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.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query frank mulholland qc. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query frank mulholland qc. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday 23 June 2013
Thursday 19 May 2011
Mulholland to be new Lord Advocate
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Solicitor General Frank Mulholland will today be named Lord Advocate, succeeding Elish Angiolini who last year announced plans to step down.
This will create a vacancy for the second law officer post and The Herald understands that it has been decided that a woman will fill the deputy role.
One of the names mooted for the Solicitor General post had been experienced QC Ronnie Clancy, a son of a police officer who has been at the bar since 1990 and was senior Crown counsel in the Lockerbie appeal.
However, The Herald has been told that with the promotion of Mr Mulholland, his No 2 will be a woman. A source at the Faculty of Advocates made the point that the number of women there has expanded from 10 to 100 in just 20 years, so with other senior female fiscals there will be no shortage of choice. (...)
Mr Mulholland was appointed by Alex Salmond as Solicitor General four years ago and it is understood he will now be promoted to the top post.
Mr Salmond will name his Cabinet team today after being sworn in at the Court of Session. He will swear three oaths – as First Minister, as Keeper of the Seal, and of allegiance to the Queen – before receiving the Royal warrant confirming his appointment as First Minister.
[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 Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has picked up this post. Its report can be read here.]
Solicitor General Frank Mulholland will today be named Lord Advocate, succeeding Elish Angiolini who last year announced plans to step down.
This will create a vacancy for the second law officer post and The Herald understands that it has been decided that a woman will fill the deputy role.
One of the names mooted for the Solicitor General post had been experienced QC Ronnie Clancy, a son of a police officer who has been at the bar since 1990 and was senior Crown counsel in the Lockerbie appeal.
However, The Herald has been told that with the promotion of Mr Mulholland, his No 2 will be a woman. A source at the Faculty of Advocates made the point that the number of women there has expanded from 10 to 100 in just 20 years, so with other senior female fiscals there will be no shortage of choice. (...)
Mr Mulholland was appointed by Alex Salmond as Solicitor General four years ago and it is understood he will now be promoted to the top post.
Mr Salmond will name his Cabinet team today after being sworn in at the Court of Session. He will swear three oaths – as First Minister, as Keeper of the Seal, and of allegiance to the Queen – before receiving the Royal warrant confirming his appointment as First Minister.
[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 Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has picked up this post. Its report can be read here.]
Monday 14 December 2015
Operation Sandwood Report: Public Statements by Lord Advocate and Crown Office
[In the item The Crown Office - cause for serious concern? posted earlier today on this blog, mention is made of statements by the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate that, in the view of Justice for Megrahi, disqualify them from playing any part in assessing Police Scotland’s forthcoming Operation Sandwood report into JfM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. What follows is the text of a document released today by JfM on the Crown Office’s and Lord Advocate’s statements:]
Introduction
In relation to the forthcoming police Operation Sandwood report into Justice For Megrahi’s (JfM’s) 9 criminal allegations which is due to be submitted to the Crown Office early in 2016 we have consistently argued that this authority and the Lord Advocate have disqualified themselves from receiving, considering and making any prosecutorial or other decisions flowing from this report because of related public statements made by them.
Public Statements
In September 2012, following JfM’s letter to the then Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill laying out the allegations and seeking an independent investigation into them, and before they had been reported to the police, the Crown Office authorities publicly dismissed them as being without foundation in an article in The Scotsman:
‘But the Crown Office yesterday branded the allegations “defamatory and entirely unfounded”. A spokesman added that one of the allegations had been investigated by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which found no basis for appeal, while it was also found there was “no basis” for claims that any police officers or officials fabricated evidence.
“It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way,” he added. The Lockerbie conviction has already been upheld by five appeal court judges, while Megrahi abandoned a second appeal.’ http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/deliberately-false-and-misleading.html
In December 2012 shortly after the allegations were officially delivered to Dumfries and Galloway Police, in widely reported statements, the Lord Advocate went public calling the JfM members who has made the allegations, “conspiracy theorists” and labelling the allegations, ‘defamatory and entirely unfounded ....... deliberately false and misleading.’
