Police consider prosecuting Crown Agent McFadyen

Lothian and Borders police have confirmed that they are considering whether to proceed to bring charges against Crown Agent Norman [McFadyen], more than a week after receiving information from MSP Christine Grahame in respect of his handling of the Lockerbie investigation.

[McFadyen] is presently on leave and cannot be contacted.

Lothian and Borders police said they were considering the content of Ms Grahame's letter, and would not rule out bringing charges against [McFadyen]. A police press officer said that they could not give any indication as to what will happen in the future.

The contents of Ms Grahame's letter are not known. However on 17 July the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr [McFadyen], saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”

The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.

[The above is the text of a news item posted yesterday on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.

For an update from the magazine's website, click here.]

Crown defamation decision on hold

The Crown Office will not confirm if any action for defamation is to be taken in respect of claims made about Crown agent Norman MacFadyen, despite issuing an unprecedented statement which purports that “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind” had been made against him.

The Crown issued the statement on 17 July, but did not state what allegations they were referring to. They did however state that they had been made by MSP Christine Grahame in relation her inquires into the Lockerbie proceedings.

The Crown Office had been asked to clarify whether an action for defamation would follow from Mr McFadyen, given the unprecedented nature of the statement they had issued which not only robustly defended Mr MacFadyen, but suggested Ms Grahame, a former solicitor, had failed to understand the judicial process she was referring to.

“Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers,” the Crown statement said.

“Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Crown Office as an organisation is not permitted to raise an action for defamation following the decision in the 1984 Derbyshire County Council case. McFadyen himself is presently on leave. The Crown Office has advised that any decision on whether to raise such an action would be a private matter for him.

[The above is the text of a news item posted today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]

Crown caught out misleading the court

[On this date in 2000, the procurator fiscal in charge of preparations for the Lockerbie trial wrote a highly significant memorandum to two of the senior advocate deputes prosecuting the case. A redacted copy of the memorandum can be read here. When the memorandum eventually came into the public domain more than a decade later John Ashton commented as follows:]

Welcoming the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's report on the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on 25 March [2012], Alex Salmond managed to add to the roll call of excuses for not ordering a public inquiry into the case.

    

The report, he said, 'in many ways is far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be'. In fact, it's not: the SCCRC's job was to establish whether Megrahi may have been wrongly convicted, not to examine why the case went so badly wrong, although it undoubtedly shed some light on that matter.  

    

If a single document illustrates why we still need an inquiry, it is a confidential memo dated 2 June 2000 by the lead procurator fiscal on the case, Norman McFadyen. Published here for the first time, it reports on a meeting that McFadyen and advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC had had the previous day at the US embassy in The Hague. Large sections of it remain redacted.

    

The two prosecutors were there to inspect CIA cables relating to one of the Crown's star witnesses, an ex-colleague of Megrahi's called Majid Giaka, who was a member of the Libyan external intelligence service, the ESO. Giaka, it transpired, was also a CIA informant. Crucially, he claimed that, shortly before the bombing, Megrahi had arrived in Malta with a brown Samsonite suitcase and that his co-accused Lamin Fhimah had helped him carry it through airport customs. If true, this was highly significant, because the Lockerbie bomb was also contained within a brown Samsonite and, according to the Crown, began its journey in Malta.

    

Twenty-five heavily redacted cables had been disclosed to the defence. The purpose of the meeting, according to the memo, was to view almost entirely unredacted versions in order to determine 'whether there was any material which required to be disclosed to the defence'. Page two states that, at the CIA's insistence, the two men had to sign a confidentiality agreement, the terms of which McFadyen described as follows: 'If we found material which we wished to use in evidence we would require to raise that issue with the CIA and not make any use of the material without their agreement'. In effect, then, the Crown had secretly ceded to the CIA the right to determine what material might be used in court.          

    

But it's what followed a few paragraphs later that's key. MacFadyen reported that, having inspected the cables:

    

We were able to satisfy ourselves that there was nothing omitted which could assist the defence in itself. There were some references to matters which in isolation might be thought to assist the defence – eg details of payments or of efforts by Majid to secure sham surgery – but since evidence was being provided as to the total of payments made and of the request for sham surgery, the particular material did not appear to be disclosable. We were satisfied that the material which had been redacted was not relevant to the case or helpful to the defence.

