Frank Mulholland to become judge

[A Scottish Government press release announces today that the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC is amongst five new judges of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary. It reads as follows:]

Her Majesty the Queen has appointed five new Senators to the College of Justice on the recommendation of the First Minister.

Sheriff John Beckett QC, Ailsa Carmichael QC, Alistair Clark QC, the Rt Hon Frank Mulholland QC and Andrew Stewart QC will sit as judges in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

The judges will deal with Scotland’s most important criminal and civil cases.

Their appointments take effect on dates to be agreed by the Lord President. Four of the appointments are to fill existing vacancies. The fifth appointment, to be taken up by Frank Mulholland QC, will take effect following the retirement of a senator later in the year.

James Wolffe becomes Scotland’s most senior law officer - and is urged to look into Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The National. It reads as follows, accompanied by a legal commentator’s analysis:]

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates James Wolffe QC is to become Scotland’s most senior law officer in succession to Frank Mulholland QC who is stepping up to be a judge.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has recommended the appointment of Wolffe as Lord Advocate and senior advocate depute Alison Di Rollo as Scotland’s new law officers, the latter becoming Solicitor General.

News of Wolffe’s recommendation was welcomed by Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh Robert Black who has urged him to look into the Lockerbie bombing case. The Scottish Criminal Bar Association has also welcomed him.

Di Rollo succeeds Lesley Thomson, who was appointed to the post in 2011, and who has informed the First Minister that she wishes to pursue new challenges.

The appointments will be made by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The appointments, if approved, will complete the First Minister’s newly-appointed ministerial team.

The Lord Advocate is a Minister of the Scottish Government and acts as principal legal adviser, but decisions by him about criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths are taken independently of any other person.

The Solicitor General is the Lord Advocate’s deputy. She assists the Lord Advocate to carry out his functions and is also a Minister of the Scottish Government.

First Minister Sturgeon said: “I am extremely pleased to recommend the appointments of James Wolffe and Alison Di Rollo as Scotland’s senior law officers.

“James has an outstanding legal background and extensive experience at all levels, including the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

“Alison led the work of the ground-breaking National Sexual Crimes Unit (NSCU) for three years, having previously held the role of deputy. Her outstanding leadership in this most sensitive of areas has inspired confidence in all connected to it.”

James Wolffe said: “I thank the First Minister for nominating me to the office of Lord Advocate. If I am appointed, it will be a great privilege to serve Scotland in that role.”

Alison Di Rollo said: “I am both delighted and honoured to be nominated for this role by the First Minister and I am looking forward to working with James in his new role.”

The First Minister thanked both Frank Mulholland QC and Lesley Thomson QC for their service.

She said: “In his time as Lord Advocate, Frank has made a substantial contribution to both the law and to Scottish society. The creation of the National Sexual Crimes Unit was just one example of the increased specialisation of the Crown Office that Frank Mulholland presided over.

“In her role as Solicitor General, Lesley’s work, particularly around domestic abuse, was pivotal in moving towards a system that instils confidence in victims of abuse and ensures that their abusers are held to account. I thank both Frank and Lesley for their dedicated service to the Government, to justice and to Scotland as a whole.”

Prof Black said on his blog: “It is to be hoped that one of the first priorities of the new Lord Advocate will be to consider all of the evidence now available about the Lockerbie case and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.”

ANALYSIS: Andrew Tickell 

Wolffe has what is needed to help Sturgeon in legal rough and tumble

The Lord Advocate is much more than a public prosecutor. Scotland’s chief law officer heads up the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service, its independent prosecutors indicting and trying those accused of crime in the public interest. But his coat buttons up tight over a range of other equally important duties. The Lord Advocate is also the Scottish Government’s principal legal advisor – the legal brain in the cabinet, who – confidentially, sympathetically – helps its ministers navigate the increasingly tricky and complex legal rules which constrain their choices. Compared to the blood and thunder of indicting wrongdoers and dishing out punishment to the guilty, his advisory role is unsexy. It catches no eyes and commands no headlines. Most of it, ye and me will never hear about. But it is absolutely essential part of modern government.