‘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. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/pro-megrahi-backers-flayed-by-new-lord.html
It is against this background of unprecedented public vilification of JfM’s legitimate allegations and those who made them that the subsequent behaviour of Lord Advocate/ Crown Office must be judged.
Having set themselves firmly against JfM and its claims their subsequent behaviour can clearly be seen as a consistent pattern of behaviour proactively supporting this totally unjustified bias and prejudice.
In June 2014 the BBC reported that the Megrahi family had instructed a Scottish lawyer to apply to have his conviction reviewed by the SCCRC and published a Crown Office response to the application.
‘A Crown Office spokesman said they "do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC." The spokesman added: "The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people. We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime, we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement.” ‘ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27698626
In December 2014, at the Lockerbie commemoration ceremony in America, the Lord Advocate once again re-emphasised Mr Megrahi’s guilt and stated the only remaining question was, ’who were his accomplices’? These comments were made in the full knowledge that Operation Sandwood was ongoing and that if any one of the criminal allegations was upheld this would call Mr Megrahi’s guilt into question and could point to Crown Office and police culpability.
The Daily Telegraph reported: ‘Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, used the 26th anniversary of the bombing to reaffirm his belief in the guilt of the only man convicted of the attack, and said Scottish prosecutors would never give up the fight to find his accomplices.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11306609/Lockerbie-bombing-senior-law-officer-vows-to-track-down-Megrahi-accomplices.html
The BBC reported: ‘Mr Mulholland said: "During the 26-year long inquiry not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case. "We remain committed to this investigation and our focus remains on the evidence, and not on speculation and supposition. "Our prosecutors and police officers, working with UK government and US colleagues, will continue to pursue this investigation, with the sole aim of bringing to justice those who acted along with al-Megrahi.” ‘
In October 2015 the BBC reported: ‘A Crown Office spokesman said: "The Lord Advocate and the US Attorney General have recently agreed that there is a proper basis in law in Scotland and the United States to entitle Scottish and US investigators to treat two Libyans as suspects in the continuing investigation into the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.’
Unfortunately these public statements by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office, highlighting and reinforcing Mr Megrahi’s guilt, fail to acknowledge, what they well knew, that there are two ongoing major investigations.
The first of them, to which the above quotations refer, is being conducted by a Crown Office/Police Scotland ‘Lockerbie Investigation Team’, in close liaison with the American FBI, and has been ongoing for a number of years. Its enquiries are based on the clear assumption that Megrahi did not act alone and his accomplices have still to be identified. The Lord Advocate has recently confirmed that as part of this investigation he is applying to interview two further Libyan suspects incarcerated in Libya.
The second investigation, mounted in 2012, followed JfM's nine allegations of criminality relating to the actions of Crown Office and police personnel and persons who were cited as Crown witnesses in the trial of the two Libyans. This investigation is now being carried out by a dedicated team of Police Scotland officers under the codename Operation Sandwood and a report is expected early next year.
As the Crown well knows the two investigations referred to above are potentially in direct conflict in that the first is predicated on the assumption that Mr. Megrahi is guilty. The Operation Sandwood enquiry however is into allegations that, if proved, point to his innocence and that there may have been malfeasance by some associated with the prosecution including Crown office personnel.
Conclusion
In publicly condemning the JfM allegations and the individuals who made them and by continuing to give such open public support to their own investigation the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have prejudiced and prejudged the outcome of Operation Sandwood.
In 2012 as soon as they were aware of our allegations, the resultant police investigation and the fact that if proved they could challenge the previous assumptions so actively being promoted by the Crown, these authorities should have taken immediate action to protect its integrity and made no further public comment which could be in any way related too that investigation.
As far as we can judge the Lord Advocate/Crown Office have taken absolutely no action to protect the ongoing Police Scotland major investigation and in fact have actively acted against it.
