Liberty human rights award to UK Families Flight 103

From Jean Berkley:

On 1st December Jean and Barrie Berkley, Jim and Jane Swire and John Mosey attended the Liberty annual Human Rights Awards Ceremony, where the UK Families Flight 103 were given a special award for their persistence over so many years in seeking more of the truth about the Lockerbie disaster and answers to the large number of questions that remain.  We had the opportunity to speak briefly when we were presented with the award and were very well received. Many of those present also approached us later and were very supportive.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused of gross political cowardice over Lockerbie

The following are two items posted on this blog on this date in 2007 and 2009 respectively:

1.  A prison visit

Today I had a two-hour meeting in Her Majesty's Prison Greenock with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, at his invitation (my first). Since the date of the trial court's verdict against him, my position has been a clear one: on the evidence led at the trial his conviction was simply an outrageous miscarriage of justice, about which the Scottish criminal justice system should feel nothing but shame. As a result of today's meeting I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.

I will not be disclosing the content of my discussions with Mr Megrahi, but I can say that he now speaks English with a fine Scottish accent (his first words to me were "Thank you for visiting me on such a dreich day") and that his taste in mints is impeccable.

["dreich" in relation to weather means dreary, cheerless, bleak. See http://www.dsl.ac.uk/]

2.  Lockerbie inquiry ruled out by Gordon Brown

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times about the letter recently received by Dr Jim Swire from the Prime Minister. The article reads as follows:]

Gordon Brown has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. In a letter to representatives of victims’ families, the prime minister said it would be “inappropriate” for the UK government to hold such an investigation.

His decision was criticised by relatives who said it has left them with little hope of learning the truth about who was behind the attack and the government’s handling of case.

UK ministers say it is now up to the Scottish government to decide if it wants to hold its own, more limited, inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on British soil. The SNP government has ruled out an independent inquiry, saying Holyrood lacks the constitutional power to examine the international dimensions of the case.

Supporters of a UK-led inquiry into the 1988 attack that killed 270 people believe it could involve sensitive Foreign Office files explaining why ministers named Libya as the state which sponsored the attack.

In a letter to Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, Brown said: “I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But he added: “I do not think it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.”

Brown rejected Swire’s claim that a break-in at Heathrow airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off rendered the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi unsafe.

“I understand the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not,” the prime minister added.

Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair, 29, was killed in the bombing, said Brown had let down relatives of the victims.

“By handing it back to Scotland it looks like they are trying to push it into the long grass,” she said.

Professor Robert Black, a QC campaigning for an inquiry, accused Brown of “gross political cowardice”. He suspected the government did not want further scrutiny of sensitive aspects of the case which led the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to report in 2007 that the conviction against Megrahi may be unsafe.

Black pointed out the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the UK government to hold a joint inquiry with Holyrood on matters straddling both parliaments. “The security of the United Kingdom and foreign relations are non-devolved issues and if Gordon Brown is saying these are not areas that would be involved in a Lockerbie inquiry then the man is insane,” he said.

[This story has now been picked up on the Telegraph website and can be read here. The Sunday Telegraph publishes a very moving article about Rev John Mosey whose daughter, Helga, was one of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The last three paragraphs read:]

The Moseys know that they cannot "move on" from the terrorist attack that took their daughter's life until they know the truth about who killed her.

Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal denied them the chance to hear new evidence in court that might have given clues about the killers. They, and the other Lockerbie families, will continue to fight for an independent public inquiry.

"I don't know if we will ever get the truth about what happened," Mr Mosey says. "But we will never give up trying. We owe it to Helga."

Scottish Government shirking responsibilities by expecting foreign authorities to pick up gauntlet

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog four years ago today:

Call for public inquiry into bombing

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Dignitaries and campaigners including Desmond Tutu have called for the Scottish Government to launch a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.

In an open letter, some 24 signatories including relatives of the victims, such as Dr Jim Swire and Jean Berkley, today call for a full and open inquiry.

The letter questions recent moves by the Scottish Government “to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck to London” in relation to calls for a public inquiry.

First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have said that Scotland has neither the power nor the resources to hold an investigation.

The letter states: “When it came to granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, the Scottish Government was adamant that the matter fell under Scottish jurisdiction and would brook no interference in the nation’s affairs.

“When it comes to the establishment of an inquiry, why does Edinburgh appear so keen to abrogate its responsibility and pass the buck?

“One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. The excuse frequently offered is that a Scottish inquiry would not possess the requisite power of subpoena when it comes to requiring evidence to be produced.

“This same argument not only applies to Westminster but to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation also. In fact, the only body with the powers that Mr Salmond is looking for is the Security Council of the UN.

