At the eleventh procedural hearing held on 18 to 20 February, Abdelbaset Megrahi's legal team sought disclosure from the Crown of further documents relevant to his appeal. In delivering its judgment today, the High Court acceded to this request. The following extracts are from the BBC News website:
'Judges have ordered prosecutors to hand over more undisclosed documents they may have concerning a crucial witness at the trial of the Lockerbie bomber.
'Abdel Baset Al Megrahi's lawyers went to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh seeking further material for the appeal against his conviction. (...)
'The Crown said it believed it had already handed over all the documents sought by the defence.
'The material being sought includes records, logs, notes and police computer entries concerning a sighting by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci of a clothes buyer in September 1989. (...)
'The material wanted by defence lawyers also includes any documents on a meeting between police and Mr Gauci and an interview held with him.
'It further includes material over aspects of an ID parade held at Zeist in April 1999, attended by Mr Gauci, at which Megrahi was paraded.
'In the grounds of appeal lodged on behalf of Megrahi, those relating to the evidence of Mr Gauci run to almost 150 pages.
'More documentation is also sought of contact between police and other investigators with a potential witness, David Wright.
'Mr Wright did not give evidence at Megrahi's trial but it is said he "may have material evidence to give bearing on the identification of the appellant as the purchaser of goods associated with the Lockerbie incident".
'The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, said: "Without expressing any view on the adequacy of the steps already taken by the Crown to satisfy the claims for recovery, we consider that the appropriate course at this stage is to identify the classes of document which, if they exist, the appellant is in our judgement entitled to recover."
'Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie, said: "The Advocate General has not yet scrutinised all the material on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.
'"It is possible that objections, based on legal privilege, might yet be made on the part of other governments or agencies.
'"The order which we shall pronounce will be subject to due consideration of any such objections."'
The full report can be read here.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query david wright. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query david wright. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday 17 March 2009
Tuesday 28 April 2015
Critical inferences not sufficiently supported by evidence
[The appeal permitted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission began at the High Court of Justiciary on this date in 2009, twenty-two months after the SCCRC reported and five years and seven months after Abdelbaset Megrahi’s application to the SCCRC was submitted.
A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.
Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, was not in court as his second appeal got under way.
However his QC, Maggie Scott, said he could follow proceedings via live video link to Greenock Prison.
She told the Court of Appeal that it remained Megrahi's view that he had suffered a "miscarriage of justice". (...)
Miss Scott said that because of his cancer Megrahi would need to take breaks due to the pain and was set to see doctors later this week for a new course of treatment.
She told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
"The trial court, on the basis of wholly circumstantial evidence, concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the commission of this crime.
"Our submission is it was wrong to do so".
She argued that the guilty verdict against Megrahi depended upon four "critical inferences" drawn at his trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Miss Scott said these included that Megrahi was the buyer of clothing remnants of which were found in the suitcase containing the bomb and that the purchase was made on 7 December, 1988.
She said it was also inferred that the purchaser knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought and that the suitcase containing the improvised explosive device was "ingested" at Luqa airport in Malta.
The defence counsel argued that they were not sufficiently supported by accepted evidence and relied on defective reasoning.
She said: "In this wholly circumstantial case the critical inferences are not the only reasonable inferences that could have been drawn from the accepted evidence."
She said they were insufficient in law to support the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi.
The first part of his hearing is expected to last four weeks with further stages in the process taking it into next year.
Tuesday 28 April 2009
The appeal begins
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal commences today. There is a preview report on the BBC News website. It can be read here. There is also a long article by Lucy Adams in The Herald, which can be read here. The following are excerpts:
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
Saturday 3 October 2009
Revealed: Scots link in $3m Lockerbie pay-out
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald on the materials published yesterday on Abdelbaset Megrahi's website. It reads in part:]
Scottish police officers took an active role in seeking a $3m-plus reward for a key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial and his brother, previously secret papers revealed yesterday.
The documents, which were never disclosed to defence lawyers working for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also point to another potentially important eye witness whose evidence was never followed up by detectives.
Those revelations, published on Megrahi’s website, further undermine the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Crown’s main witness at Camp Zeist. (...)
It will fuel fears of a miscarriage of justice, and strengthen calls for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie.
A four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found a number of documents which had not been shown to the defence. The non-disclosure would have been a key plank of Megrahi’s appeal, which he abandoned shortly before his release from Greenock Prison in August. (...)
The papers reveal that Tony Gauci received more than $2m after the trial and Paul, who never testified at Camp Zeist but “exercised considerable control over his brother”, received more than $1m. The family previously had financial problems.
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: I can find no trace of this summary on the website] states: “Tony Gauci and Paul Gauci had both expressed an interest in financial reward prior to giving evidence at trial. None of the documents in which references to the brothers’ financial interest or to the FBI offers of reward was disclosed and no mention of this was made to the defence. Many of the references . . . were in diaries kept by police officers. Parts of the diaries were missing and, most unusually, no police notebooks were kept. Letters written by the Scottish police to the US Department of Justice applying for a reward on behalf of the Gauci brothers were also recovered.”
Another section suggests Megrahi might not have bought clothes later found next to the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. A new witness called David Wright claims to have seen other men buying them in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta.
In November 1989, Mr Wright called Dumfries and Galloway Police to say he had been in Mr Gauci’s shop when two Libyans bought similar clothing. He said Mr Gauci referred to them as “Libyan pigs”. But his statement was never followed up by police.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “All of these issues could have been raised during the course of the appeal which Mr Megrahi abandoned.”
[A further article by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper is headed "Is this man key to Lockerbie ...or was he just after the cash?" The following are extracts.]
Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, became the Crown’s key witness in the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, and was the one man who linked the suspect to clothes found in the suitcase that harboured the bomb.
But new allegations published yesterday, which would have been tested in court if the appeal that began in April had gone ahead, have undermined both his credibility and reliability.
Papers on Megrahi’s website reveal that Gauci and his brother Paul were interested in financial reward from the start of the case, and that between them they received at least $3m (£1.88m) at the end of the trial.
Previously-secret police reports dating back to 1999 indicate “the frustration of Tony Gauci that he will not be compensated” and that “in respect of Paul Gauci, it is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case.
“As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears he and his brother have.
“He is anxious to establish what advantage he can gain from the Scottish police.
“Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
Offering witnesses financial remuneration is anathema to the Scottish system, and yet this information, uncovered by the investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was never disclosed to the defence.
Megrahi’s website states: “It is a matter of common sense, and it has long been recognised in Scots law, that the existence of a financial interest and/or the offer of rewards to a witness is of considerable importance in relation to the credibility of that witness.
“Depending upon the nature and degree of any such interest or reward, the law may exclude the evidence of the witness, or leave the effect of same on the witness to be weighed by the jury.” (...)