JfM believes that this consistent pattern of biased public statements, in addition to being completely inappropriate, has had the clear potential to influence and prejudice Operation Sandwood witnesses who have been required to provide statements against a background of this very public interference by Scotland’s senior prosecution authorities. We also fear that certain Crown, Police and expert witness, encouraged by the Crown statements, might seek to withhold from or alter legitimate evidence to Operation Sandwood.
Such blatant publicity also serves of course to set the whole of the Crown Office against any contradictory findings from Operation Sandwood thus making it entirely inappropriate for anyone associated with the Crown Office to receive, assess and decide on any action resulting from this report.
Since we made these allegations JfM has become increasingly concerned about the capability of the Lord Advocate/Crown Office to make objective and impartial decisions on any report emanating from the Operation Sandwood investigations. We believe that they have comprehensively disqualified themselves from such decisions and make it essential that a prosecutor completely independent of the Crown Office receives the report, assesses it and makes decisions arising from it without any Crown Office input.
Monday 6 October 2014
In memoriam Jock Thomson QC
It is just over one year since staunch Justice for Megrahi supporter Jock Thomson QC died. Two years ago on this date a letter from Jock headlined Career prosecutors as law officers have destroyed criminal justice system was published. What follows is the blogpost reproducing that letter:
[This is the headline over a letter in today’s edition of The Herald from Jock Thomson QC. It reads as follows:]
I see from the Scottish Legal News that Lady Stacey is to preside over a high-powered debate on the abolition of corroboration organised by the Scottish Association for the Study of Offending.
The outcome will be academic since Lord Carloway already has the green light – as ever, the devil will be in the detail.
History will show that the genesis of the destruction of our criminal justice system was the appointment of career prosecutors as law officers: beginning with (now) Dame Elish Angiolini QC as Solicitor General and continuing with a succession of senior members of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) since who have become and will remain Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for the foreseeable future.
This has led to the unholy, unhealthy alliance of law officers and law makers: Kenny MacAskill and Frank Mulholland, in the same bed. There is no separation of powers. Constitutionally the system now is morally and mortally flawed.
The fall-out from Cadder led to the knee-jerk Cadder Reforms. Ms Angiolini's furore about lack of convictions in rape cases, many of which should never have been raised in the first place, led Mr MacAskill to appoint Lord Carloway to consider whether the law should be amended to abolish the need for corroboration. The current Lord Advocate wants to do away with the accused's right to silence and the logical follow-on from that will be to make the accused a compellable witness. Will the next inexorable draconian step be the replacement of the presumption of innocence with that of a presumption of guilt? It's beginning to look that way. And by that time there may be little or no Criminal Legal Aid.
[Here is something I wrote on this blog on 19 May 2011, when the present Lord Advocate’s appointment was announced:]
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.
[This is the headline over a letter in today’s edition of The Herald from Jock Thomson QC. It reads as follows:]
I see from the Scottish Legal News that Lady Stacey is to preside over a high-powered debate on the abolition of corroboration organised by the Scottish Association for the Study of Offending.
The outcome will be academic since Lord Carloway already has the green light – as ever, the devil will be in the detail.
History will show that the genesis of the destruction of our criminal justice system was the appointment of career prosecutors as law officers: beginning with (now) Dame Elish Angiolini QC as Solicitor General and continuing with a succession of senior members of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) since who have become and will remain Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for the foreseeable future.
This has led to the unholy, unhealthy alliance of law officers and law makers: Kenny MacAskill and Frank Mulholland, in the same bed. There is no separation of powers. Constitutionally the system now is morally and mortally flawed.
The fall-out from Cadder led to the knee-jerk Cadder Reforms. Ms Angiolini's furore about lack of convictions in rape cases, many of which should never have been raised in the first place, led Mr MacAskill to appoint Lord Carloway to consider whether the law should be amended to abolish the need for corroboration. The current Lord Advocate wants to do away with the accused's right to silence and the logical follow-on from that will be to make the accused a compellable witness. Will the next inexorable draconian step be the replacement of the presumption of innocence with that of a presumption of guilt? It's beginning to look that way. And by that time there may be little or no Criminal Legal Aid.