“In other words, given this, and the fact that the General Assembly appears to be reluctant to take the bull by the horns, it is down to individual nation states.

“The Scottish Government should not be allowed to shirk its duties and responsibilities to the bereaved and its electorate by expecting other, foreign, authorities to pick up the gauntlet.”

The letter, sent to ministers to coincide with the anniversary of Megrahi’s release, makes the point that Holyrood should be fully able to assess the details of what happened because the case was investigated by Scottish police, the trial was conducted under Scots law, and Megrahi was held in a Scottish prison and released on compassionate grounds by a Scottish minister.

Significant Lockerbie developments expected in 2014

[The Hogmanay and New Year festivities at Gannaga Lodge being now over, may I take this opportunity to wish all the readers of this blog a happy and productive 2014.

Here is an item from the archives, headed Relatives of Lockerbie victims begin new legal fight for public inquiry, first published on 2 January 2010 and based on a report appearing on The Telegraph website :]

UK Families Flight 103, the relatives' campaign group, will use human rights laws in a bid to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack, which claimed 270 lives in December 1988.

The group has hired Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights solicitor better known for her work representing terror suspects, to devise a legal strategy to secure the inquiry for which families have long campaigned.

It is the first time the families have formally hired lawyers to pursue an inquiry.

The development comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, rejected the group's latest demands for an independent review of the bombing. He informed them of his decision in a letter, dated Christmas Eve, which was received by the relatives last week.

In the letter, Mr Brown said: "All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry." (...)

Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, said: "We are arguing that our human rights have been transgressed by the failure to hold an inquiry.

"This is the first time we have hired lawyers to do this. We have until now relied on appealing to the good sense and good nature of our politicians, and that has been to no avail."

The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among the victims when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, said: "I feel extremely positive about this development. For 21 years we have been asking the same questions and asking for an inquiry but I think we are nearer to getting it than we have ever been."

Legal tactics used by UK Families Flight 103 are likely to focus on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, which details the right to life.

Previous legal cases have shown that any failure by the state to properly investigate a suspected murder may amount to a breach of the right to life of the victim.

Options open to the families include launching a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse an inquiry, or using human rights laws to overturn Megrahi's conviction so that ministers are forced to act.

Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the flight, said it was crucial to overturn Megrahi's guilty verdict so that "public outrage" left the Prime Minister with no choice but to allow in independent inquiry into the bombing.

Jean Berkley, who lost her 29-year-old son Alistair, said Mr Brown's letter "was not a well-considered reply" and added: "This is a kind of treatment we are used to receiving. Our perfectly-well thought out points were dismissed in a rather thoughtless way."

[The Prime Minister's letter, dated 24 December 2009, is in reply to the letter delivered by the UK relatives on 27 October 2009. It reads as follows:]

Thank you for your letter of 27 October.

As I said in my letter of 23 October, I am deeply aware of the pain and suffering caused to you and the other families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. You continue to have my deepest sympathies for your loss.

You referred in your previous letters to the need for a public inquiry into the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and in your letter of 27 October you again referred to the Heathrow incident. As I said in my last letter, the Heathrow incident to which you refer was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland, which concluded that it did not render the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe.

All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry.

I do appreciate that this answer is still not what you were looking for. Please be assured that my thoughts, and those of the Government, remain with you and the other families, especially at what must be a particularly difficult time of year for you all.

[That was four years ago. Obduracy on the part of UK and Scottish Governments has so far stymied the campaign for an independent inquiry. But I am reasonably confident that 2014 will see significant developments leading ultimately to Abdelbaset Megrahi’s name being cleared.]

Lockerbie: 25 years on - a message from Justice for Megrahi

[What follows is the text of a message sent yesterday to Justice for Megrahi  signatory members and supporters by JFM’s secretary, Robert Forrester:]

On 21 December 1988, Europe was subject to its most notorious peacetime assault. In a matter of moments, the Lockerbie atrocity took 270 lives. All our hearts go out in love and comradeship to those the victims left behind as they remember their losses of a quarter of a century ago.

At Kamp van Zeist in 2001, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted for the villainy behind Pan Am 103. In 2009, his second appeal supported by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was dropped against a background of arguably dubious political double dealing which secured his repatriation to Libya and his family due to his terminal medical condition. He died in 2012, without having succeeded in clearing his name.