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: Again, I can find no trace of this summary] also states: “The documents also indicate that Tony Gauci had been visited by the Scottish police on more than 50 occasions – many, perhaps even the majority, of which were unrecorded.
“This information shows that the witness has significantly changed his position over time regarding the items sold.
“In addition there is a clear inference from the timing and context of these inconsistent statements that the witness has been influenced in his recollection by the police inquiries – either by being shown articles such as control samples or fragments or by discussion.”
Expert reports published for the first time on the website also question the validity of Mr Gauci’s identification of Megrahi.
Scottish police officers took an active role in seeking a $3m-plus reward for a key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial and his brother, previously secret papers revealed yesterday.
The documents, which were never disclosed to defence lawyers working for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, also point to another potentially important eye witness whose evidence was never followed up by detectives.
Those revelations, published on Megrahi’s website, further undermine the credibility of Tony Gauci, the Crown’s main witness at Camp Zeist. (...)
It will fuel fears of a miscarriage of justice, and strengthen calls for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie.
A four-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found a number of documents which had not been shown to the defence. The non-disclosure would have been a key plank of Megrahi’s appeal, which he abandoned shortly before his release from Greenock Prison in August. (...)
The papers reveal that Tony Gauci received more than $2m after the trial and Paul, who never testified at Camp Zeist but “exercised considerable control over his brother”, received more than $1m. The family previously had financial problems.
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: I can find no trace of this summary on the website] states: “Tony Gauci and Paul Gauci had both expressed an interest in financial reward prior to giving evidence at trial. None of the documents in which references to the brothers’ financial interest or to the FBI offers of reward was disclosed and no mention of this was made to the defence. Many of the references . . . were in diaries kept by police officers. Parts of the diaries were missing and, most unusually, no police notebooks were kept. Letters written by the Scottish police to the US Department of Justice applying for a reward on behalf of the Gauci brothers were also recovered.”
Another section suggests Megrahi might not have bought clothes later found next to the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. A new witness called David Wright claims to have seen other men buying them in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta.
In November 1989, Mr Wright called Dumfries and Galloway Police to say he had been in Mr Gauci’s shop when two Libyans bought similar clothing. He said Mr Gauci referred to them as “Libyan pigs”. But his statement was never followed up by police.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “All of these issues could have been raised during the course of the appeal which Mr Megrahi abandoned.”
[A further article by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper is headed "Is this man key to Lockerbie ...or was he just after the cash?" The following are extracts.]
Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, became the Crown’s key witness in the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, and was the one man who linked the suspect to clothes found in the suitcase that harboured the bomb.
But new allegations published yesterday, which would have been tested in court if the appeal that began in April had gone ahead, have undermined both his credibility and reliability.
Papers on Megrahi’s website reveal that Gauci and his brother Paul were interested in financial reward from the start of the case, and that between them they received at least $3m (£1.88m) at the end of the trial.
Previously-secret police reports dating back to 1999 indicate “the frustration of Tony Gauci that he will not be compensated” and that “in respect of Paul Gauci, it is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case.
“As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears he and his brother have.
“He is anxious to establish what advantage he can gain from the Scottish police.
“Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
Offering witnesses financial remuneration is anathema to the Scottish system, and yet this information, uncovered by the investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was never disclosed to the defence.
Megrahi’s website states: “It is a matter of common sense, and it has long been recognised in Scots law, that the existence of a financial interest and/or the offer of rewards to a witness is of considerable importance in relation to the credibility of that witness.
“Depending upon the nature and degree of any such interest or reward, the law may exclude the evidence of the witness, or leave the effect of same on the witness to be weighed by the jury.” (...)
Megrahi’s website summary [RB: Again, I can find no trace of this summary] also states: “The documents also indicate that Tony Gauci had been visited by the Scottish police on more than 50 occasions – many, perhaps even the majority, of which were unrecorded.
“This information shows that the witness has significantly changed his position over time regarding the items sold.
“In addition there is a clear inference from the timing and context of these inconsistent statements that the witness has been influenced in his recollection by the police inquiries – either by being shown articles such as control samples or fragments or by discussion.”
Expert reports published for the first time on the website also question the validity of Mr Gauci’s identification of Megrahi.
Sunday 23 August 2009
$2m witness payment, bogus forensic evidence and Pentagon memo blaming Iran: How Lockerbie bomber appeal threatened Scottish justice
[This is the headline over a long and highly detailed article in the Mail on Sunday. The following are excerpts:]
In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:
* Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
* Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
* A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.
[Note by RB: I strongly suspect that what is being referred to is the submission made on Mr Megrahi's behalf in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, not the Grounds of Appeal lodged with the Criminal Appeal Court once the SCCRC had referred the case back.]
The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.
But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.
Mr Ferguson, who has had 100 hours of unprecedented access to the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent during his eight years in jail, claimed last night: ‘From the start there was a determination to try to prevent this appeal being heard.
'It opened but never got off the ground, with stall after stall as each month Megrahi weakened with the cancer that was killing him.
‘There was rejoicing in the Crown Office in Edinburgh when he was released and the appeal abandoned.
'There may well be political manoeuvres behind his release but at the heart was a decision to save the face of the Scottish judiciary - in particular the Crown Prosecution, who would have been shown to have been involved in an abuse of process by non-disclosure of witness statements.’
It took the use of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to unlock the full intelligence documents which are now highlighted in the appeal submission.
They show memos from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which suggested the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, was in response to the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the American warship USS Vincennes five months earlier.
In a memo dated September 24, 1989, and reproduced in the appeal submission, the DIA states: ‘The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
‘The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command [PFLP-GC] leader, for a sum of $1million [£600,000.
‘$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammed Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses.
'The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.’ (...)
The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.
Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.
Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’
Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.
Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.
Mr Ferguson says that, although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop.
He would have produced evidence as to the date and buyer of the clothes, seriously undermining Gauci’s reliability and credibility.
It is now believed that Gauci has moved to Australia.
Other new evidence listed in the grounds for appeal would have called in new witnesses to prove that the fragment of circuit board from a timing device found near the crash and pointing to Libyan involvement simply could not have survived such an explosion.
Subsequent analysis carried out by an independent forensic scientist found no trace of explosive on the tiny piece. (...)
Also due to be called was a witness who would allegedly discredit the accepted account that the suitcase in which the bomb was placed had somehow travelled unchecked and unaccompanied from Malta to Frankfurt and on to the Pan Am flight.
Questions would have been asked as to how a fragment of cloth - believed to be from the clothing wrapped around the bomb - subsequently came to be packed with material linking it direct to the bomb.
Mr Ferguson added: ‘Had this appeal gone ahead and witnesses recalled and cross-examined, I believe it would be shown that some had most definitely perjured themselves or deliberately misled the court.
‘It is no wonder that some people were hoping Megrahi would die before certain witnesses were called.