[Here is something I wrote on this blog on 19 May 2011, when the present Lord Advocate’s appointment was announced:]
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.
Thursday 23 March 2017
A welcome departure
[What follows is an item posted on this date in 2016 on Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph’s Lockerbie Truth website:]
Scotland's Lord Advocate [Frank Mulholland] is to step down from his position as Scotland's leading law officer. Click here for more…
His decision comes just days after a media conference held in Edinburgh's Dynamic Earth conference centre on 16th March, chaired by representatives of Justice for Megrahi.
At that conference there were calls for the Lord Advocate to consider his position, following a special police investigation - Operation Sandwood - into allegations of criminality [by police and prosecutors] and a key forensic witness during the Lockerbie trial of Libyan Baset al-Megrahi.
It is understood that the Operation Sandwood report will be available for consideration in approximately two months time. [RB: It is now expected later this year. Justice for Megrahi's liaison group has regular meetings with the investigation team and is confident about the rigour of the complex investigation.]
Recently in an unusual move, the National Scottish Police Force has appointed an independent QC to advise it on the Sandwood inquiry because it felt unable to ask Crown Office lawyers to assess the evidence of alleged wrongdoing against certain Crown officers. Click here for more on this story.
Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2000 for the Lockerbie bombing, in which 259 passengers and eleven townspeople were killed by a bomb placed on flight Pan Am 103.
[RB: Frank Mulholland QC was installed as a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary on 15 December 2016. His disgraceful comments about Justice for Megrahi’s criminality allegations gravely compromised the Crown Office’s position in relation to Operation Sandwood.]
Sunday 23 December 2012
The claims that 'prove' the Lockerbie case fiasco
[This is the headline over a long article by Greg Christison in today’s edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
[The precise nature of the criminality alleged is outlined in a 4-page press briefing document produced by Justice for Megrahi. It can be read here.]
Eight damning claims that have sparked a bitter row within Scotland’s legal hierarchy over the Lockerbie investigation can be exclusively revealed today.
Campaign group Justice for Megrahi (JfM) has opened a 39-page dossier containing accusations that, if proved, would rock governments on both sides of the Atlantic.
JfM, which has the support of leading lawyers, claims that Crown Office officials and police officers attempted to pervert the course of justice during the investigation and trial following the 1988 disaster.
Our investigation comes just days after Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, launched a scathing attack on “conspiracy theorists”, whose attacks were “defamatory” and “without foundation”.
His comments have further angered campaigners, already infuriated that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill forwarded their complaints to the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary – the very organisations accused of wrongdoing.
It is alleged the authorities deliberately misled judges during the 36-week hearing at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000 in an attempt to frame Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah.
The group believes that vital evidence suggesting the bomb was planted at Heathrow Airport rather than in Malta, as found by the court, was intentionally overlooked in order to achieve a conviction against the two Libyans.
Backed by evidence from a “wide variety of sources”, the dossier also includes claims that prosecutors passed on false information to the court and key statements were deliberately “buried”.
Prominent Scots lawyers Ian Hamilton and Robert Black both support the claims and insist an independent inquiry must be held into the Lockerbie case.
Retired QC Mr Hamilton said: “Prima facie, all of the allegations hold water. But put together, there is such a defence case here that I find it incredible that any responsible Crown Office should not welcome an inquiry.
“The whole case against Megrahi was soured and poisoned from the very beginning by the CIA. They wanted a conviction at any cost to satisfy the understandable desire of the victims, many of whom were American citizens, for vengeance. I’m afraid Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Scottish Crown Office caved into this desire.
“It seems to me that this prosecution was conducted with a desire to get a conviction at all costs, even at the cost of justice itself. This has gone on too long and is a blot on Scotland’s reputation for fair trials.”
Reacting furiously to Mr Mulholland’s “defamatory” claims, he added: “It is very, very right for people to criticize an administration of justice which appears to be so corrupt as this one.”
JfM committee member Mr Black, also a [retired] QC and Emeritus Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, said the Scottish legal system had collapsed under a “real determination” for a conviction. (...)