    

MacFadyen was correct in stating that evidence had been disclosed of the total payments to Giaka and a request for sham surgery in order to enable him to resign from the ESO. The payments were detailed in two separate CIA documents (not cables) while his desire for sham surgery request was referred to in one of the disclosed cables.

    

When, almost three months later, the defence counsel learned of the Hague embassy meeting, they urged the court to ask the Crown to obtain the complete cables from the CIA. In response, the lord advocate, Colin Boyd QC, assured the court that MacFadyen's and Turnbull's review had established that 'there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special [defence of incrimination]'. He added: 'there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters'.

The court nevertheless urged the Crown to seek fuller versions of the cables from the CIA. Three days later the Crown handed the defence copies with far fewer redactions. What, then, was contained in the previously concealed sections, which, in MacFadyen's view, was 'not relevant to the case or helpful to the defence'? Here's what.

    

There were repeated references not only to Giaka's desire for sham surgery, but also his repeated and successful pleas to the CIA to pay for it. One of the cables described him as 'something of a hypochondriac', while another noted his claim to be a distant relative of Libya's former leader King Idris. A further one revealed that he wanted the CIA to set him up in a car rental business in Malta and that he had saved $30,000 towards the venture. His handlers believed that much of the money had been acquired from illegal commissions and perhaps through low-level smuggling.

    

Crucially, there were references to other meetings with the CIA, for which no cables had disclosed. Eventually the CIA coughed up 36 more, about which MacFadyen and Turnbull were seemingly unaware.

    

The most telling fact concealed by the redactions was that the CIA had grown increasingly dissatisfied with Giaka. One noted that his information about the ESO's structure and administration 'may be somewhat skewed by his prolonged absence and lack of seniority'. Another revealed that he would be told: 'that he will only continue his $1,000 per month salary payment through the remainder of 1989. If [he] is not able to demonstrate sustained and defined access to information of intelligence value by January 1990, [the CIA] will cease all salary and financial support until such access can be proven again'.

    

A later section of the same cable noted: 'it is clear that [Giaka] will never be the penetration of the ESO that we had anticipated… [He] has never been a true staff member of the ESO and as he stated at this meeting, he was coopted with working with the ESO and he now wants nothing to do with them or their activities… We will want to ensure that [he] understands what is expected of him and what he can expect from us in return. [CIA] officer will therefore advise [him] at 4 Sept meeting that he is on "trial" status until 1 January 1990'.

    

Having analysed the unredacted sections, Richard Keen QC, respresenting Megrahi's co-accused, Lamin Fhimah, told the court it was 'abundantly clear' that much of the newly uncovered information was highly relevant to the defence, adding, 'I frankly find it inconceivable that it could have been thought otherwise... Some of the material which is now disclosed goes to the very heart of material aspects of this case, not just to issues of credibility and reliability, but beyond'.

    

In order words, the Crown had been caught out misleading the court. I do not suggest that Boyd did so deliberately, neither that MacFadyen and Turnbull deliberately concealed evidence that they knew would by helpful to the defence. Motive is not the issue: what really matters is the quality of the Crown's judgement.

    

Armed with the new information and the 36 additional cables, Keen and Megrahi's counsel, Bill Taylor QC, were able to demolish Giaka's credibility and with it the case against Fhimah, who was acquitted. Had the court taken Boyd at his word and the redactions not been lifted, Giaka might have left the witness stand with his credibility intact and Fhimah may well have been convicted along with Megrahi.

    

The big remaining question raised by the MacFadyen memo is: was it an isolated failure of judgement or the tip of the iceberg? The SCCRC found numerous items of significant evidence which the Crown had failed to disclose to Megrahi's lawyers. Did the prosecutors also satisfy themselves in each instance 'that there was nothing omitted which could assist the defence'? Only a full public inquiry can adequately answer such questions. It is high time that Salmond's government ordered one. 

