Showing posts sorted by date for query petition PE1370. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query petition PE1370. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday 7 January 2016
Official Report of Justice Committee discussion of Megrahi petition
The Official Report (Hansard) of the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee held on Tuesday, 5 January has been published in draft. It can be read here. The verbatim account of the committee’s discussion of Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into Megrahi's conviction (PE1370) is to be found at columns 48 to 50.
Monday 4 January 2016
Megrahi petition at Justice Committee on 5 January 2016
[What follows is from a message sent today by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, to JfM supporters:]
Tomorrow, 5th January 2016, the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will convene to consider, amongst other matters, PE 1370. This meeting will commence at 10 AM, however, given that the Justice Committee will be conducting evidence sessions with two government ministers prior to hearing public petitions, it is unlikely that the committee will consider 1370 before 11 AM. The meeting may be watched live via the parliament's TV broadcasting system by connecting to the following link and clicking on links which will take you to the meeting of the Justice Committee in committee room 4:
Background information on 1370 may be found here:
You will note that JFM sent a letter to the Lord Advocate on 5th November 2015. With respect to this letter, he defaulted on his ministerial responsibility to reply to queries from the general public within a maximum of twenty working days. This limit was overshot by a total of fourteen working days, thus, JFM was not in receipt of his response until 31st December 2015. We have, therefore, submitted an emergency supplement to the Justice Committee outlining our considerable displeasure at both the conduct of Chambers Street in the above regard and at the content of his letter. Indeed, we have lodged official complaints with COPFS and the Jusice Committee.
Since Police Scotland's Operation Sandwood final report on our nine allegations of criminality against Crown, police and forensic officials is likely to be forthcoming in the near future, we sincerely hope that the committee will be able to accommodate this supplement in its busy schedule tomorrow.
Saturday 19 December 2015
Justice Committee resumes consideration of Megrahi petition on 5 January
[Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (PE1370) features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee to be held on 5 January 2016 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 4. The Committee Clerk’s paper on the agenda item reads as follows:]
PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction – Lodged: 01 November 2010
Terms of the petition
The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Background
Operation Sandwood
At its meeting on 21 April 2015, the Committee considered an update received from Justice for Megrahi, which included a request to consider the appointment of an “independent prosecutor” to assess the findings of the forthcoming Police Scotland investigation known as “Operation Sandwood”. 'Sandwood' is the operational designation for Police Scotland's investigation of JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to the Lockerbie/Zeist affair which led to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perversion of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s final “Sandwood” report is expected to be completed before the end of the year.
The Committee previously agreed to write to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an “independent prosecutor”. His response outlined arrangements made by the Crown Office to employ an independent Crown Counsel who had not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have reject the involvement of an independent Crown Counsel because it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach.‟
Police Scotland regularly meets with JFM to discuss ongoing issues regarding the case. At its meeting of 28 April officers highlighted the appointment of an independent QC to enhance the professional integrity of the investigation separate from the appointment by the Crown office.
High Court ruling
Separately, in December 2014 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission asked the High Court for a ruling on the legal status of the victims’ relatives, to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on Megrahi‟s behalf. It ruled in July that the victims’ relatives had no legitimate interest to institute an appeal against the deceased‟s conviction. It appears that the only method by which an appeal against the deceased conviction could be instigated is through the deceased‟s relatives or the executor of his estate. Whilst there have been some reports indicating that Megrahi’s family wish to be involved in an appeal, the Court proceeded on the basis that the SCCRC‟s reference was on behalf only of certain victims of the bombing.
Recent developments
Operation Sandwood
Following consideration of the petition on 22 September, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate again requesting more information about the appointment of an independent prosecutor to examine the findings of the Police investigation “Operation Sandwood”. The response, attached in Annexe C does not add to the earlier response provided and cites an earlier response sent to JFM (Annexe D) which the committee had sight of last time I considered the petition. [RB: These two annexes are to be found at the end of the committee papers.]
JFM have now responded directly to members reiterating their concerns about the impartiality of the COPF in handling this case and have sought assurances that independent consideration of the police investigation be agreed to. To date both the Scottish Government and COPF have concluded this is not necessary.
