government has already released as much relevant information as possible, and have met with the SCCRC to look at what documentation relating to the appeal could be released by them."
The newly-published papers include claims that Tony Gauci was paid two million dollars (about £1.2m) by US authorities after the trial.
Much of the document published today relates to evidence which, Megrahi's lawyers say, was not produced at his trial.
When the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission sent Megrahi's case to the appeal court, it said doubt had been cast on some of the evidence which helped convict him, in particular evidence relating to his visit to Tony Gauci's shop in December 1988.
New evidence suggested the clothing had been bought before December 6, at a time when there was no evidence that Megrahi was in Malta, said the SCCRC.
And other evidence not available at the trial undermined Gauci's identification of him, it said.
Much of what is published today on the Megrahi website relates to Gauci's identification.
The legal documents by Megrahi's defence team say the SCCRC found material showing Mr Gauci was paid more than two million dollars by the US department of justice after the trial, and his brother Paul Gauci was paid one million dollars (about £600,000).
The SCCR also unearthed a statement made to police by David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, which had not been made available to the defence.
The statement from Mr Wright, who visited Tony Gauci, told of a purchase of clothing by two Libyans in October or November - but the statement was not investigated.
Other material published today also questions the reliability of Mr Gauci's identification of Megrahi.
The "missing evidence" on the identification of Megrahi was not put forward at his trial for a variety of reasons, according to the appeal papers published today by his lawyers.
They blamed both the prosecution for omitting some evidence from the trial - and the defence for not fully investigating the identification evidence.
Other arguments put forward in the documents relate to alleged inconsistencies in identification evidence, and to the possibility of Mr Gauci's recollection being tainted by "prejudicial" publicity.
The previously undisclosed evidence of David Wright was found by the SCCRC.
A friend of Mr Gauci and long-standing visitor to Malta, he called police in November 1989 after seeing TV coverage of Lockerbie which included footage of Mr Gauci's shop.
He told police he visited Mr Gauci in his shop in late October or November 1988, and saw two Libyans buy clothing.
The pair were smartly-dressed, had a lot of money, and bought several items of clothing.
Mr Gauci had referred to them as "Libyan pigs", and the descriptions given by Mr Wright did not resemble Megrahi.
But no further inquiries were made and Mr Wright's statement was not disclosed to the defence, the papers say.
The material showing that Mr Gauci asked for and received payment was also unearthed by the SCCRC, say the papers.
The commission found material showing that, at an early stage, he expressed an interest in receiving payment or compensation.
The material also "indicated" that US authorities offered to make substantial payments to him, that an application for reward money was made after the trial - and that Mr Gauci received "in excess of" 2 million dollars after the appeal, with his brother receiving 1 million dollars.
"The SCCRC states that, at some time after the appeal, the two witnesses were each paid sums of money under the Rewards for Justice programme administered by the US Department of Justice," said the papers.
And none of this had been disclosed to the defence, the papers say.
"The failure to disclose the information that reward monies have been discussed, that offers of rewards related to the witness have been discussed, and that substantial rewards have in fact been paid to the witness, is in breach of that duty to disclose."
Friday 6 November 2015
Why did SCCRC fail to contact John Ashton for Megrahi documentation?
[What follows is the text of an item posted last night by John Ashton on his website Megrahi: You are my Jury:]
The SCCRC say they couldn’t get access to Megrahi’s appeal papers – so why didn’t they ask me for them?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has today announced that it has rejected the application made by various UK Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of the Megrahi family for a review of Abdelbaset’s conviction on the grounds that “it is not in the interests of justice”.
The accompanying statement contains the following:
The Commission also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s previous appeal. To enable it to do so it was imperative that the Commission be provided with the defence appeal papers. After a period of 14 months, and despite various requests having been made of the Megrahi family and of the late Mr Megrahi’s previous solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, these have not been forthcoming…
[Quote by SCCRC Chairman Jean Couper:]
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…
…The Commission has written to the late Mr Megrahi`s solicitors and to his family requesting access to the defence papers in order to allow it to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal. No papers were forthcoming despite repeated requests.
Abdelbaset gave me access to all of the defence appeal papers, and I still have them, yet no one from the SCCRC approached me for them. Had they done so, I would have happily handed them over. I also reported on Abdelbaset’s reason for abandoning his appeal in Megrahi: You are my Jury.
The application to the SCCRC stated, in schedule 3, the following:
The circumstances in which Abdelbaset al-Megrahi came to abandon his second appeal are set out in Chapter 14 (pages 346 to 365) and Appendix 4 (pages 420 to 425) of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury — The Lockerbie Evidence (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2012, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 015 9) and (much more briefly) on page 119 of John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2013, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 167 5) to which the Commission is respectfully referred.
Having been diagnosed as suffering from terminal prostate cancer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was desperate to achieve his repatriation to Libya so that he could die surrounded by his family. In these circumstances he applied for compassionate release on 24 July 2009. The Libyan Government had already submitted an application for prisoner transfer on 5 May 2009. Abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal was not a requirement for compassionate release, but it was a requirement for prisoner transfer; and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice intimated that, although prisoner transfer had been applied for more than two months before application was made for compassionate release, both applications would be dealt with by him simultaneously (see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/07/megrahi-deadline-will-be-missed.html). Accordingly, if both routes to repatriation were to remain open to him, Megrahi had to abandon his appeal.
In a press release issued through his solicitor, Tony Kelly, a short time after his return to Libya, Megrahi stated: “I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a result of the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.” (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-release-regarding-publication-of.html). Until the end of his life, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi continued to protest his innocence of the crime of which he had been convicted: see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-are-my-last-words-i-am-innocent.html.
In view of this, the SCCRC cannot have been unaware of my involvement in the case, so why did they not contact me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)