CID looking into McFadyen claims

Lothian and Borders police have confirmed that MSP Christine Grahame's letter -in which she makes claims regarding Crown Agent Norman McFadyen's handling of the Lockerbie investigation- has been passed to the force's Criminal Investigations Department (CID). (...)

The police had previously only comfirmed that the letter had been received. The news that the CID are now examining its contents raises the possibility that a criminal investigation may follow.

"In relation to your request for information about the letter sent by Ms Grahame we can confirm that the letter contains a significant amount of information which is currently being considered by the Criminal Investigation Department," the force said in a statement from the Head of CID.

"Lothian and Borders Police will reply to Ms Grahame once the information contained in the letter has been considered."

A prosecution against a sitting Crown Agent would be unprecedented.

The details of Ms Grahame's claims are not known. However, following its receipt by the police, the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr MacFadyen, saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”

The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.

[From an exclusive report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]

First public mention of Lockerbie "star witness" Giaka

[What follows is an article that appeared fifteen years ago today on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website run by Safia Aoude:]

Senior Scottish prosecutors in the Lockerbie bombing case, led by the prosecutor Norman McFadyen, have recently visited the United States to interview a witness who claims to have seen the two Libyan defendants prepare the bomb, according to the British newspaper The Independent. The identity of the mystery witness a Libyan is known to The Independent and has been protected since the man went into hiding in the US in 1992 or earlier. His credibility will be crucial to the full trial, and The Independent did not print his name.

However, this website can reveal that the mystery witness is former Libyan citizen Abdulmajeed Jaeeka. [RB: He is now usually referred to as Abdul Majid Giaka.] He is number one on the witness list of the prosecution, and his address is the US Justice Department in Washington. The witness insisted on dressing as a woman while being questioned recently by Scottish defense attorneys! [RB: It is instructive that this supposedly crucial prosecution witness was precognosced by the defence before he was ever interviewed by the Crown. This nicely illustrates the extent to which the decision to prosecute and the preparation of the prosecution were in the hands of the US Justice Department rather that the Scottish Crown Office.]

Mr Jaeeka has been in a US witness protection programme in undisclosed locations in America since at least 1992. He claims to know the two Libyan defendants, who worked at the Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) office in Malta, from which the prosecution alleges the bombing was masterminded. Mr Fhimah was working as station manager for LAA in Malta; Mr Megrahi was chief of the security service's airline security division. When the aircraft blew up Jaeeka is said to have been terrified and to have defected. According to The Independent, Mr Jaeeka is believed to have walked into the US Embassy in Rome as a defector.

According to other sources, Mr Jaeeka was simply at that time already showing mental break-up. In 1988 Mr Jaeeka was allegedly undergoing treatment for mental distability following alcoholic abuse. According to the source, Mr Jaeeka did not enter the Libyan embassy in Rome [RB: Surely "US embassy" is meant] as a defector, but he did leave it as such, following a physical attack on the Libyan ambassador in his office. [RB: I do not follow this. In any event it conflicts with the version of Giaka's defection given at the trial.]

Mr McFadyen took a pre-trial statement from the witness, which will be used in the case against the two Libyan defendants. The witness has been in almost total seclusion for at least eight years, fuelling speculation that he may be in a delicate mental state. The Crown Office in Edinburgh, which represents the prosecution, has declined to comment on its contacts with the witness. The defence team will also be allowed to meet the witness.

The indictment against the alleged bombers who were first named three years after the explosion depends heavily on this man's testimony. Under Scottish law, there should be at least one other witness, to corroborate his testimony. About one third of the people on the 1,000-strong witness list come from the US, and many, like the key witness, have their addresses as the US Justice Department in Washington. Most are FBI Agents but there are thought to be others on the witness protection programme. Like the Libyan witness, they are expected to give their testimony to the trial in the Netherlands from behind a screen. It is yet unclear, whether the Scottish judges will allow anonymous witnesses and/or secret evidence in the trial.

The defence will aim to undermine his credibility by showing that he was either misled or is not telling the truth. But the main focus of their case will be that someone else a Middle Eastern group was directly responsible for the destruction of the aircraft.