Holyrood must steer its legislation safely through the reefs and shoals of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a sometimes knotty devolution settlement. Any major, controversial piece of legislation is always vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Land reform, tobacco vending machine bans, minimum alcohol pricing, the Named Persons provisions – all have been subject to well-organised and well-resourced challenges in our courts.

If I was the Scottish Government – so exposed to all these legal challenges to its agenda – I’d want the best legal brain on my side, counselling me, putting my side of the story if things get tough.

Nicola Sturgeon’s nominee – James Wolffe QC – has these qualities in spades. But the pick represents a clear departure for Sturgeon, who has broken with the approach adopted by her predecessor in Bute House.

This is to be welcomed.

When he first took office in 2007, Alex Salmond took the unprecedented step of leaving Jack MacConnell’s Lord Advocate in post. Elish Angiolini – a career prosecutor and solicitor – remained in office until the Holyrood election of 2011, to be replaced by her then Solicitor General and fellow career Crown Office prosecutor, Frank Mulholland. Mr Salmond was keen that his law officers should enjoy an unprecedented “independence from the political process”, establishing themselves as “independent of politics”.

In the event, Mr Salmond discovered that an independent prosecutor can be politically useful. Mr Muholland intervened regularly in political debates during his tenure. But historically, the law officers were explicitly political appointments. The garlands went to party loyalists: folk up to the job, with the requisite legal training, politically sympathetic to the government’s agenda. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General were partisan legal problem-solvers who could be relied on to tell legal truth to political power around the privacy of the Cabinet table, who did a bit of prosecuting on the side.

The idea that the law officers should be career prosecutors is a recent – and perhaps not altogether successful – innovation. It was Jack MacConnell who promoted Elish Angiolini to the role. The first woman to occupy the post, Strathclyde-educated Angiolini was a world away from the “Edinburgh legal fraternity” and the members of the Faculty of Advocates, who had filled the post for centuries. Her appointment prompted predictable rhubarbing from dark and dusty corners of Parliament House.

But it wasn’t all sour grapes, snobbery and personal disappointment. Some asked more substantive questions. Could career criminal lawyers effectively advise the governing on all the tough public law issues the government faces? You can’t be an expert in everything. Since 2007, the SNP has faced countless legal headaches, but its law officers have been drawn from a fairly narrow professional range. Mr Wolffe’s appointment suggests the SNP have learned from these bruising experiences before the courts, and are reckoning much more seriously with the legal rough and tumble which the Government will – inevitably – face this session.

This welcome appointment leaves Nicola Sturgeon’s government legally fortified.

Law Officers to join Faculty of Advocates

Elish Angiolini QC , the Lord Advocate and Frank Mulholland QC, the Solicitor General for Scotland, are to become members of the Faculty of Advocates.

In a statement issued today the Faculty said: “The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC, is pleased to announce the prospective admission to membership of the Faculty of Elish Angiolini QC, the Lord Advocate and Frank Mulholland QC, the Solicitor General.

“Mrs Angiolini and Mr Mulholland have played a leading role in the legal profession for a number of years and it is entirely appropriate that they should join the Faculty with its long tradition of service to the justice system and the people of Scotland.”

They will be formally admitted to membership of the Faculty at a calling ceremony on November 7.

A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said:

"Mrs Angiolini and Mr Mulholland are honoured to have been invited to apply to join the Faculty of Advocates, which is highly respected for its central role in delivering independent legal services in Scotland."

[From the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine, The Firm. The Dean of Faculty, Richard Keen QC, was senior counsel for Lamin Fhimah, the acquitted co-accused in the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. There is an interesting article on Mrs Angiolini's forthcoming membership of the Faculty of Advocates, and the possible reasons for it, on The Scotsman website.]