Megrahi, who died in May, is the only man ever convicted of the bombing, which killed 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, in December 1988. Fhimah was acquitted.
He always maintained his innocence and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled there may have been a “miscarriage of justice” in his trial.
On Friday, speaking as the Libyan Government vowed to release all files related to the disaster, Mr Mulholland told a national newspaper [The Times] that he had already appointed “outside counsel” to conduct an independent review of the evidence and found Megrahi’s conviction was sound.
He added: “I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process.”
In response, JfM secretary Robert Forrester hit back: “To say our allegations are defamatory is a joke. Of course they are defamatory – if you point the finger at somebody and say they broke the law you are impuning their reputation.
“There is substantial evidence contained within the documents which supports these allegations and the Crown Office, along with Dumfries and Galloway Police are obliged to investigate.
“Our allegations were met with a prolonged period of silence, it is now interesting to see the Lord Advocate using the media rather than choosing to respond to us directly.”
A Crown Office spokesman said it “would not be appropriate” to name the counsel appointed to review the case.
THE EIGHT ALLEGATIONS
* Crown Office officials attempted to cover up damaging information contained within CIA cables about their star witness Abdul Majid Giaka, who said he saw Megrahi and Fhimah at Luqa Airport with a “suspicious” suitcase. Giaka was later found to be an unreliable witness.
* In the early stages of the inquiry, Dumfries and Galloway officers and Crown Office officials “deliberately ignored” compelling evidence suggesting the bomb was loaded on to Pan Am Flight 103 at Heathrow Airport.
* A statement by Heathrow security guard Raymond Manly, who discovered a break-in 18 hours prior to the departure of Flight 103, was “buried” and not disclosed during the trial.
* The Crown Office presented a false scenario to court concerning the positioning of the Samsonite hardshell suitcase – identical to the one containing the bomb – which was seen in Flight 103’s luggage container at Heathrow, at least an hour before the Frankfurt feeder flight landed.
* A witness for the prosecution, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, intentionally failed to point out a “crucial discrepancy” with a key piece of evidence.
* Dumfries and Galloway Police did not ascertain whether the company which made the MST-13 circuit boards had the capability to create the type of circuit board found at Lockerbie. In 2008, the defence team found the firm could not produce that type of circuit board.
* The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary failed to disclose critical evidence relating to the scientific analysis of the circuit board.
* Megrahi’s identification by witness Tony Gauci was not handled correctly by the authorities and did not show the expected level of fairness to the accused.
[The precise nature of the criminality alleged is outlined in a 4-page press briefing document produced by Justice for Megrahi. It can be read here.]
Thursday 17 March 2016
The issue is public confidence in the administration of criminal justice
[Yesterday’s Justice for Megrahi press conference gets extensive coverage in the media today. Here are two samples:]
Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 have said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the Crown Office should play no part in considering a Police Scotland report into criminal allegations they have made over the case.
And Len Murray, a leading figure in Scottish legal circles, said Mulholland’s position was “untenable”, although any question of resignation was a matter for him. (...)
JfM made nine allegations of criminality in September 2012 against police, Crown Office officials and forensic scientists involved in the original investigation into the bombing and the subsequent trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. They included perjury and perverting the course of justice.
However, JfM said the Lord Advocate and Crown Office personnel subsequently described them as “conspiracy theorists” and dismissed the allegations as “defamatory and entirely unfounded”.
“We feel very strongly that in the light of the sometimes scandalous outbursts that have come from Crown Office and the office of the Lord Advocate, they have disqualified themselves from considering the report which Police Scotland will be making following their inquiry into the nine allegations,” said Murray.
“It is perfectly obvious from these outbursts… that both the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have already taken a view on the matter, and therefore there is no prospect of that police report being considered fairly and impartially.”
[Brian] McConnachie [QC], a former principal advocate depute, said: “We know that Crown Office and the Lord Advocate have expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about the matter and that perhaps is simply symptomatic of the fact that Crown Office these days seem to consider as part of their job to pronounce in relation to pretty much any case or any profile at all.