[RB: The Zeist judges ultimately assessed Giaka as a wholly incredible witness. Read more about him and the Crown’s dealings concerning him here.]

Our confidence in our innocence has no bounds

[What follows is the text of a CNN report from this date in 1999:]

Libya has handed over two suspects in the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland to representatives of the United Nations.

The suspects are now en route to the Netherlands, where their trial will take place.

Egypt's Middle East News Agency reported that UN representative Hans Corell was at the handover ceremony in Libya.

"In a historical moment awaited by the world, the two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie case were handed over to be flown to the Netherlands for trial before a Scottish court," MENA said.

With the handover, a decade-long manhunt neared its conclusion Monday, as Scottish legal officers prepared to take custody of the two Libyans.

In the Netherlands, preparations continued Monday for the long-awaited trial.

The Dutch Justice Ministry said it would hold a news conference on Monday in connection with the handover of two Libyans.

"The news conference will be today," a spokeswoman said, but gave no information on the timing or location of the arrival of the suspects in the Netherlands after a handover to the United Nations at Tripoli airport.

Scottish prosecutors and journalists waited in Amsterdam while the two accused -- Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah -- began their journey to Europe.

A temporary detention unit at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands is ready for the suspects, Scottish officials said. The construction of bomb-proof cells below the base's former medical unit, which will serve as a courtroom, will take several months to complete.

Sheriff Graham Cox, the regional judge who will oversee pre-trial proceedings, was expected to arrive in the Netherlands on Monday. Scottish prosecutors Norman McFadyen and Jim Brisbane are already there.

Arab League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid had said on Sunday that the handover would take place in "the next 24 or 48 hours."

When Tripoli transferred the men to the charge of the United Nations, that step paved the way for the lifting of punitive UN sanctions against Libya.

[Here is what Megrahi and Fhimah are reported to have said as they were transferred to UN custody in Tripoli:]

Abdel Baset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and Lameen Fhima, have both made a statement on Libyan TV, saying that the two are innocent and going willingly to court. This is Abdel Baset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi's statement:

"We want to reaffirm to everyone that we are two simple Libyan nationals. We do not practise politics. We support families and have children. We love our children and we love our families. This is our normal life.  

"We were employees until we found ourselves involved in this accusation. Our confidence in our innocence has no bounds. We are confident of our lawyers' ability to defend us.

"Through the facts they [the lawyers] have in their possession we are going to prove our innocence to the world. 

"On the occasion of leaving [Libya] we want to tell everyone that, after getting the permission from the investigating judge and the public prosecutor, we are leaving freely and willingly without any pressure in order to appear before the Scottish court in the Netherlands.

"We want everyone to know that we have a great deal of self-confidence.  

"Time will prove that we are telling the truth and you are present here and are witnesses [of what I am saying]. We thank you once again for coming. We are also sorry that you had a difficult journey [by land]; next time you will come directly [by air] to Tripoli, and we are going to welcome you happily. God bless you."

The second suspect, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, gave a V-for-Victory sign as he said: "I have nothing to add to what my friend has said. 

"I hope to see you on our return very soon, God willing. 

"Thank you. I wish for victory, God willing."

Crown Office's Lockerbie shame revisited

[One year ago today, two items were published on this blog.  The first was headed Former Lord Advocate ... seriously misled the Megrahi Court claims book author and dealt with the disgraceful episode of the redacted CIA cables relating to "star" Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka.  The item merits perusal in full, but here is a taster:]

[Lord Advocate Colin] Boyd explained that according to Crown QC Alan Turnbull: “that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special case.”

Mr Boyd also explained that he had no control over the documents that they resided in the USA under the control of US authorities.

Boyd ended by stating categorically: “there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters.”

Mr Ashton’s book though now reveals that the reason the Lord Advocate had no control over the documents was that Norman McFadyen had signed a non-disclosure agreement before viewing them.

According to Mr Ashton, the Crown had “secretly, ceded to the CIA the right to determine what information should, or should not, be disclosed in a Scottish Court”.