As one of the country’s most renowned political and legal figures has put it: “There is not a lawyer in Scotland who believes he was guilty.” In 2011, a leading Scottish newspaper’s poll found that 52% of Scots agreed there should be an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing while 34% disagreed and 14% were unsure. A petition for an inquiry has been before the Scottish Parliament for three years now calling for such an inquiry. The petition continues to receive unanimous parliamentarian support.  Allegations of criminality against police, forensic and Crown officials have been sidelined by the Scottish police and the Crown Office since August of this year because it is claimed that the allegations conflict with the Crown’s attempts to shore up the indefensible. Would the Crown Office, Police Scotland and the FBI be going on trips to Libya and Malta in their futile and secretive attempts to maintain the charade of implicating further Libyan nationals 25 years after the event were it not for the pressure they have found themselves under due to the overwhelming evidence presented by activists? Doubtful. What seems to be being presented is a cynical blind for public consumption.

Precisely how is justice being served by such intransigence as is being displayed by both the Crown Office and the Scottish Government? What kind of justice is it that produces more victims than it started with? Many good and honest folk firmly believe that justice has not been either done or seen to be done in this tragic case. There has been no completion, nor has there been any finality. A resolution is required.  The hearts and minds of the bereaved, the al-Megrahi family and all who invest their trust and faith in our justice system must be satisfied.

In the last few weeks another flood of information further undermines the Crown Office and Scottish Government position. The Foreign Minister of Malta has declared his profound doubts over the conviction. Documentary evidence has been revealed which proves that a key witness in the case against Mr. Megrahi was paid $2 million by the American authorities. This mounting evidence, on top of the evidence the SCCRC relied on for the basis of the second appeal, only serves to prove that our justice system has failed.

A third appeal must be referred. Methodical and persistent pressure can rectify the mistakes of dubious forensics, a bungled investigation and a misguided judgement. Something is seriously wrong in this case. Something seems deeply rotten in a state when public officials attempt to bluster their way out of having to deal with mass murder and a deranged court process to preserve a fantasy of reputation and as a result risk allowing those who may have committed this gross act to escape justice.

As the 25th anniversary of the Lockerbie tragedy approaches and the legacy of Nelson Mandela unfolds we demand no retribution or vengeance, we do not even seek to attribute blame, we simply ask that those who profess to serve justice do so without fear, favour or prejudice.

Signatory members of Justice for Megrahi

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of Scotland’s Shame and Megrahi: You are my Jury and Co- author of Cover Up of Convenience).

Mr Mikhail Basmadjian (Actor, Malta).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Christopher Brookmyre (Novelist).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Ms Julia Calvert (Actress and creative director, Malta).

Mr Manuel Cauchi (Actor, Malta).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Christina Dunwoodie (Soprano and opera director).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of: Cover Up of Convenience).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi Committee).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of Private Eye).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Justice for Megrahi Committee and author of Adequately Explained by Stupidity?).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for Private Eye).

Mr Alan Montanaro (Actor and drama school principal, Malta).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Ms Denise Mulholland (Actress, Malta).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Mr Alan Paris (Actor and creative director, Malta).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Former editor of The Firm).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Mike Ross (Photographer and designer, Malta).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Mr George Thomson (Private investigator).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).

Mr Simon Walker (Close friend of Joyce Dimauro: victim of 103).

Deceased members of Justice for Megrahi

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie Councillor in 1988).

Mr Jock Thomson QC (Former police officer and senior prosecutor. Latterly criminal defence advocate).

First anniversary of death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died one year ago today.  Here is the statement that Justice for Megrahi issued on that occasion:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has now died without having been able to clear his name of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 on the 21st of December 1988 during his lifetime. Now all those politicians and Megrahi-guilt apologists who regard compassion as being a weakling's alternative to vengeance, who boast of their skills at remote medical diagnosis, and who persistently refuse to address the uncomfortable facts of the case, will doubtless fall silent. Finally, the ‘evil terrorist’ has been called to account for himself before a “Higher Power”.

The prosecution case against him held water like a sieve. We are expected to believe the fantastic tale of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow transfer of an invisible, unaccompanied suitcase which miraculously found itself situated in the perfect position in the hold of 103 to create maximum destructive effect having eluded no fewer than three separate security regimes. There is no evidence for any such luggage ever having left the ground in either Malta or Germany, it is mere surmise. Not only that but we have accusations of the key Crown witness having been bribed for testimony; a multitude of serious question marks over material evidence, including the very real possibility of the crucial fragment of PCB having been fabricated; discredited forensic scientists testifying for the prosecution; Crown witness testimony being retracted after the trial and, most worryingly, allegations of the Crown’s non-disclosure of evidence which could have been key to the defence. Added to which, evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.