'The release on compassionate grounds is a blessed release for them, as much as it was for him.’
Mr Ferguson, who now lives in France but continues to pursue ‘leads’ in the case, first met Megrahi in 2002 and says he was a constant visitor over the years as they went over every aspect of the evidence against him.
‘From the start I was struck by his total, unchanging, quiet protestation of his innocence.
'He readily admitted that his job was sanction-busting for the Libyan government but never anything more sinister.
‘He frequently said he knew his government were involved in many things but always looked me straight in the eye and said: "I am not a killer".
Despite seeing the by then frail and faltering Megrahi only four weeks ago as he waited to hear if he could be sent home, Mr Ferguson insists he did not press him on any political dealings which may have been going on behind the scenes.
He added: ‘Politics may have got him into prison but I believed it was only evidence that could get him out.
'I never believed, though, that he would give up the appeal after so many years of fighting for it. That was all we focused on in our meetings - his refusal to give up.
'At the end, though, I agreed with his decision because, otherwise, he would not have been able to get what he most wanted - to live out his last days with his family.’
Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer in September last year.
Mr Ferguson, who saw him two months later, said: ‘He already looked very different. His complexion was drawn and he’d lost a lot of weight.
'He cried as he told me how he had been called into the prison governor’s office and learnt his cancer was inoperable and ultimately untreatable.
‘He called his wife and they were both crying for 15 minutes. He wasn’t embarrassed to cry in front of me.
'I’d had cancer myself in 2002, so I knew what he was going through.
'I contacted a psychologist specialising in this disease who I hoped would help him deal with it.’
Since Megrahi’s diagnosis, Mr Ferguson has seen him four times.
He added: ‘Our visits were shortened because he couldn’t sit down for too long before being in pain.
'Because he is so religious he wasn’t scared of death but he was desperate to have his name cleared before he died.
‘I felt he was being blackmailed but he never admitted it.
'The Crown wouldn’t agree to transfer him unless he gave up his appeal and the longer they stalled the more fragile he became physically. In the end he just couldn’t continue.’
He first met Megrahi and his lawyer in Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison - and quickly became convinced that he was innocent.
He said: ‘The first thing I asked him was if he had had anything to do with the bombing.
'He insisted he hadn’t and was convinced from the start his conviction would be overturned. He seemed smart and intelligent without being arrogant and very angry.
'The evidence was purely circumstantial and came at a time when the West wanted to implicate Libya at a time when it was politically inconvenient to accuse the real culprits.’
Over the months the pair reached a tacit understanding: ‘It was never spoken outright but Megrahi knew I would never jeopardise his trust by writing about our meetings.’
In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:
* Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
* Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
* A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.
[Note by RB: I strongly suspect that what is being referred to is the submission made on Mr Megrahi's behalf in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, not the Grounds of Appeal lodged with the Criminal Appeal Court once the SCCRC had referred the case back.]
The closely guarded submission was obtained by Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist and co-author of the book Cover-up of Convenience - The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie.
But the evidence will never be tested in open court after the dying Libyan abandoned it last week to spend his final days with his family.
Mr Ferguson, who has had 100 hours of unprecedented access to the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent during his eight years in jail, claimed last night: ‘From the start there was a determination to try to prevent this appeal being heard.
'It opened but never got off the ground, with stall after stall as each month Megrahi weakened with the cancer that was killing him.
‘There was rejoicing in the Crown Office in Edinburgh when he was released and the appeal abandoned.
'There may well be political manoeuvres behind his release but at the heart was a decision to save the face of the Scottish judiciary - in particular the Crown Prosecution, who would have been shown to have been involved in an abuse of process by non-disclosure of witness statements.’
It took the use of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to unlock the full intelligence documents which are now highlighted in the appeal submission.
They show memos from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which suggested the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988, was in response to the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the American warship USS Vincennes five months earlier.
In a memo dated September 24, 1989, and reproduced in the appeal submission, the DIA states: ‘The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister.
‘The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad [Jibril], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command [PFLP-GC] leader, for a sum of $1million [£600,000.
‘$100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Sy [Syria], Muhammed Hussan [Akhari] for initial expenses.
'The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.’ (...)
The memos and reports, denied in full to the original trial, were available to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, two years ago, cast doubt on the safety of Megrahi’s conviction based on six separate counts of the legal argument.
Their view opened the way for a second appeal. That report has never been made public.
Mr Ferguson said: ‘Megrahi was made the scapegoat for whatever reason and from that point everything went in reverse to try to make the crime fit.’
Central to Megrahi’s conviction was the evidence of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who claimed that Megrahi had bought clothes allegedly found in the suitcase bomb.
Lawyers were due to claim that Gauci was paid a $2million reward for his evidence, which followed more than 20 police interviews, and that many of the often wildly conflicting statements taken on each occasion were withheld from the defence.
Mr Ferguson says that, although too late for the submission, lawyers were planning to spring a witness called David Wright, an English builder who was on holiday in Malta and who is said to have information about the clothes shop.
He would have produced evidence as to the date and buyer of the clothes, seriously undermining Gauci’s reliability and credibility.
It is now believed that Gauci has moved to Australia.
Other new evidence listed in the grounds for appeal would have called in new witnesses to prove that the fragment of circuit board from a timing device found near the crash and pointing to Libyan involvement simply could not have survived such an explosion.
Subsequent analysis carried out by an independent forensic scientist found no trace of explosive on the tiny piece. (...)
Also due to be called was a witness who would allegedly discredit the accepted account that the suitcase in which the bomb was placed had somehow travelled unchecked and unaccompanied from Malta to Frankfurt and on to the Pan Am flight.
Questions would have been asked as to how a fragment of cloth - believed to be from the clothing wrapped around the bomb - subsequently came to be packed with material linking it direct to the bomb.
Mr Ferguson added: ‘Had this appeal gone ahead and witnesses recalled and cross-examined, I believe it would be shown that some had most definitely perjured themselves or deliberately misled the court.
‘It is no wonder that some people were hoping Megrahi would die before certain witnesses were called.
'The release on compassionate grounds is a blessed release for them, as much as it was for him.’
Mr Ferguson, who now lives in France but continues to pursue ‘leads’ in the case, first met Megrahi in 2002 and says he was a constant visitor over the years as they went over every aspect of the evidence against him.
‘From the start I was struck by his total, unchanging, quiet protestation of his innocence.
'He readily admitted that his job was sanction-busting for the Libyan government but never anything more sinister.
‘He frequently said he knew his government were involved in many things but always looked me straight in the eye and said: "I am not a killer".
Despite seeing the by then frail and faltering Megrahi only four weeks ago as he waited to hear if he could be sent home, Mr Ferguson insists he did not press him on any political dealings which may have been going on behind the scenes.
He added: ‘Politics may have got him into prison but I believed it was only evidence that could get him out.