Also, further revelations contained in Mr Ashton’s book show that far from being of no significance to the case, the redacted sections of the cables were in fact highly significant.

[The second item is headed A clear signal... It is a blistering piece from the pen of Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  Again, it merits perusal in full.  Here is just one paragraph:]

The Crown Office persistently and desperately clings to the manufactured fantasy of Megrahi’s guilt, a fabrication specifically designed to implicate Libya as a matter of geopolitical convenience. It has steadfastly opposed every opportunity to undertake its duty and apply justice in this case. The Crown has been conducting an elaborate charade almost from the outset, with the explicit, curiously coordinated support of the Scottish Government, and tacit consent of the Westminster Government, whose own malfeasance from Thatcher downwards is transparent and warrants investigation.

Non-disclosure by Crown at Lockerbie trial

[On this date in 2007 The Herald published a report headlined Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother. It reads as follows:]

The CIA offered $2m (£1m) to the Crown's key witness in the Lockerbie trial and his brother, sources close to the case have told The Herald.

Recently discovered papers show Scottish police officers investigating the 1988 bombing were aware the US intelligence service had discussed financial terms and witness protection schemes with Tony Gauci and his brother, Paul.

They documented the talks and it would have been standard practice for such information to have been relayed to the prosecution team before the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan serving 27 years for the bombing.

However, his defence team was never told of the CIA offer, in what critics say is another example of non-disclosure that undermines the credibility of Mr Gauci and, in turn, the Crown's case against Megrahi.

It has not been confirmed that the brothers accepted any money, but the fact that an offer was made is directly relevant to the credibility of Tony Gauci, who became the lynchpin of the case. Paul was never called as a witness.

The latest remarkable twist comes a day after The Herald revealed a top-secret document vital to the truth about Lockerbie was obtained by the Crown but never disclosed to the defence.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that document during its three-year investigation, which concluded earlier this year that Megrahi should have a fresh appeal.

The document, thought to be from the CIA, contains highly classified information about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb. The Crown, for national security reasons, is still refusing to hand the material over to the defence.

An offer of remuneration by the US agency could be explained by the political imperative then for the US and Britain to secure a conviction for Lockerbie. At the time, Libya was very much a hostile nation, unlike the more relaxed links between Tripoli and the West which now prevail.

Yesterday in Edinburgh, the defence lodged its case with the appeal court and a preliminary hearing has been set for a week tomorrow.

The defence team also lodged a specification of documents order, demanding the Crown release the classified document. Prosecutors are expected to challenge the appeal, despite the weight of new evidence.

A source close to the case said: "We understand the commission found new documents which refer to discussions between the US intelligence agency and the Gaucis and that the sum involved was as much as $2m.

"Even if they did not receive the money, the fact these discussions took place should have been divulged to the defence."

The Herald has also seen copies of an agreement with the US government and signed by a senior member of the Crown Office, agreeing not to disclose certain material.

Norman McFadyen, then one of the leading members of the prosecution team and now the Crown Agent, signed the non-disclosure agreement on June 1, 2000.

James Chalmers, a senior lecturer in law at Edinburgh University, said if a member of the Crown agreed not to disclose material shown by a foreign government, it called its worth into question.

"This would raise questions about whether the right to a fair trial has been breached. And if a witness were offered money before giving evidence, this could undermine their credibility.

"It would certainly need to be put to the witness under cross-examination. If such information was not disclosed to the defence, that could give rise to a miscarriage of justice. It is an issue of credibility."

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said: "It is shocking to me that if after 19 years of trying to get to the truth about who murdered my daughter, national security is being used as an excuse."

A spokesman for the Crown Office has previously declined to comment on the case saying it would be "wholly inappropriate" while it is before the appeal court.

A contemporary comment on Crown's shameful conduct

[What follows is an article by me that was published on TheLockerbieTrial.com website on this date in 2000:]

It will have been apparent to anyone who has followed even cursorily the cross-examination of the Libyan defector and long-term CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka, by defence counsel William Taylor QC and Richard Keen QC on 26, 27 and 28 September, that much of the devastating effectiveness of their questioning derived from their ability to refer the witness to the cables in which his CIA handlers communicated to headquarters the information that Giaka had provided to them in the course of their secret meetings.