'Realistic possibility' of second Lockerbie bombing trial

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the STV News website. It reads in part:]

Scotland's chief law officer believes there is a "realistic possibility" of a second trial over the murder of 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing.

Scottish and American investigators announced last year that they had identified two Libyans as suspects over the 1988 atrocity but since then very little has been said publicly about the case.

In an interview with STV News to mark his departure from the post after five years, lord advocate Frank Mulholland QC discussed the prospect of fresh prosecutions over Britain's biggest mass murder.

"I've been to Tripoli twice," said. "I've established good relations with the law enforcement attorney general in Libya.

"We're currently at a stage where there are a number of outstanding international letters of request, one of which is seeking the permission of the Libyan authorities to interview two named individuals as suspects.

"Following all the work that's been going on, and it's been painstaking, it's taken some time, it does take time.

"I hope that the Libyans will grant permission for that to be done. I obviously can't say too much publicly but a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to make that happen.

"What I hope is that this will bear fruit and we can take it to the next stage of seeking the extradition of the two named individuals."

Last October, it was announced the lord advocate and the US attorney general had agreed there was "a proper basis in law" to treat the two Libyans as suspects.

The two men were not named by the Scottish or US authorities but they are Abdullah Senussi, Colonel Gaddafi's former intelligence chief, and Abouajela Masud.

Both are being held in jails in Libya - Senussi is appealing against a death sentence while Masud is serving ten years for bomb making. (...)

Asked if there was any realistic possibility of Senussi being surrendered for trial, Frank Mulholland replied: "Before I embarked on this work I was told that there was no possibility, absolutely none, of the Libyans cooperating with law enforcement in Scotland or the United States. That happened.

"In 2011, I attended a ceremony in Arlington where the Libyan ambassador to the US made a public commitment on behalf of the Libyan government to help. They have kept their word. They have helped.

"I said it takes time, and it will take time, and that's certainly something which we are used to in relation to the Lockerbie inquiry.

"If we get to the stage of seeking the extradition of two named individuals or indeed more persons, I think there's a realistic possibility that there could be a further trial."

The two men are suspected of bringing down Pan Am 103 while acting along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who remains the only person convicted of the bombing.

He died protesting his innocence after being released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government. A high-profile campaign to clear his name continues.

The lord advocate acknowledged any new Lockerbie trial would involve a public re-examination of the disputed evidence from Megrahi's.

"I don't fear that," he said. "I think that's a good thing. Without seeking to comment on what the outcome would be, I think the evidence would stand up to a further test.

"We wouldn't be doing this unless we thought that the evidence was sufficiently credible and reliable to have them interviewed as suspects, I think that's the best way to put it."

For many years after the bombing it seemed extremely unlikely there would ever be prosecutions over Lockerbie.

Eventually a diplomatic deal paved the way for the first trial to go ahead in a specially-convened Scottish court sitting at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

Frank Mulholland first raised the hope that the collapse of Gaddafi's regime could allow Scottish police to visit Libya back in 2011.

He is the first British or American official to publicly express the belief that a second trial could happen, albeit with carefully chosen words.

[RB: In my view the chances of either Senussi or Masud being extradited to stand trial for the Lockerbie bombing are precisely zero. I would, however, be delighted to be proved wrong since, as Frank Mulholland concedes, that would inevitably subject to further scrutiny the evidence that led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi -- a scrutiny that that evidence could not survive.]

Two years of Frank Mulholland as Lord Advocate

[Today marks the second anniversary of the appointment of Frank Mulholland QC as Lord Advocate.  Here is what I wrote on this blog at the time:]

This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister). 

The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.

[The Mulholland tenure of office has been just as undistinguished as anticipated. The melancholy history of his Lockerbie involvement can be followed here.]

Crown Office musical chairs

Posted from Istanbul Atatürk Airport:

In the course of my great trek from the Roggeveld Karoo to Edinburgh, I have belatedly discovered (a) that the Crown Agent, the civil service head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service, has resigned and (b) that the ministerial head of that department, the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, has announced that he will demit office after the Scottish Parliament elections to be held on 5 May 2016. 