The judges were under immense pressure to bring in a verdict of guilty. Zeist was the most high profile trial that the Scottish High Court of Justiciary had ever presided over. There was massive international interest, and this was compounded by the fact that the judges played the dual roles of judge and jury in a case in which the indictments were brought by the same official body that had appointed them as judges in the first instance, the Lord Advocate. Anyone hoping, therefore, to discover an application of sound, empirical reasoning based on concrete evidence being exercised in the field of jurisprudence would do well to avoid the Zeistjudgement. Indeed, the most exceptional of Zeist’s many exceptional features is the judgement. Anyone reading this extraordinary document could be forgiven for thinking that in Scotland there is a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the defence. In the words of Professor Hans Köchler (UN appointed International Observer at the Kamp van Zeist Trial) commenting on the second appeal: “[it] bears the hallmarks of an intelligence operation.”

The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about. Some in the legal and political establishments may well be breathing a sigh of relief now that Mr al-Megrahi has died. This would be a mistake. Many unfortunates who fell foul of outrageous miscarriages of justice in the past have had their names cleared posthumously. The great and the good of western civilisation who have clamoured for Mr al-Megrahi’s blood of late may find it a salutary experience to reflect on the case of Derek Bentley: convicted and hanged in 1953, aged nineteen, for a crime for which in 1998 he was acquitted on his posthumous appeal. However long it takes, the campaign seeking to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed will continue unabated not only in his name and that of his family, who must still bear the stigma of being related to the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’, but, above all, it will carry on in the name of justice. A justice which is still being sought by and denied to many of the bereaved resultant from the Lockerbie tragedy.

It took almost half a century to resolve the Bentley case. With the Zeist justice campaign now in its twelfth year, one has to ask, when faced with such intransigence, precisely whom the democratically elected, executive arm of state represents. Historically, all the major parties, both in Holyrood and Westminster, must shoulder equal responsibility. However, since first coming to power in 2007, the SNP government has actively taken measures which hinder any progress towards lifting the fog that lies over events, much to the dismay of its own party supporters and activists who take an interest in the case. In 2009, a statutory instrument which was supposed to remove the legislative prohibition on publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons for the second appeal (a document that cost tax payers in excess of £1,000,000 to produce) was so drafted as to render publication effectively impossible. In 2010, the government also fired new legislation through parliament (‘Cadder’ Section7) that makes any prospect of opening another appeal in the interests of justice a forlorn hope. Even today, ignoring the fact that, with the support of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, campaigners finally forced the government to admit that it does in law (under the Inquiries Act of 2005) have the power to open an inquiry into the case, the government persists in sending out correspondence claiming that it doesn’t; this, of course, is accompanied by the hackneyed old mantra of their not doubting the safety of the conviction. Furthermore, during the consultation period of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, campaigners established that the Data Protection Act posed no legal obstacle to the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for the second appeal, however, the government maintained otherwise with the result that it was ultimately left to the courage and commitment of members of the journalistic community to test the government’s position to destruction. All of the aforementioned, and the regrettable habit of appointing Crown Office insiders to the position of Lord Advocate, are not reassuring signs that this matter is being treated with a sense of balance and objectivity by the authorities. The record has stuck. The longer this goes on, the more the doubts over the government’s true loyalties will increase.

This case has now become emblematic of an issue which affects each and every one of us and poses some profoundly basic questions which we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve? Our laws and how we apply them to our society are the most fundamental descriptor of how we function as a cohesive and coherent entity. They are effectively a portrait of our identity as a people. If, through complacency, we permit cosy, established authority to dictate the terms and to brush under the carpet concerns over how justice is defined and dispensed for the sake of convenience, expediency and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, says that “Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it.” Scotland’s independent and professional arbiter in the matter of referrals to the Court of Appeal, the SCCRC, believe that, on no fewer than six grounds, Mr al-Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice at Zeist. Whether or not the courts are the right and proper platform to deal with this case, the conviction has been in the hands of the High Court of Justiciary since 2001 producing no resolution whatsoever and, moreover, how amenable are the courts now likely to be towards sanctioning another appeal given that they have been invested with new powers which allow them to reject applications which question their own judgements? Fine words are not enough. Action is required. After all, the government took executive action to release Mr al-Megrahi following the dropping of his appeal (something he was under no legal obligation to do). 52% of respondents to an opinion poll conducted by a major Scottish national newspaper supported the call for an independent inquiry into the case. Over a two week period, and with minimal publicity, 1,646 individuals put their names to a petition for an inquiry, which still remains open before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee. If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government act by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.

Signed:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ and co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Secretary of Justice for Megrahi).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Secretary Depute of Justice for Megrahi).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor on the 21st of December 1988).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm’).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Kenneth Roy (Editor of ‘The Scottish Review’).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).