“But the difficulty here is that if the Lord Advocate has expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about a matter, it is very difficult to see any way in which justice can be done or be seen to be done if the person who is deciding whether or not there are to be proceedings is the person who has already told us that the allegations are defamatory, unfounded and false.”
[John] Finnie [MSP] added: “Justice for Megrahi have posed a series of questions about how the police inquiry will be responded to by Crown Office – eight entirely reasonable questions, and I suspect had there been replies to these questions that you wouldn’t be sitting here today.
“What we maybe should do is tear the top of the paper off that says Justice for Megrahi and say ‘what does this mean for the ordinary citizen who makes serious and significant allegations against very senior people who are involved in our criminal justice system?’”
[Professor Alan] Page said the issue was about public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and that the allegations made by JfM had been dismissed “out of hand as unfounded, false and misleading”.
“This calls into question whether or not the Crown Office is capable of approaching them with the open mind that the administration of criminal justice, which in my view and I think in everyone else’s view, requires.”
Lord Advocate of Scotland Frank Mulholland, the country’s most senior state prosecutor, will be deemed "unfit to hold office" if he does not pass a report into alleged criminality involving his office’s personnel to an independent prosecutor, spokesman for a justice campaign group considering the case told Sputnik on Wednesday.
After a three-year criminal investigation, Police Scotland are now set to pass a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scotland’s prosecution service. It follows allegations that senior prosecutors, police officers and prosecution witnesses acted with criminal intent during the trial of Libyan Abdelbaset Megrahi who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The claims against prosecutor's office include perversion of the course of justice and perjury.
It is vital that Mulholland avoids a conflict of interest between himself and his duty to the Scottish public, Robert Black of the Justice for Megrahi committee said.
"If the Lord Advocate and COPFS do not recognize and appreciate this, then the Lord Advocate is unfit to hold office and COPFS has lost its moral compass," Black said.
Sunday 21 December 2014
The four elephants in the room which suggest the Lord Advocate is wrong
[This is the headline over an article by John Ashton published in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Crown Office has used the 26th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing to proclaim the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only man so far convicted of the bombing.
The department briefed yesterday that a review of the case had "confirmed beyond doubt" the Libyan's guilt, while today its head, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC, has personally reaffirmed that guilt.
Mulholland has been unusually vigorous in denouncing Megrahi's supporters, who include relatives of the Lockerbie dead, branding them "conspiracy theorists" two years ago. It is hard to imagine his opposite number in England and Wales, the director of public prosecutions, taking to the media to defend a conviction and take on critics. But while this strident tone has raised eyebrows, Mulholland's statements are more notable for ignoring four large elephants in the middle of his legal chambers.
The first is the ongoing review of the case by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), the statutory body that has the power to refer convictions to the appeal court. As Mulholland well knows, a previous review by the commission referred the case on no fewer than six grounds. The terminally ill Megrahi abandoned the resulting appeal to improve his chances of being granted compassionate release, but was confident that his name would one day be cleared. Remarkably, one of the six grounds was that the three Scottish law lords who convicted him had made a fundamental error of judgment when they found that the clothes incriminating Megrahi had been bought on December 7. In doing so, the commission, in the eyes of some, came as close as it legally could to saying that the guilty verdict was itself wrong.
More seriously for the Crown Office, four of the other grounds concerned its failure to disclose important evidence to Megrahi's defence team. This included evidence that the Crown's star witness, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, had expressed an interest in receiving a substantial reward and was under the strong influence of his brother Paul, who regularly nagged the police about being rewarded. The SCCRC discovered Gauci was later secretly paid $2 million by the US Department of Justice, and his brother Paul $1m.
When, in 2012, this newspaper published a leaked copy of the SCCRC's 800-page review, the Crown Office went into panic mode, anonymously briefing a Scottish tabloid that Megrahi's case had "more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese" then issuing a press statement that significantly downplayed the commission's findings.
The second elephant is the two-year-old police investigation, led by Police Scotland's Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, into criminal allegations made against some of those originally involved in the inquiry by the committee of the Justice for Megrahi group.