Have the Megrahi case and the imminent submission by Police Scotland of the Operation Sandwood report on Justice for Megrahi’s nine allegation of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial any bearing on these departures? Who knows? And I have no doubt that the Crown Office would scathingly reject the suggestion. (Indeed, I see that it has done so.) Iain McKie makes some highly pertinent comments here.

As far as the replacement Lord Advocate is concerned, what I wrote when Mr Mulholland was appointed in 2011 is equally applicable to his successor:

“This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister). 

“The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.”

The present Solicitor General for Scotland, Lesley Thomson, like Frank Mulholland, was appointed from within the ranks of Crown Office staffers. It would be a grave mistake for her to be promoted to Lord Advocate.

Pro-Megrahi backers flayed by new Lord Advocate

[This is the headline over an article by Magnus Linklater (whose views on Lockerbie are well-known) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads as follows:]

Scotland’s Lord Advocate has launched a powerful and stinging attack against “conspiracy theorists” who claim that the Lockerbie bomber was wrongly convicted.

In the most detailed rebuttal yet made to the case mounted by campaigners who argue that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent and that Libya was not involved in the terrorist bomb plot that brought Pan Am 103 down over Lockerbie 24 years ago today, Frank Mulholland, QC, calls the allegations “without foundation”.

He goes on to accuse those making them of uttering “defamatory” comments against High Court judges who are unable to respond. [RB: Justice for Megrahi has made no defamatory comments against any High Court judge.  It is not defamatory of the Zeist judges to say that they were wrong in finding Megrahi guilty. Lawyers all the time say that judges got things wrong (and almost every time an appeal is allowed, other judges say so too). And in the Lockerbie case even the SCCRC concluded that, on an absolutely crucial point, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Zeist judges reached.  JFM in its recent allegations of criminality was very careful not to say that then Lord Advocate (and now High Court judge) Colin Boyd had attempted to pervert the course of justice.]

Mr Mulholland, who has relaunched an investigation into what he calls an act of “state-sponsored terrorism” by the former Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, says that he has been through all the evidence and is convinced that al-Megrahi’s conviction was “safe”.

An outside counsel invited by the Lord Advocate to conduct an independent review of the evidence has also concluded that the conviction was sound. [RB: It would be interesting to know the identity of this outside counsel.  Here, by contrast, is a short list of eminent lawyers who have concluded that the conviction was not sound: Benedict Birnberg, Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, David Wolchover, Len Murray, Ian Hamilton QC, Jock Thomson QC, John Scott QC.  There are many more.]

“I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process,” Mr Mulholland said. “I saw a report on the BBC that [claimed] a high court judge — Colin Boyd, Lord Advocate at the time — perverted the course of justice. And it frustrates me that they’re not in a position to answer these allegations, these can be made without being challenged and without any real foundation.” [RB: At least Mr Mulholland does not here make the error of accusing JFM of responsibility for the BBC’s egregious misinterpretation of the English language.]

He compared the allegations to the uncontrolled media attempts to blacken the name of Lord MacAlpine, the former Conservative Party treasurer, over child abuse.

“I deplore any of that,” he said. “The appropriate place for voicing any concerns about the evidence is before a court of law, not in the court of public opinion, or the media. I haven’t spoken to the people who are affected by this, but I would imagine that they are frustrated that their reputations can be so easily attacked, and they can’t do anything about it.”

Mr Mulholland, who has been to Libya to make contact with the new regime, is hopeful that permission will be given soon to send Scottish police officials to Tripoli to gather evidence that would not only buttress the case against al-Megrahi, but reopen the wider plot to down the US airliner.

He believes that a criminal investigation rather than a public inquiry is the best way to resolve the 1988 Lockerbie case.

“I take the view that the calls for a public inquiry are essentially to set up a vehicle which would be a surrogate criminal court, he said. “I believe that the guilt or innocence of al-Megrahi is entirely a matter for the courts.”