Clerks expect a further response from JFM in due course. This will be forwarded to members as soon as it is received. [RB: A lengthy response has been submitted by JFM to the committee. Once it appears on the Justice Committee’s section of the Scottish Parliament website, I shall reproduce it on this blog.]
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
On 5 November the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced that: “it is not in the interests of justice” to continue with a review of the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Consequently, the application has been refused.”
“A great deal of public money and time was expended on the Commission‟s original review of Mr Megrahi‟s case which resulted, in 2007, in him being given the opportunity to challenge his conviction before the High Court by way of a second appeal. In 2009, along with his legal team, Mr Megrahi decided to abandon that appeal. Before agreeing to spend further public money on a fresh review the Commission required to consider the reasons why he chose to do so. It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review. It remains open in the future for the matter to be considered again by the Commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers. This will require the cooperation of the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and his family.”
Options
The Committee can:
Keep the petition open and monitor the progress of “Operation Sandwood”,
Take any other action in relation to the petition that the Committee considers appropriate (including closing the petition).
Thursday 3 December 2015
Lockerbie: Unanswered questions
[The current (December 2015) issue of the excellent iScot magazine contains an article entitled “Lockerbie: Unanswered questions”, the first in a series by Dr Morag Kerr. It reads in part:]
Most people in Scotland probably know that, some quarter of a century ago, a Jumbo Jet with the name Maid of the Seas painted on her nose-cone fell out of the sky on to the Dumfriesshire town of Lockerbie. Many people still harbour grave doubts about the safety of the conviction, twelve years later, of the so-called “Lockerbie bomber” Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Few retain a detailed recollection of the circumstances, but “Wasn’t the key witness paid millions to implicate him?” is a common refrain.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in May 2012, but the doubts linger. Efforts to secure a third appeal against his conviction received a setback last month when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to proceed unless his family, virtually incommunicado inside war-torn Libya, provided them with a specific document which doesn’t actually exist under Sharia law. Quite separately, however, a major police investigation is underway into formal allegations of wrongdoing against individuals involved in both the original investigation and the later court proceedings. A third strand is public petition PE1370 calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie affair, laid before the Scottish parliament in October 2010. Only two months ago the disaster was once again in the headlines as the Lord Advocate revealed that he was on the trail of two of Megrahi’s alleged accomplices – but was that story quite what it seemed? This month, with further revelations likely in the near future, we look back on the chain of events that began in 1988. (...)
A terrorist attack was immediately suspected, and senior police insisted the crash site be treated as a crime scene. Detectives reviewing the case in 2015 have remarked that even today it’s unlikely the evidence-gathering could be handled any better, and it’s hard to argue with that. Meticulous records of where every item was recovered yielded a detailed picture of how the plane broke up and what caused it.
What caused it turned out to be a small improvised explosive device disguised as a radio-cassette recorder, packed into a suitcase with some items of clothing. The baggage container carrying the exploding suitcase was identified as one containing only transfer luggage – luggage belonging to passengers connecting from other flights. The bomb hadn’t been checked in at Heathrow. The relief of the British investigators when they discovered this seems to have been immense.
After that, things got murkier. While most of the luggage in that container was transferred from a single flight (a feeder from Frankfurt also designated PA103), a few items from other flights were also present. The Frankfurt luggage was security-screened in Germany and shunted directly across the tarmac, but the other cases had been collected in Terminal 3 and were supposed to have been screened there.
When the fragments of the container were reassembled the explosion proved to have been about ten inches from the floor. The Heathrow interline cases had been loaded first and covered the bottom, and everything from the second layer upwards was from the feeder flight. The forensic scientists believed the bomb suitcase had been on the second layer, and so attention focussed on Frankfurt.
The German police joined the inquiry, and they had news for the Scottish investigators. Two months before Lockerbie they had busted a terrorist gang in Düsseldorf, making bombs obviously designed to destroy aircraft in flight. The gang was a cell of a hard-line Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, or PFLP-GC. Unfortunately the suspects had been released by the German authorities, and it was feared they had regrouped and completed their mission.