Discrepancies between Giaka's evidence-in-chief to Advocate Depute Alistair Campbell QC and the contents of these contemporaneous cables enabled the defence to mount a formidable challenge to the truthfulness and accuracy, or credibility and reliability, of Giaka's testimony.  Had the information contained in these cables not been available to them, the task of attempting to demonstrate to the Court that Giaka was an incredible or unreliable witness would have been immensely more difficult and perhaps impossible.

It is in this context that the submissions of the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, on 22 August 2000, when he was seeking to persuade the Court to deny the defence access to those cables in their unredacted or uncensored form, must be viewed.  On that occasion the Lord Advocate said that the members of the prosecution team who were given access to the uncensored CIA cables on 1 June 2000 (Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC and procurator fiscal Norman McFadyen) were fully aware of the obligation incumbent upon them as prosecutors to make available to the defence teams material relevant to the defence of the accused and, to that end, considered the contents of those cables with certain considerations in mind. 

Mr Boyd said: "First of all, they considered whether or not there was any information behind the redactions which would undermine the Crown case in any way.  Secondly, they considered whether there was anything which would appear to reflect on the credibility of Mr Majid.  They also considered whether there was anything which might bear upon the special defences which had been lodged and intimated in this case.  On all of these matters, the learned Advocate Depute reached the conclusion that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made on may be made, having regard to the special defence... I emphasise that the redactions have been made on the basis of what is in the interests of the security of a friendly power... Crown counsel was satisfied that there was nothing within the documents which bore upon the defence case in any way."

Lord Coulsfield then intervened:   "Does that include, Lord Advocate ... that Crown counsel, having considered the documents, can say to the Court that there is nothing concealed which could possibly bear on the credibility of this witness?"

The Lord Advocate replied:  "Well, I'm just checking with the counsel who made that.  In the sense in which My Lord put it to me at the start, that there may be material which relates to a completely different matter, then that cannot be said...  But, in the sense, My Lord, that there is nothing within the -- -- there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid on these matters."

In the light of the use actually, and entirely properly, made by the defence of material from those CIA cables in attacking, in the course of cross-examination, the credibility and reliability of Giaka’s evidence on matters relevant to the responsibility of the two accused men for the bombing of Pan Am 103, it may be that the Lord Advocate will (or at least should) feel that he owes an explanation of the statements made by him on 22 August 2000 which are quoted above.

[RB: Explanation came there none, either then or at any later time. This disgraceful Crown conduct forms the basis of one of Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial that are currently under investigation by Police Scotland.]

A clear signal ...

[The following opinion piece is published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It comes from the pen of the magazine’s editor, Steven Raeburn.]

The publication of the SCCRC’s report into the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the redundant term ‘Lockerbie bomber’ is clung onto now only by the vanishingly few) sheds valuable and useful light on few corners of the Pan Am 103 debacle. However, more revealing than the contents themselves are the manoeuvrings surrounding its release, and what they reveal about the tainted, corrupted justice system that stood in the way of its publication for five long, unnecessary and criminally culpable years. 

The calibre of the Crown Office and its personnel can be judged fairly by the equally odious Shirley McKie fingerprint case, in which the entire coordinated monolith of the police, Crown Office and Law Officers held the moral low ground over a sustained fourteen year period, until an inquiry forced apologies to be issued earlier this year. The Pan Am 103 case is depressingly similar. 

The Crown Office persistently and desperately clings to the manufactured fantasy of Megrahi’s guilt, a fabrication specifically designed to implicate Libya as a matter of geopolitical convenience. It has steadfastly opposed every opportunity to undertake its duty and apply justice in this case. The Crown has been conducting an elaborate charade almost from the outset, with the explicit, curiously coordinated support of the Scottish Government, and tacit consent of the Westminster Government, whose own malfeasance from Thatcher downwards is transparent and warrants investigation.

The UN appointed special observer to the Zeist proceedings, Hans Kochler, concluded that "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services," he observed at Megrahi’s trial were "criminal offences in any country." The Crown and Government efforts to suppress the SCCRC report between 2007 and now have sustained that criminality with disturbing consistency. 