He issued a challenge to the al-Megrahi apologists: “If you don’t like the set-up of the justice system, then what you do is you change it, through the democratic vehicle of parliament. You change the law.”

Mr Mulholland says he has studied all the claims advanced in the book Megrahi: You are my Jury by the writer John Ashton, and finds no evidence to support them. He urged those arguing that al-Megrahi was innocent to put any additional evidence to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

“Mr Megrahi stood trial before a Scottish court and was convicted by three judges unanimously, then an appeal, where five judges unanimously upheld the conviction, hearing additional evidence about the Heathrow break-in [the claim that the bomb went aboard there],” he said. “Having heard all the arguments presented to them, they upheld the conviction. Part of our justice system is the [commission] for which I have the highest regard. Anyone who is concerned about a conviction can make an application to the commission.”

He added: “The commission had access to all the Crown’s papers, and they took the view that in relation to a very limited number of grounds, the case should be referred back to the appeal court, which they did. The defence were entitled to expand the appeal beyond the grounds of referral, and they included a number of grounds which had been rejected by the commission, and the court was in the process of hearing that appeal when al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

“Now, whatever you think, and everyone is entitled to their view as to whether he is guilty or not, the courts took the view that following a trial and an appeal and a subsequent appeal, which was abandoned, al-Megrahi’s conviction still stands and that is the application of the rule of law.”

Mr Mulholland believes the evidence shows that the previous Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi was involved in “an act of state-sponsored terrorism”.

He is working with the FBI, the US Attorney-General and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pursue investigations. “We are applying the rule of law,” he said. “If you follow the evidence, it leads to Libya.”

Authorities still trying to keep a lid on Lockerbie scandal

John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters was launched this morning at a press conference in Edinburgh.  The book contains the following chapters:

Foreword by Dr Jim Swire (9 pages)

1.  Flawed Charges (18 pages)

2.  Getting Away with Murder (18 pages)

3.  A Nation Condemned (9 pages)

4.  A Shameful Verdict (9 pages)

5.  Burying the Evidence (23 pages)

6.  A Bigger Picture (16 pages)

7.  The Crown out of Control (15 pages)

8.  A Failure of Politics (13 pages)

Conclusion: A System in Denial (12 pages).

At the launch, addresses by John Ashton and Jim Swire were followed by a lively question and answer session to which, amongst others, representatives of The Herald, The Scotsman, The Times, STV News, Iain McKie and I contributed.  A taste of Dr Swire’s remarks can be found here.  The press release issued to accompany the launch can be accessed here. An open letter sent today to the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC by Mr Ashton and Dr Swire can be read here.

Mr Ashton indicated that he would, starting next week, be releasing previously unpublished documents: “These are the documents the Crown didn’t want you to see.  I am making them public because, after 25 years, the authorities are still trying to keep a lid on this scandal.”  

Following this morning’s launch, a further press release has been issued.  It reads as follows:

Lockerbie 25th anniversary:

Will Scotland head for independence with a justice system the country can’t believe in? Will the politicians of Scotland continue to ignore 270 innocent victims?

Leading author joins voices with bereaved father to accuse Crown Office and Scottish Government of protecting murderers

At a press conference this morning, Dr Jim Swire, the father of a woman killed in the Lockerbie bombing, made his most outspoken attack on the Scottish authorities over their handling of the case. Speaking at the launch of a new book Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters, which marks the 25th anniversary of the bombing, Dr Swire said:

“It is Scotland’s shame that our judicial prosecution system is cowering behind its privileges in a brazen attempt to continue to block all reasonable allegations of its previous failures. In doing so it destroys its own credibility, demeans our country, and protects those who really were responsible for the murders of our families almost 25 years ago.”

He added:

“… of course there is still time for the SNP to announce an enquiry before this scandal undermines the referendum assuming it has not already done so and threatens independence. But this is much more than party politics and the 270 victims deserve more from our politicians.”