A picture began to emerge. On 3rd July 1988 an Iranair passenger flight carrying pilgrims travelling to Mecca had been shot down over the Persian Gulf by an American cruiser. The aftermath of the disaster was appallingly mishandled by the US authorities and Ayatollah Khomeini vowed revenge. Money appeared to have changed hands, and the suspicion was that Iran had employed proven sabotage experts to do its dirty work.
There was a catch to all this, which the Germans tried to point out to the British investigators. The type of device the PFLP-GC was known to be making, launched from Frankfurt, would have exploded somewhere over Belgium. These devices were triggered by the drop in internal pressure that occurs shortly after take-off, and would detonate about half an hour after that. An IED like that, exploding over Lockerbie, must have been loaded at Heathrow. The forensics team discounted this and remained wedded to their belief that the bomb had flown in from Germany.
By March 1989 Paul Channon, the UK Transport Secretary, was talking about imminent arrests. However, no arrests were forthcoming. The case receded from public consciousness until the autumn, when it emerged that a new lead had been uncovered. Investigators were now certain the bomb had arrived in Frankfurt on a third aircraft, flight KM180 from Malta. (...)
The investigators secured one big breakthrough. Scraps of burnt clothing believed to have been packed with the bomb were traced to a Maltese manufacturer, and from there to a small retailer in the Maltese town of Sliema, only three miles from the airport – and the shopkeeper Tony Gauci remembered selling some of the items to a customer in late 1988. He described the man and his purchases, even remembering the bill and the amount of change given. Detectives set out to try to identify this mystery shopper.
However, as 1989 became 1990, the case went cold again. The clothes purchaser was elusive, and nobody could figure out how Air Malta’s security precautions might have been breached. Once again the story faded from the news until in the autumn of 1990 another change of tack hit the headlines. Iran and the PFLP-GC were no longer suspected. Iran had taken a “bum rap”, according to US President George Bush Snr. The new suspect was Colonel Gaddafi’s Libyan regime, and the motive was retaliation for the US bombing of the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi back in 1986.
Events moved quickly after that. By January 1991 the police had a suspect, a Libyan national named Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and on 13th February Tony Gauci picked Megrahi’s passport photo out of a photo-identity parade. Some time later it was discovered that Megrahi had been at Malta airport on the morning of 21st December 1988, travelling under an assumed name. Case closed, or so it seemed. In November 1991 simultaneous indictments were issued in Scotland and the USA against Megrahi and his colleague Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie.
Megrahi and Fhimah, however, were in Libya, protesting their innocence. Gaddafi offered to try the pair in Libya, if he was provided with the relevant evidence. This was correct procedure under the Montreal Convention, but unsurprisingly the offer was rejected. Stalemate. Britain and the USA approached the UN complaining that Gaddafi was sheltering terrorists from justice, and as a result punitive sanctions were imposed which heavily impacted the Libyan economy. In the years that followed the damage multiplied, and eventually the two accused agreed to surrender themselves for trial to secure an end to the blockade.
It was agreed that the trial would be held in a neutral venue. A disused US air base in the Netherlands, Camp van Zeist, was decreed to be Scottish territory for the duration and converted into a court facility. The trial began on 3rd May 2000, and on 31st January 2001 the verdict was announced. Megrahi was found guilty, but Fhimah was not guilty.
The controversy began immediately. How could one conspirator be guilty but not the other? It was Fhimah who was alleged to have put the bomb on the plane, so how had Megrahi managed it without Fhimah’s assistance? The defence had destroyed the prosecution’s star witness, a Libyan CIA informer called Abdul Majid Giaka, and without his testimony was there really enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt? In late January the Foreign Office had been briefing in the expectation of a double acquittal. Many people, including UN-appointed observer to the trial Dr. Hans Köchler, believed there was an enormous amount of entirely reasonable doubt.