'I never believed, though, that he would give up the appeal after so many years of fighting for it. That was all we focused on in our meetings - his refusal to give up.
'At the end, though, I agreed with his decision because, otherwise, he would not have been able to get what he most wanted - to live out his last days with his family.’
Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer in September last year.
Mr Ferguson, who saw him two months later, said: ‘He already looked very different. His complexion was drawn and he’d lost a lot of weight.
'He cried as he told me how he had been called into the prison governor’s office and learnt his cancer was inoperable and ultimately untreatable.
‘He called his wife and they were both crying for 15 minutes. He wasn’t embarrassed to cry in front of me.
'I’d had cancer myself in 2002, so I knew what he was going through.
'I contacted a psychologist specialising in this disease who I hoped would help him deal with it.’
Since Megrahi’s diagnosis, Mr Ferguson has seen him four times.
He added: ‘Our visits were shortened because he couldn’t sit down for too long before being in pain.
'Because he is so religious he wasn’t scared of death but he was desperate to have his name cleared before he died.
‘I felt he was being blackmailed but he never admitted it.
'The Crown wouldn’t agree to transfer him unless he gave up his appeal and the longer they stalled the more fragile he became physically. In the end he just couldn’t continue.’
He first met Megrahi and his lawyer in Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison - and quickly became convinced that he was innocent.
He said: ‘The first thing I asked him was if he had had anything to do with the bombing.
'He insisted he hadn’t and was convinced from the start his conviction would be overturned. He seemed smart and intelligent without being arrogant and very angry.
'The evidence was purely circumstantial and came at a time when the West wanted to implicate Libya at a time when it was politically inconvenient to accuse the real culprits.’
Over the months the pair reached a tacit understanding: ‘It was never spoken outright but Megrahi knew I would never jeopardise his trust by writing about our meetings.’
Tuesday 26 April 2016
New witness casts doubt on Lockerbie bomb conviction
[This is the headline over a report published in The Independent on Sunday on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]
A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim.
Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is serving 27 years in Greenock prison for the bombing.
Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.
"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."
Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.
Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.
The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".
All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.
Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.
"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."
Sunday 4 October 2009
Malta asked to support demands for UN inquiry on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
Maltese witnesses paid over $3 million - defence claims
The government has been asked to support an international attempt to request the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
The letter is signed by 20 people including the families of the victims, authors, journalists, professors, politicians and parliamentarians, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well-known for defending human rights worldwide. The government said it was considering the call for the inquiry.
The letter asks the UN to help remove "many of the deep misgivings which persist in lingering over this (Lockerbie) tragedy". Such an effort could also eliminate the Malta connection with the terrorist act.
Malta was brought into the case because the prosecution argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport to a feeder flight [Pan Am 103A] for Pan Am flight [103] which departed from London. (...)
The second appeal of the convicted bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi, was expected to produce evidence that had not been made available at the trial and remove doubts that continue to linger on the verdict.
But Mr Al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from Scottish prison in August on compassionate grounds and abandoned his appeal to return to Libya.
The convicted bomber has always maintained his innocence. In a bid to clear his name before he succumbs to cancer, he began publishing documents that were to have featured in the appeal on the website www.megrahimystory.net.
The papers, he insists, provided enough grounds to have secured his release on appeal, if it had not been dropped. The first 300-odd pages of documents refer to Malta and the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
Mr Gauci had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb. But, according to the documents, Mr Gauci's testimony was replete with inconsistencies.
Moreover, the published documents state that Mr Gauci was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother, Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation.
Sky News reported last Friday that Tony Gauci was now living in luxury in Australia. The payment had not been disclosed at the original trial, nor had the documents related to it.
Excerpts from interviews conducted for the case that were revealed in the published documents quote former Police Commissioner George Grech and the former Head of the Security Services Godfrey Scicluna saying they were of the opinion that Tony Gauci "had become confused about things".
Yet, statements by representatives of the highest government authorities in Malta at the time were overruled in favour of Tony Gauci's testimony.
Another witness, David Wright, a regular visitor to Malta and friend of Tony Gauci, also filed a statement with the police in the UK saying that he was at the shop when the clothes were bought and that Mr Al-Megrahi was not the buyer. Yet, he was never called to testify.
Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg yesterday told The Sunday Times: "Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that according to our records, the bomb did not leave [from] Malta. We are still firm in that conviction." (...)
Dr Borg said the letter to the UN requesting an inquiry was an interesting development that would be "deeply" considered, although he referred to complex issues surrounding the event.
"We cannot ignore that there were two judgments on Mr Al-Megrahi. The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded," Dr Borg added.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, said in his report following the original verdict that a "miscarriage of justice had occurred". Dr Koechler told The Sunday Times that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging.
The sentiment that political interests dominated the trial is echoed by Robert Black, the legal expert who was the architect of the original trial. He is one of the signatories to the letter demanding a full public inquiry.
Maltese witnesses paid over $3 million - defence claims
The government has been asked to support an international attempt to request the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
The letter is signed by 20 people including the families of the victims, authors, journalists, professors, politicians and parliamentarians, as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - well-known for defending human rights worldwide. The government said it was considering the call for the inquiry.
The letter asks the UN to help remove "many of the deep misgivings which persist in lingering over this (Lockerbie) tragedy". Such an effort could also eliminate the Malta connection with the terrorist act.
Malta was brought into the case because the prosecution argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport to a feeder flight [Pan Am 103A] for Pan Am flight [103] which departed from London. (...)
The second appeal of the convicted bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi, was expected to produce evidence that had not been made available at the trial and remove doubts that continue to linger on the verdict.
But Mr Al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from Scottish prison in August on compassionate grounds and abandoned his appeal to return to Libya.
The convicted bomber has always maintained his innocence. In a bid to clear his name before he succumbs to cancer, he began publishing documents that were to have featured in the appeal on the website www.megrahimystory.net.
The papers, he insists, provided enough grounds to have secured his release on appeal, if it had not been dropped. The first 300-odd pages of documents refer to Malta and the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.
Mr Gauci had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes from his shop in Sliema that were later found wrapped around the bomb. But, according to the documents, Mr Gauci's testimony was replete with inconsistencies.
Moreover, the published documents state that Mr Gauci was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother, Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation.
Sky News reported last Friday that Tony Gauci was now living in luxury in Australia. The payment had not been disclosed at the original trial, nor had the documents related to it.
Excerpts from interviews conducted for the case that were revealed in the published documents quote former Police Commissioner George Grech and the former Head of the Security Services Godfrey Scicluna saying they were of the opinion that Tony Gauci "had become confused about things".
Yet, statements by representatives of the highest government authorities in Malta at the time were overruled in favour of Tony Gauci's testimony.