Responsibility can be laid directly at the door of successive Lords Advocate from Fraser on. Elish Angiolini, who received the SCCRC report upon publication, was retained and inducted into Alex Salmond’s cabinet, voiding any possibility of judicial independence, creating a toxic blend in a case that - above all others - exemplifies the need for a separation of powers, a principle sadly lost in post-devolution Scotland. Under her watch, Crown Agent Norman McFadyen was reported to the police by MSP Christine Grahame, now head of the Justice Committee, for allegedly tampering with crucial evidence in this case. The machinery of justice was frozen into suspicious paralysis in response. 

A petition currently sits before Grahame’s Justice Committee calling for a wide ranging Pan Am 103 inquiry. In the second of his hurriedly released statements yesterday, Alex Salmond said the publication of the SCCRC report was “in many ways [..] far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be,” sending as clear a signal as could be telegraphed to Scotland’s close-knit judicial coven not to initiate one.

By publishing the SCCRC report, journalism has stepped in where Scotland’s justice system - poorly led and manifestly unfit for purpose - continues to fail. Pens need to continue to be mightier than the current limp judicial swords.

Megrahi prosecutor to become Scottish judge

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads in part:]

Four high-profile QCs, including the former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd and Tommy Sheridan's former defence counsel, Maggie Scott, are about to become high court judges.

Mr Boyd, now Lord Boyd, who led the prosecution of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, was recently criticised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for failing to disclose crucial information to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's defence. He rejected the claim. [RB: An account of Colin Boyd QC's conduct at one stage of the Lockerbie trial can be read here.]

Ms Scott, who was sacked by Mr Sheridan during his perjury trial in 2010, and led Megrahi's recent appeal case and the defence in many high-profile cases, including Ice Cream War murderer Thomas "TC" Campbell and more recently Nat Fraser, as well as Luke Mitchell, who was convicted of murdering teenager Jodi Jones in January 2005.

The Herald understands Michael Jones and David Burns have also been recommended for the appointments.

A source close to the process said: "Colin Boyd and Maggie Scott are two of the people the Judicial Appointments Board has recommended to the First Minister. It would be highly unusual for ministers to reject such a recommendation. Their appointments are expected to be confirmed shortly."

Lord Boyd resigned as Lord Advocate in 2006. His decision was seen as unusual and triggered speculation he was concerned about the inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, in which a police officer was wrongly accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene and lying about it.

Another potential reason raised was the imminent decision on whether the Lockerbie case would be referred back for a fresh appeal.

Lord Boyd denied he was leaving because of the McKie fingerprint investigation or any other case and said it was simply "time to move on".

Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing, said: "I understand the limited personnel and resources of the Scottish criminal justice system but I am surprised that Colin Boyd would have been put forward as a potential judge.

"In support of his colleagues on the prosecution team, it seemed to me that Boyd made a statement to the court [at Zeist] which was later shown by the revelations in the CIA cables to be untrue. It was over a matter of extreme importance because it concerned the credibility of the prosecution's star witness." (…)

Maggie Scott has described herself as "relatively rebellious". Following her sacking by Sheridan in 2010, the former MSP represented himself and was convicted of perjury in his defamation action against the News of the World in 2006.

Mr Jones, QC, acted for the News of the World in the Sheridan case and the owners of the Rosepark care home in South Lanarkshire after 14 residents died in a fire. Mr Burns recently acted for Craig Roy, who was convicted of murdering Jack Frew. [RB: David Burns QC was second senior counsel for Abdelbaset Megrahi at the Zeist trial and at the first appeal.]

Maggie Scott, QC, said last night that she could not comment. Lord Boyd could not be contacted.

[Two other members of the prosecution team, Alastair Campbell QC and Alan Turnbull QC have already become High Court judges. The principal procurator fiscal at the trial, Norman McFadyen, has become a sheriff.  A commentary by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper headlined Judges are no strangers to controversy focuses particularly on Colin Boyd’s controversial role in the Lockerbie trial.]