John Ashton, biographer of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and author of this new book: Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters, brands the case the greatest scandal of Scotland’s post-devolution era.

At the press conference this morning he stated:

“The conduct of the Scottish criminal justice system – and the Crown Office in particular – in the Lockerbie case has hugely undermined the public’s trust in it. This raises a fundamental question: if people don’t trust Scotland’s foremost independent institution, will they trust an independent Scottish government? I believe that this is why the current government has tried to keep a lid on the scandal by refusing a public inquiry in to the Crown Office’s conduct. It’s a significant miscalculation by Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill, because they would only gain public trust by granting an inquiry.”

He also questioned Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s position:

“ Despite the fact that we now know that the Crown withheld numerous items of important evidence from Megrahi’s defence team, the current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland has refused to acknowledge that anything went wrong. Furthermore, he has failed to order the police to follow up new witness evidence that undermines the prosecution case. Instead he has engaged in bluster and distortions and has smeared his critics by branding them conspiracy theorists. I believe that, if he continues in the vein, he will no longer be fit for office.”

In this new book, Ashton argues that the evidence against Megrahi was so weak that the charges should never have been brought and that the guilty verdict against him was blatantly unreasonable. It also describes how the Crown Office withheld crucial evidence from Megrahi’s defence team and how successive Scottish governments have turned a blind eye to the scandal. It demonstrates that, as a consequence of these failings, the real bombers went free and the Libyan people were unjustly subjected to seven years of biting UN sanctions.

John Ashton will also release documents hithero unseen over the next few weeks:

‘These are the documents that the Crown didn’t want you to see. I am making them public because, after 25 years, the authorities are still trying to keep a lid on this scandal.’

Lord Advocate refuses to answer questions from Jim Swire and John Ashton

[At the launch of Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters, John Ashton and Dr Jim Swire released an open letter addressed by them to the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC. A reply has now been received. John Ashton’s website reports it as follows:]

On 3 October Jim Swire and I wrote to the lord advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to ask three simple but very important questions. We have just received the response below from the head of the Crown Office’s serious and organised crime division, Lindsey Miller. Eagle-eyed readers will note that it fails to answer any of our questions.

Dear Dr Swire and Mr Ashton

Thank you for your open letter of 3 October to the Lord Advocate. He has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The Lord Advocate is well aware of his duties as a public prosecutor. As the Crown has stated repeatedly, the only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court.

The criminal investigation remains live, and the Crown will not make any public comment about the nature of that investigation.

Lockerbie relatives meet Lord Advocate and police

[The following is an excerpt from a short report in today’s edition of The Herald:]


Scotland’s Lord Advocate met relatives of the UK victims of the Lockerbie bombing as the Crown Office said a request had been sent to the Libyan Government requesting access for police and prosecutors in the case.

Frank Mulholland QC, and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Pat Shearer, met families in London.

The Libyan National Transitional Council agreed to allow Scottish police officers to travel to Libya.

[On the topic of Scottish police travelling to Libya, a longer report appears in the Belfast Telegraph.  It reads in part:]

A formal request has been sent to the Libyan Government requesting access to the country for police and prosecutors involved in the Lockerbie bombing investigation, the Crown Office said.

The investigators hope to examine information and documents relating to lines of inquiry.

The Libyan National Transitional Council has previously confirmed to the UK Government that it will assist the ongoing criminal investigation, and agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway Police to travel to Libya. (…)

Scotland's top law officer the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, and the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Pat Shearer, met UK families of the Lockerbie victims in London to update them on the development.

Scottish prosecutors and Scottish and US law enforcement representatives also attended the meeting.

The Crown Office said that as it remains a joint investigation, both Scottish and US investigators were "heavily involved" in preparing the request.

A further meeting with other UK families is scheduled to take place in the near future in Glasgow. 

"It’s a long process but I’m not giving up" says Lord Advocate

[What follows is the Lockerbie portion of an article reporting on an exclusive interview given by Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser:]

A steely determination to seek the truth and deliver justice has catapulted Coatbridge-born Frank Mulholland to the powerful top law post in Scotland of Lord Advocate.