Another witness, David Wright, a regular visitor to Malta and friend of Tony Gauci, also filed a statement with the police in the UK saying that he was at the shop when the clothes were bought and that Mr Al-Megrahi was not the buyer. Yet, he was never called to testify.
Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg yesterday told The Sunday Times: "Since 1988, successive governments have insisted that according to our records, the bomb did not leave [from] Malta. We are still firm in that conviction." (...)
Dr Borg said the letter to the UN requesting an inquiry was an interesting development that would be "deeply" considered, although he referred to complex issues surrounding the event.
"We cannot ignore that there were two judgments on Mr Al-Megrahi. The fact that the second appeal was initiated does show that doubts persist on the verdicts. Unfortunately, it was not concluded," Dr Borg added.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, said in his report following the original verdict that a "miscarriage of justice had occurred". Dr Koechler told The Sunday Times that oil interests and joint security considerations have prevented the truth from emerging.
The sentiment that political interests dominated the trial is echoed by Robert Black, the legal expert who was the architect of the original trial. He is one of the signatories to the letter demanding a full public inquiry.
Saturday 21 March 2009
Crown's account of 12th procedural hearing
[The Crown Office (headquarters of the Scottish prosecution system) provides relatives of those killed aboard Pan Am 103 with accounts of proceedings in court in connection with the current Lockerbie appeal. I am grateful to one of these relatives (who, for the avoidance of doubt, is not Dr Jim Swire or, indeed, any of the UK relatives) for supplying me with the appended notes distributed by the Crown Office following the twelfth procedural hearing this past week.]
Petition for recovery of documents
On the 17th of March 2009 the Court granted an order of recovery in relation to a number of calls where they sufficiently related to the grounds of appeal and where the Court was persuaded that recovery will serve a proper purpose.
Call 1 in the appellant's petition sought material from 20 December 1988 to date showing ortending to show: (i) contact between police officers and other investigators (whether British, Maltese, German or American) and the witness Tony Gauci; and (ii) contact between prosecutor and those acting on their behalf and the witness Tony Gauci.
The Court refused to order recovery in relation to Call 1 on the basis that it was too wide and that it was not sufficiently related to any ground of appeal or any identifiable ground of appeal. The same remarks were made in relation to the refusal to grant any order for calls 1B (1.4) and 9. Call 1B (1.4) sought material relating to any US personnel contact with Tony Gauci. Call 9 sought material showing or tending to show information relating to the identity of the appellant was disclosed by the prosecuting authorities to journalists and other members of the press.
Where the Court did grant orders for recovery these were in relation to calls which were lessgeneral and more specific.
This specification was amended during the course of the hearing in February by the appellant's legal team. Some of you may have noticed reference to Call 1A and call 1B in the Opinion issued by the Court. These calls were added by the appellant during the proceedings.
In order to provide you with as much information as possible we thought it would be useful toprovide you with further detail in relation to the calls where recovery was granted by the Court.
•Call 1B (with the exception of 1.4) This call sought material relating to 21 specific areas which were listed in the appellant'spetition. For example material relating to the showing of photographs to Tony Gauci on specific dates and information on the preparation of photospreads shown on specific dates. In our note of the 23rd of February we provided a list of these calls which run from 1.1 to 1.21. These were granted with the exception of 1.4 as explained above.
•Call 1A This call sought all documents including photographs and videos showing or tending toshow the image of Abo Talb shown to Gauci on 2 October.
•Call 2 This call sought material showing or intending to show the enquiry in relation to the "potential" witness David Wright.
•Call 3 This call sought material from 5 September 1990 showing or tending to show policeactions and enquiries relating to the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (8 th December1988).
•Call 4 This call sought material showing or tending to show the conduct of the identification parade which took place on 13 April 1999 attended by the witness Tony Gauci.
Just because an order has been granted does not mean that the Crown holds any moreinformation than has already been provided to the defence. However it does require the Crown to check the material in its possession or the possession of the police forces subject to its directionto ensure that all material relating to the above calls is provided. If there is further material then this will be provided to the appellant's legal team unless there is a plea of public interest immunity by either the Crown or the UK Government.
Any material held by the Crown, which has not previously been provided to the defence and is covered by the calls granted by the Court, will require to be provided to the defence by Tuesday 9th June 2009.
Procedural Hearing 17th – 18th March 2009
People
The hearing called before three Judges - Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie.
Counsel for the Crown are Ronald Clancy QC, Nick Gardiner and Douglas Ross
Counsel for the appellant are Maggie Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson.
Alan Summers QC appeared on behalf of the Advocate General for Scotland.
Hearing Grounds 1 and 2
The appeal hearing on Grounds 1 and 2 (Insufficient Evidence and Unreasonable Verdict) of theGrounds of Appeal is due to begin on Tuesday the 28th April 2009. The Court was addressed byMaggie Scott QC in relation to a lengthy written submission prepared by the appellant and lodged in the afternoon of the 17th March 2009. She wished to reassure the Court that the “bulk” of papers were made up of productions and authorities. She advised that the document was 298 pages long but that there were no new issues raised within the paper other than Ground 1 had subsumed into Ground 2. She did accept that there was considerably more information thancontained within the grounds of appeal.
Ronnie Clancy QC addressed the Court in relation to his concerns on the note lodged. The Crown had two weeks as of Tuesday 17th March 2009 to lodge a response to the appellant’s note and only received the 298 page document on the 17th March 2009. The Crown had only a limited opportunity to survey the note prior to the hearing but already observed that the note contained factual and legal arguments which were not contained in the original grounds of appeal. Ronnie Clancy QC indicated to the Court that of the list of 82 authorities, lodged with the note, 45 ofthose do not feature in any previous lists of authorities. There is a list of 99 productions which includes transcripts of evidence of 47 trial witnesses. Of these witnesses only 8 are mentioned in Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2. Thus there are 39 transcripts that the Crown could not reasonably have anticipated would feature in the note of argument. Moreover it is only when the note gets topage 100 that it starts to bear any resemblance to the grounds of appeal. There are detailed submissions within the note that are not mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The structure of the note does not follow the structure of the grounds of appeal which in practical terms will require the Crown to restructure their own already prepared argument to address the arguments now advanced.
Ronnie Clancy QC advised the Court that the effect of the note was such that the Crown will require to reserve its position on whether the note contains material that is outwith the scope of the grounds. In practical terms the Crown were not suggesting a requirement for an application to discharge the hearing fixed for April but the Crown would require further time to address the detailed ‘fresh’ arguments in the note. He advised the Court that it would be physically impossible to absorb all the new material in the 300 page note and prepare a response in such a short timescale.
The Court stated it was satisfied the Crown should have further time to provide a response, “in sofar as is practically possible”, to tailor its argument to the note lodged by the appellant. The Court allowed the Crown a further 2 weeks to lodge a response. This now gives the Crown until Tuesday 14th April 2009.