When the allegations were first made to the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the Crown Office immediately denounced them as groundless, despite not having seen the detailed dossier of evidence assembled by the committee. Many were shocked by the intervention, believing it might compromise the police inquiry and that it raised serious questions about Mulholland's independence as the chief public prosecutor. Unfortunately for the Crown Office, the police clearly do not share its contempt for the allegations. If the investigation concludes there was no criminal misconduct, the Crown Office still has to explain why it failed to disclose so much important evidence. In the view of its critics, notably Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing, the matter must be addressed in a public inquiry - something successive Scottish governments have been reluctant to grant.
The third elephant is forensic evidence concerning a small fragment of electronic circuit board, recovered from an item of clothing that was supposedly in the same suitcase as the bomb. According to the prosecution, it matched boards in timers supplied to Libya by a Swiss firm called Mebo, which shared offices with a Libyan company part-owned by Megrahi.
Evidence uncovered prior to Megrahi's abandoned appeal demonstrated that the fragment could not have originated from one of the Libyan timer boards. The discovery has fuelled claims the fragment was a plant, which has in turn encouraged the Crown Office to call its opponents conspiracy theorists. However, as Mulholland must be aware, the breaking of the link between the fragment and the Libyan timers leaves the prosecution case in shreds, regardless of whether it was planted.
The fourth elephant is the lack of evidence from Libya to implicate either Megrahi or the Gaddafi regime in the bombing. During the country's 2011 revolution, senior officials, keen to curry favour with the West, lined up to accuse the regime of sponsoring the attack.
The best known of them, the head of the National Transitional Council and former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, claimed to have proof that Gaddafi ordered the bombing.
All this must have been music to the Crown Office's ears, but, when pushed to reveal his proof of the regime's guilt, the best Jalil could offer was that it had funded Megrahi's legal case.
Sadly, Libya has become too dangerous for the Scottish police to conduct investigations there. Even if it were not, they would likely find the cupboard was bare. In the four years since the revolution, nothing has emerged publicly from the ruins of the old regime to affirm Megrahi's guilt, let alone Libya's.
No doubt Mulholland's public declarations will continue to ignore the four elephants in his legal chambers, but he must knows that their ever-fiercer stamping may one day bring Megrahi's conviction crashing around his ears.
John Ashton is the author of the authorised biography of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, Megrahi: You are my Jury, (Birlinn, 2012) and Scotland's Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, 2014). From 2006-09, he worked as a researcher with Megrahi's legal team.
[Here are links to some other reports in the media:
Megrahi was innocent of Lockerbie bombing, insists victim's father
Lockerbie victim's father criticises prosecutor's comments
Lockerbie bombing: Prosecutor's comments about al-Megrahi 'unfortunate'
Remember Lockerbie as crimes of intelligence services are exposed
Lockerbie: Lord Advocate to track down accomplices
And here is a moving reminiscence from someone engaged in the rescue operations on 21 December 1988:
Lockerbie -- 26 years on.]
The Crown Office has used the 26th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing to proclaim the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the only man so far convicted of the bombing.
The department briefed yesterday that a review of the case had "confirmed beyond doubt" the Libyan's guilt, while today its head, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC, has personally reaffirmed that guilt.
Mulholland has been unusually vigorous in denouncing Megrahi's supporters, who include relatives of the Lockerbie dead, branding them "conspiracy theorists" two years ago. It is hard to imagine his opposite number in England and Wales, the director of public prosecutions, taking to the media to defend a conviction and take on critics. But while this strident tone has raised eyebrows, Mulholland's statements are more notable for ignoring four large elephants in the middle of his legal chambers.
The first is the ongoing review of the case by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), the statutory body that has the power to refer convictions to the appeal court. As Mulholland well knows, a previous review by the commission referred the case on no fewer than six grounds. The terminally ill Megrahi abandoned the resulting appeal to improve his chances of being granted compassionate release, but was confident that his name would one day be cleared. Remarkably, one of the six grounds was that the three Scottish law lords who convicted him had made a fundamental error of judgment when they found that the clothes incriminating Megrahi had been bought on December 7. In doing so, the commission, in the eyes of some, came as close as it legally could to saying that the guilty verdict was itself wrong.