And in an exclusive interview with the Advertiser this week, the nation’s top prosecutor reveals his views on the Lockerbie bombing (...)

The 53-year-old former St Bernard’s Primary and St Columba’s High School pupil told how he will not give up on the Lockerbie bombing investigation (...)

Mr Mulholland travelled to Libya in April with the director of the FBI Robert Mueller to discuss opportunities for stepping up the probe into the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people.

He said: “Going to Libya was the right thing to do.

“The Interim Prime Minister made very helpful statements regarding co-operation.

“I was looked after by a lot of good people and felt safe under their security.

“I would go back if there was good reason to do so and if my visit was not putting others at risk.

“It’s a long process but I’m not giving up. A lot of people lost their lives.”

[Be assured, Mr Mulholland, Justice for Megrahi is not giving up either, notwithstanding Crown Office bluster.]

Lockerbie Lord Advocate Peter Fraser dies

The death at the age of 68 has been announced of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC (Peter Fraser) who was Scotland’s Lord Advocate at the time of the bringing of charges against Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The mentions of Lord Fraser on this blog, extending over the period 14 November 2007 to 14 November 2012, can be accessed here. A statement from the present Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, can be read here; and a sympathetic appreciation on the website of The Telegraph, the house newspaper of Lord Fraser's political party, can be read here.

Peter Fraser was a genial figure who was popular across the political spectrum in Scotland. What he was not, was a great lawyer or a distinguished Lord Advocate. When Alan Rodger QC -- later House of Lords and UK Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger of Earlsferry -- who was a great lawyer, was appointed Peter Fraser's Solicitor General an official photograph was taken which showed Fraser seated at a desk with a massive tome open in front of him and Alan Rodger looking at it over his shoulder. A version of this photograph was posted in the robing room of the Faculty of Advocates with a bubble coming from Fraser's mouth saying, "What's this, Alan?" and a bubble coming from Rodger's mouth saying, "It's a book, Peter." This, I think accurately, if somewhat cruelly, indicates the Bar's assessment of Peter Fraser's legal abilities.  

As far as the Lockerbie charges against Megrahi and Fhimah are concerned, it is a widely held view that Fraser allowed himself to be bounced into bringing them by the US Department of Justice, which assured him that it had a credible and reliable eye-witness to the suspects' preparation of the bomb on Malta. Fraser took this on trust: whether or not he sought it, he was not given access to the witness in question. The witness was, of course, the Libyan CIA asset Abdul Majid Giaka who testified at Camp Zeist and whose evidence was dismissed by the judges as totally lacking in credibility, largely on the basis of CIA cables (which the prosecution sought to have excluded from evidence) that showed that his CIA handlers regarded him as a fantasist prepared to say virtually anything to keep his US stipend and to gain asylum in the United States.

Peter Fraser's career as a law officer began in 1982 when Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC MP was compelled to resign as Solicitor General under Lord Mackay of Clashfern as Lord Advocate. There were at that time two young Tory MPs who were advocates -- Peter Fraser and Alexander Pollock. Neither was a QC, but Fraser had passed advocate in 1969 whereas Pollock was not called to the Bar until four years later in 1973. It was probably for this reason that Fraser was preferred for appointment to the vacant office, assuredly not because of superior legal reputation and ability. He became a QC at the same time. On Lord Mackay's resignation as Lord Advocate in 1984, Kenny John Cameron QC was appointed to replace him, with a seat in the House of Lords as Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. Peter Fraser remained as Solicitor General. He lost his seat in the House of Commons in the 1987 general election (as, incidentally, did Pollock) but was confirmed in office. Lord Cameron resigned as Lord Advocate in January 1989, the month following the Lockerbie disaster. Peter Fraser succeeded him and was immediately given a peerage. When in 1992 he became Minister of State in the Scottish Office, his Solicitor General, Alan Rodger, became Lord Advocate.