Hearing Grounds 3.1 – 3.1
Maggie Scott QC requested that the Crown provide further specification to the answers lodged to Grounds 3.1 to 3.3. She advised that before the appellant could consider whether the Grounds of Appeal required any adjustment further specification was required from the Crown. In addition the appellant could not decide whether any evidence should be led at the appeal before the requested specification was provided.
Ronnie Clancy QC advised the Court that the answers provided by the Crown were full and comprehensive. The Crown does not accept the principle that the appellant requires further specification because these grounds are accepted as being final grounds of appeal. He also did not accept that the Crown required to provide any further information to allow the appellant to decide whether they should lead any evidence. That was entirely a matter for them to decide. However the Crown, for its own purposes, wishes time to adjust the answers to 3.1 to 3.3. Although the Crown does not intend to provide answers to all the specific queries raised by the appellant we will address a number of them. The Crown wishes time to adjust these answers inlight of the reports recently lodged with the Court from the appellant’s trial lawyers and Counsel.
The Court allowed the Crown until Tuesday 9th June 2009 to adjust their answers to Grounds of Appeal 3.1 - 3.3. The Court stated that any adjustments to the Grounds of Appeal sought by the appellant will require leave of the Court and that any proposed adjustments should be intimated by Tuesday 23 June 2009.
The Court intimated that there will be a further procedural hearing in the week beginning the 29th June 2009. At this hearing the Court will consider the timing and further arrangements for grounds 3.1 to 3.3. No date has yet been fixed to hear these grounds. Maggie Scott QC urged the Court to fix a date for this hearing. Despite an initial estimate of 8 weeks both the defence and the Crown agreed that 12 weeks was a more realistic estimate of time required to address grounds 3.1 to 3.3. The Lord Justice General raised the possibility of splitting the hearing into segments. There was no opposition to this suggestion by any party.
Outstanding Petitions for Disclosure
There are two outstanding matters in relation to petitions for disclosure in the case. The first is formaterial in the non-prioritised grounds of appeal which fall into calls which were not argued at the February hearing. The second is in relation to a petition for recovery of scientific evidence which again relates to a non-prioritised ground of appeal. Parties agreed that given the argument in February the Court would only require to be addressed on matters specific to these petitions and this would substantially cut down the time required to argue. The Court will fix a 2 day hearing in the week beginning the 29th of June to deal with the two outstanding petitions for recovery.
Additional Information
In the course of the hearing Maggie Scott QC intimated to the Court that the appellant will not be present in Court for the appeal hearings. Apparently provisions are being made to allow the appellant to view the proceedings from Greenock prison.
Petition for recovery of documents
On the 17th of March 2009 the Court granted an order of recovery in relation to a number of calls where they sufficiently related to the grounds of appeal and where the Court was persuaded that recovery will serve a proper purpose.
Call 1 in the appellant's petition sought material from 20 December 1988 to date showing ortending to show: (i) contact between police officers and other investigators (whether British, Maltese, German or American) and the witness Tony Gauci; and (ii) contact between prosecutor and those acting on their behalf and the witness Tony Gauci.
The Court refused to order recovery in relation to Call 1 on the basis that it was too wide and that it was not sufficiently related to any ground of appeal or any identifiable ground of appeal. The same remarks were made in relation to the refusal to grant any order for calls 1B (1.4) and 9. Call 1B (1.4) sought material relating to any US personnel contact with Tony Gauci. Call 9 sought material showing or tending to show information relating to the identity of the appellant was disclosed by the prosecuting authorities to journalists and other members of the press.
Where the Court did grant orders for recovery these were in relation to calls which were lessgeneral and more specific.
This specification was amended during the course of the hearing in February by the appellant's legal team. Some of you may have noticed reference to Call 1A and call 1B in the Opinion issued by the Court. These calls were added by the appellant during the proceedings.
In order to provide you with as much information as possible we thought it would be useful toprovide you with further detail in relation to the calls where recovery was granted by the Court.
•Call 1B (with the exception of 1.4) This call sought material relating to 21 specific areas which were listed in the appellant'spetition. For example material relating to the showing of photographs to Tony Gauci on specific dates and information on the preparation of photospreads shown on specific dates. In our note of the 23rd of February we provided a list of these calls which run from 1.1 to 1.21. These were granted with the exception of 1.4 as explained above.
•Call 1A This call sought all documents including photographs and videos showing or tending toshow the image of Abo Talb shown to Gauci on 2 October.
•Call 2 This call sought material showing or intending to show the enquiry in relation to the "potential" witness David Wright.
•Call 3 This call sought material from 5 September 1990 showing or tending to show policeactions and enquiries relating to the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (8 th December1988).
•Call 4 This call sought material showing or tending to show the conduct of the identification parade which took place on 13 April 1999 attended by the witness Tony Gauci.
Just because an order has been granted does not mean that the Crown holds any moreinformation than has already been provided to the defence. However it does require the Crown to check the material in its possession or the possession of the police forces subject to its directionto ensure that all material relating to the above calls is provided. If there is further material then this will be provided to the appellant's legal team unless there is a plea of public interest immunity by either the Crown or the UK Government.
Any material held by the Crown, which has not previously been provided to the defence and is covered by the calls granted by the Court, will require to be provided to the defence by Tuesday 9th June 2009.
Procedural Hearing 17th – 18th March 2009
People
The hearing called before three Judges - Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie.
Counsel for the Crown are Ronald Clancy QC, Nick Gardiner and Douglas Ross
Counsel for the appellant are Maggie Scott QC, Jamie Gilchrist QC, Shelagh McCall and Martin Richardson.
Alan Summers QC appeared on behalf of the Advocate General for Scotland.
Hearing Grounds 1 and 2
The appeal hearing on Grounds 1 and 2 (Insufficient Evidence and Unreasonable Verdict) of theGrounds of Appeal is due to begin on Tuesday the 28th April 2009. The Court was addressed byMaggie Scott QC in relation to a lengthy written submission prepared by the appellant and lodged in the afternoon of the 17th March 2009. She wished to reassure the Court that the “bulk” of papers were made up of productions and authorities. She advised that the document was 298 pages long but that there were no new issues raised within the paper other than Ground 1 had subsumed into Ground 2. She did accept that there was considerably more information thancontained within the grounds of appeal.
Ronnie Clancy QC addressed the Court in relation to his concerns on the note lodged. The Crown had two weeks as of Tuesday 17th March 2009 to lodge a response to the appellant’s note and only received the 298 page document on the 17th March 2009. The Crown had only a limited opportunity to survey the note prior to the hearing but already observed that the note contained factual and legal arguments which were not contained in the original grounds of appeal. Ronnie Clancy QC indicated to the Court that of the list of 82 authorities, lodged with the note, 45 ofthose do not feature in any previous lists of authorities. There is a list of 99 productions which includes transcripts of evidence of 47 trial witnesses. Of these witnesses only 8 are mentioned in Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2. Thus there are 39 transcripts that the Crown could not reasonably have anticipated would feature in the note of argument. Moreover it is only when the note gets topage 100 that it starts to bear any resemblance to the grounds of appeal. There are detailed submissions within the note that are not mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The structure of the note does not follow the structure of the grounds of appeal which in practical terms will require the Crown to restructure their own already prepared argument to address the arguments now advanced.