More seriously for the Crown Office, four of the other grounds concerned its failure to disclose important evidence to Megrahi's defence team. This included evidence that the Crown's star witness, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, had expressed an interest in receiving a substantial reward and was under the strong influence of his brother Paul, who regularly nagged the police about being rewarded. The SCCRC discovered Gauci was later secretly paid $2 million by the US Department of Justice, and his brother Paul $1m.
When, in 2012, this newspaper published a leaked copy of the SCCRC's 800-page review, the Crown Office went into panic mode, anonymously briefing a Scottish tabloid that Megrahi's case had "more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese" then issuing a press statement that significantly downplayed the commission's findings.
The second elephant is the two-year-old police investigation, led by Police Scotland's Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, into criminal allegations made against some of those originally involved in the inquiry by the committee of the Justice for Megrahi group.
When the allegations were first made to the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the Crown Office immediately denounced them as groundless, despite not having seen the detailed dossier of evidence assembled by the committee. Many were shocked by the intervention, believing it might compromise the police inquiry and that it raised serious questions about Mulholland's independence as the chief public prosecutor. Unfortunately for the Crown Office, the police clearly do not share its contempt for the allegations. If the investigation concludes there was no criminal misconduct, the Crown Office still has to explain why it failed to disclose so much important evidence. In the view of its critics, notably Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing, the matter must be addressed in a public inquiry - something successive Scottish governments have been reluctant to grant.
The third elephant is forensic evidence concerning a small fragment of electronic circuit board, recovered from an item of clothing that was supposedly in the same suitcase as the bomb. According to the prosecution, it matched boards in timers supplied to Libya by a Swiss firm called Mebo, which shared offices with a Libyan company part-owned by Megrahi.
Evidence uncovered prior to Megrahi's abandoned appeal demonstrated that the fragment could not have originated from one of the Libyan timer boards. The discovery has fuelled claims the fragment was a plant, which has in turn encouraged the Crown Office to call its opponents conspiracy theorists. However, as Mulholland must be aware, the breaking of the link between the fragment and the Libyan timers leaves the prosecution case in shreds, regardless of whether it was planted.
The fourth elephant is the lack of evidence from Libya to implicate either Megrahi or the Gaddafi regime in the bombing. During the country's 2011 revolution, senior officials, keen to curry favour with the West, lined up to accuse the regime of sponsoring the attack.
The best known of them, the head of the National Transitional Council and former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, claimed to have proof that Gaddafi ordered the bombing.
All this must have been music to the Crown Office's ears, but, when pushed to reveal his proof of the regime's guilt, the best Jalil could offer was that it had funded Megrahi's legal case.
Sadly, Libya has become too dangerous for the Scottish police to conduct investigations there. Even if it were not, they would likely find the cupboard was bare. In the four years since the revolution, nothing has emerged publicly from the ruins of the old regime to affirm Megrahi's guilt, let alone Libya's.
No doubt Mulholland's public declarations will continue to ignore the four elephants in his legal chambers, but he must knows that their ever-fiercer stamping may one day bring Megrahi's conviction crashing around his ears.
John Ashton is the author of the authorised biography of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, Megrahi: You are my Jury, (Birlinn, 2012) and Scotland's Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, 2014). From 2006-09, he worked as a researcher with Megrahi's legal team.
[Here are links to some other reports in the media:
Megrahi was innocent of Lockerbie bombing, insists victim's father
Lockerbie victim's father criticises prosecutor's comments
Lockerbie bombing: Prosecutor's comments about al-Megrahi 'unfortunate'
Remember Lockerbie as crimes of intelligence services are exposed
Lockerbie: Lord Advocate to track down accomplices
And here is a moving reminiscence from someone engaged in the rescue operations on 21 December 1988:
Lockerbie -- 26 years on.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)