Ronnie Clancy QC advised the Court that the effect of the note was such that the Crown will require to reserve its position on whether the note contains material that is outwith the scope of the grounds. In practical terms the Crown were not suggesting a requirement for an application to discharge the hearing fixed for April but the Crown would require further time to address the detailed ‘fresh’ arguments in the note. He advised the Court that it would be physically impossible to absorb all the new material in the 300 page note and prepare a response in such a short timescale.
The Court stated it was satisfied the Crown should have further time to provide a response, “in sofar as is practically possible”, to tailor its argument to the note lodged by the appellant. The Court allowed the Crown a further 2 weeks to lodge a response. This now gives the Crown until Tuesday 14th April 2009.
Hearing Grounds 3.1 – 3.1
Maggie Scott QC requested that the Crown provide further specification to the answers lodged to Grounds 3.1 to 3.3. She advised that before the appellant could consider whether the Grounds of Appeal required any adjustment further specification was required from the Crown. In addition the appellant could not decide whether any evidence should be led at the appeal before the requested specification was provided.
Ronnie Clancy QC advised the Court that the answers provided by the Crown were full and comprehensive. The Crown does not accept the principle that the appellant requires further specification because these grounds are accepted as being final grounds of appeal. He also did not accept that the Crown required to provide any further information to allow the appellant to decide whether they should lead any evidence. That was entirely a matter for them to decide. However the Crown, for its own purposes, wishes time to adjust the answers to 3.1 to 3.3. Although the Crown does not intend to provide answers to all the specific queries raised by the appellant we will address a number of them. The Crown wishes time to adjust these answers inlight of the reports recently lodged with the Court from the appellant’s trial lawyers and Counsel.
The Court allowed the Crown until Tuesday 9th June 2009 to adjust their answers to Grounds of Appeal 3.1 - 3.3. The Court stated that any adjustments to the Grounds of Appeal sought by the appellant will require leave of the Court and that any proposed adjustments should be intimated by Tuesday 23 June 2009.
The Court intimated that there will be a further procedural hearing in the week beginning the 29th June 2009. At this hearing the Court will consider the timing and further arrangements for grounds 3.1 to 3.3. No date has yet been fixed to hear these grounds. Maggie Scott QC urged the Court to fix a date for this hearing. Despite an initial estimate of 8 weeks both the defence and the Crown agreed that 12 weeks was a more realistic estimate of time required to address grounds 3.1 to 3.3. The Lord Justice General raised the possibility of splitting the hearing into segments. There was no opposition to this suggestion by any party.
Outstanding Petitions for Disclosure
There are two outstanding matters in relation to petitions for disclosure in the case. The first is formaterial in the non-prioritised grounds of appeal which fall into calls which were not argued at the February hearing. The second is in relation to a petition for recovery of scientific evidence which again relates to a non-prioritised ground of appeal. Parties agreed that given the argument in February the Court would only require to be addressed on matters specific to these petitions and this would substantially cut down the time required to argue. The Court will fix a 2 day hearing in the week beginning the 29th of June to deal with the two outstanding petitions for recovery.
Additional Information
In the course of the hearing Maggie Scott QC intimated to the Court that the appellant will not be present in Court for the appeal hearings. Apparently provisions are being made to allow the appellant to view the proceedings from Greenock prison.
Friday 2 October 2015
US paid reward to Lockerbie witness, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi papers claim
[This is the headline over a report published on this date in 2009 on the website of The Guardian. It reads as follows:]
Scottish detectives discussed secret payments of up to $3m made to witness and his brother, documents claim
Two key figures in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber were secretly given rewards of up to $3m (£1.9m) in a deal discussed by Scottish detectives and the US government, according to legal papers released today.
The claims about the payments were revealed in a dossier of evidence that was intended to be used in an appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988.
Megrahi abandoned his appeal last month after the Libyan and Scottish governments struck a deal to free him on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with prostate cancer. Now in hospital in Tripoli, Megrahi said he wanted the public to see the evidence which he claims would have cleared him.
"I continue to protest my innocence – how could I fail to do so?," he said. "I have no desire to add to the upset of many people I know are profoundly affected by what happened in Lockerbie. My intention is only for the truth to be made known."
The documents published online by Megrahi's lawyers today show that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) was asked to pay $2m to Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who gave crucial evidence at the trial suggesting that Megrahi had bought clothes later used in the suitcase that allegedly held the Lockerbie bomb.
The DoJ was also asked to pay a further $1m to his brother, Paul Gauci, who did not give evidence but played a major role in identifying the clothing and in "maintaining the resolve of his brother". The DoJ said their rewards could be increased and that the brothers were also eligible for the US witness protection programme, according to the documents.
The previously secret payments were uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which returned Megrahi's conviction to the court of appeal in 2007 as a suspected miscarriage of justice. Many references were in private diaries kept by the detectives involved, Megrahi's lawyers said, but not their official notebooks.
The SCCRC was unable to establish exactly how much the brothers received under the DoJ's "reward-for-justice" programme but found it was after Megrahi's trial and his first appeal in 1992 was thrown out.
A memo written by "DI Dalgleish" to "ACC Graham" in 2007 confirms the men received "substantial payments from the American authorities".
The inspector claims the rewards were "engineered" after Megrahi's trial and appeal were over, but said there was "a real danger that if [the] SCCRC's statement of reasons is leaked to the media, Anthony Gauci could be portrayed as having given flawed evidence for financial reward." Instead, he claimed, the reward was intended to ensure the Gaucis could afford to leave Malta and start new lives "to avoid media and other unwanted attention".
However, the documents disclose that in 1989 the FBI told Dumfries and Galloway police that they wanted to offer Gauci "unlimited money" and $10,000 immediately. Gauci began talking of a possible reward in meetings with Dumfries and Galloway detectives in 1991, when a reward application was first made to the DoJ.
The evidence, which was due to be heard by the appeal court next month, also discloses that Gauci was visited 50 times by Scottish detectives before the trial and new testimony contradicting the prosecution's claims that Megrahi bought the clothes on 7 December 1988 – the only day he was in Malta during the critical period.
In 23 police interviews, Gauci gave contradictory evidence about who he believed bought the clothes, the person's age, appearance and the date of purchase. Two identification experts hired by Megrahi's appeal team said the police and prosecution breached the rules on witness interviews, using "suggestive" lines of questioning and allowing "irregular" identification line-ups.
Two new witnesses also disproved the prosecution claim that Megrahi was in Gauci's shop on 7 December, his lawyers said. Gauci said the area's Christmas lights were not on when the clothes were bought. The current Maltese high commissioner to the UK, Michael Rufalo, then the local MP, told the SCCRC the lights were switched on on 6 December, raising further inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
It has also emerged that Scottish police did not tell Megrahi's lawyers that another witness, David Wright, had seen two different Libyan men buying very similar clothes on a different day; evidence that psychologists believe may have confused Gauci and again clouded the prosecution case.
Dumfries and Galloway police said only a court could properly consider this material, and supported previous criticism of Megrahi's decision to release his appeal papers by Elish Angiolini, the lord advocate. "We will not be taking part in any discussion or debate concerning the selective publications made by Mr Megrahi," a statement said.
"We have nothing more to add other than to echo the lord advocate's recent comments pointing out that Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an appeal court presided over by the lord justice general, Scotland's most senior judge. Mr Megrahi remains convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in UK history."
A spokesman for the US Department of Justice also refused to comment, since Megrahi had voluntarily withdrawn his appeal. He said: "None of the allegations in the SCCRC referral, or the grounds of appeal filed by Megrahi, were finally adjudicated by the Scottish High Court of Justiary (the appropriate judicial forum) because Megrahi withdrew his appeal before the court could rule. Consequently, the US Department of Justice will not comment further on his aborted appeal."
Sunday 10 May 2015
"The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong"
[The following are excerpts from two articles published in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times on this date in 2009:]
A German expert has raised fresh controversy on a crucial piece of evidence in the conviction of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber.
The verdict relied heavily on the judges' acceptance of a brief computer printout of the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport. The prosecution had argued it proved an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb was transferred from Air Malta flight KM180 to the Pan Am flight 103 to London on December 21, 1988.
The expert who helped design the baggage system in place at Frankfurt airport in 1988 and familiar with the operating software has now said: "The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong."
In the original trial, the Crown could offer no evidence of how the bag got aboard the Air Malta flight in the first place. Malta had presented records showing that no unaccompanied baggage was on the Air Malta flight in question.
The baggage reconciliation system at Malta's airport did not only rely on computer lists. Personnel also counted all pieces of baggage, manually checking them off against passenger records. Maltese baggage loaders had been prepared to testify, yet they were never called as witnesses.
In spite of a lack of evidence that the baggage containing the bomb actually left Malta, the judges concluded that it must have been the case, based on an interpretation of the computer print out from Frankfurt.
The hotly disputed computer printout was saved by Bogomira Erac, a technician at Frankfurt airport. She testified at the original trial under the pseudonym Madame X. One of the reasons this computer printout was so controversial was that although Ms Erac thought it important to save, she then tossed it in her locker and went on holiday.
Only on her return did she hand it to her supervisor who gave it to the Bundeskiminalmt (BKA), the German Federal Police. The BKA did not disclose this printout to Scottish and American investigators for several months.
The German expert has now examined all of the evidence that related to the Frankfurt baggage system placed before the court in the original trial. The expert, who agreed to review this evidence on condition of anonymity, spent six months examining the data.
Although he demanded anonymity, he agreed that if a formal approach was made by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers or the Scottish Criminal Cases review commission, he would meet them.
He was puzzled when he saw how short the printout out was and explained that there was no need to print a very small extract from the baggage system traffic, as a full back-up tape was made. This would have shown all the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport that day.
When it was explained that the court heard that the system was purged every few days and that no back-up tape existed, he said: "This is not true."
"Of course it is possible no back-up tape was made for that particular day but that day would have been the first and only day in the history of Frankfurt Airport when not one piece of baggage or cargo was lost, rerouted or misplaced," he added.
He went on to say that FAG, the company that operated Frankfurt Airport, needed these tapes to defend against insurance claims for lost or damaged cargo.
The expert maintains that even with his expert knowledge of the system he could not draw the conclusion reached by the Lockerbie trial judges in 2001.
"They would have needed much more information of the baggage movements, not this very narrow time frame," he said.
Questions are now raised about why Mr Al-Megrahi's legal team at the trial in the Netherlands decided to accept and rely upon a report on the baggage system compiled by a BKA officer and not find an expert on the system. The Scottish police also did not seek to interview those people who designed and installed the system.
Jim Swire, whose daughter lost her life in the bombing and who has been campaigning relentlessly for the truth to emerge, explained there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, early on December 21, 1988, in the relevant area of Terminal 3. This was followed by the sighting (before the flight from Frankfurt had even landed) of an unauthorised bag within the very container where the explosion later occurred.
"What we need now is an equally clear explanation as to why the information about the Heathrow break-in was concealed for 13 years," he said.
Dr Swire added: "At last, the time has come to turn away from Malta and Frankfurt and look a lot closer to home at Heathrow airport for the truth, for that is what we still seek.
The trial held in the Netherlands under Scottish law led to the conviction in 2001 of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the bomber who placed the explosive on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. It was said that the suitcase containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103A which then headed for London before continuing to the US.
"There is no acceptable evidence that the bomb left Malta. There never was. There was never an explanation given by the judges to contradict the clear evidence from Malta," Prof Robert Black said.
Malta presented records at the original trial showing there had been no unaccompanied bags on the flight.
Prof Black echoed comments made last week by a representative of the families of the British victims, Jim Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The legal team representing Mr Al-Megrahi, who is eight years into a 27-year sentence for his part in the bombing, began appeal proceedings in Edinburgh on April 28. They are arguing that the evidence against him in the original trial was "wholly circumstantial". (...)
The Maltese government yesterday told The Sunday Times it was monitoring the situation, while Air Malta said it had no comment to make.
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
According to Prof Black the appeal took so long to reach the court because the prosecutors and the British Foreign Office used delaying tactics.
"They refused the defence access to documents they were entitled to see and that were an important part of the conclusions reached."
Documentation sought by the defence team includes a fax they say questions the original testimony of key Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who said he sold clothes to Mr Al-Megrahi from his shop in Sliema. It was said the suitcase containing the bomb on the Pan Am flight included those clothes.
The evidence the defence team is seeking relates to contact between police and other investigators with another potential Maltese witness, David Wright. They believe Mr Wright may have material evidence that calls into question Mr Gauci's statement.
At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".
Prof Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."
He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".
"The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."
Libyan authorities recently applied for Mr Al-Megrahi's transfer to Libya. It came after a prisoner transfer agreement was ratified by the UK and Libyan governments two weeks ago.
A few weeks earlier, the Westminster Joint Select Committee on Human Rights had called for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. But Jack Straw, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, insisted the treaty must go ahead.
This prompted the campaign group UK Families Flight 103 to issue a statement accusing Mr Straw of hypocrisy, saying the agreement cleared the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home before the truth emerged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)