An appeal was heard at Camp Zeist in early 2002. The defence had new evidence. A Heathrow security guard revealed details of a security breach airside in Terminal 3, the night before the disaster. A door padlock had been broken, apparently from the landward side, not far from the shed where the ill-fated container was parked the following afternoon. The appeal judges heard his evidence, but dismissed it on the grounds that the trial court recognised that Heathrow security was poor, and knowing there had been an actual breach wouldn’t have altered their conclusions. Megrahi was sent to Barlinnie to begin a life sentence for mass murder.
In 2003 he applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for leave to mount a second appeal. In its 2007 report the Commission identified six grounds on which a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. These centred round the disputed fingering of Megrahi as the man who bought the infamous Maltese clothes, and without the eye-witness identification the case was expected to collapse.
Megrahi’s second appeal came to court in spring 2009, by which time he had received what turned out to be a death sentence – a diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer. The following August his application for compassionate release was granted by Kenny MacAskill, three days after Megrahi had formally abandoned his hard-fought-for appeal.
The appeal could have continued despite the release of the applicant. Was Megrahi pressurised into withdrawing it? His advocate Maggie Scott said that he was. Kenny MacAskill has consistently denied it. Professor Robert Black has a more nuanced take on the matter, suggesting that Megrahi was poorly informed about the options available to him and open to pressure from Libyan officials anxious to get him back home.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, the appeal was swiftly forgotten in the universal stampede to condemn the Scottish government for releasing a mass murderer. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, David Cameron, Jack McConnell, Barack Obama, Robert Menendez and others, who before Megrahi’s release had breathed not a hint of opposition (because of course they were all heartily glad to see Megrahi back in Libya and the obstacle to trade and oil deals with Gaddafi removed), turned on Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond and monstered them.
Others were dismayed for a different reason. The abandoning of the appeal torpedoed the chance to have the case reviewed again in court and the doubts and uncertainties examined. Was it possible, or likely, that Megrahi had bought these clothes? Did the bomb really start its journey on Malta, as the investigators believed? And what was all that about a fragment of printed circuit board, widely alleged to be a fabricated plant?
Subsequent articles in this series will examine these contentious issues. How much reasonable doubt surrounds Megrahi's guilt? Was the evidence tampered with? Might we, indeed, suggest that his innocence can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Sunday 11 October 2015
Struggle for Lockerbie justice continues
[This is the headline over a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
It was of course a bitter blow when the High Court in the form of Lord Carloway and two other judges refused 24 UK Lockerbie relatives' application to the SCCRC to investigate the need for a further appeal against the Megrahi verdict ('Linking Megrahi to a new Lockerbie bombing suspect won't work ... he was innocent and his conviction is a stain on Scottish justice', News comment, October 4).
We have been advised that Scotland offers no process for appeal against Lord Carloway's decision.
We have hitherto avoided any public reaction to that decision primarily because it is of paramount importance not to impinge on the need of Police Scotland's ongoing investigation, Operation Sandwood, for freedom from improper external pressures. Sandwood is investigating allegations of criminality lodged by the group Justice For Megrahi in connection with the preparations for, the conduct of, and the sequels to, the Zeist trial.
In addition we are grateful that the Justice Committee of the Holyrood Parliament has retained a petition on its books (petition PE1370), to which many of us relatives signed up. It seems that any action which the Justice Committee may decide upon now over PE1370 must also logically await the findings of operation Sandwood.
John Ashton's article appears very well informed and is known to be heavily reliant on material prepared for use in the defence of Megrahi in Scottish courts. It also relies upon much material that was excluded, for whatever reasons, from use within the Zeist court, or which has emerged since Zeist, but which would certainly have been of critical importance to the SCCRC had the latter been enabled to pursue the request of the UK relatives for a further appeal.
Thursday 8 October 2015
Justice for Megrahi petition celebrates fifth birthday
On this date five years ago, Justice for Megrahi submitted its petition (PE1370) calling on the Scottish Parliament "to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988". The petition remains open and is currently on the agenda of the Justice Committee.
Friday 18 September 2015
Megrahi petition before Justice Committee on 22 September
A reminder that Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling upon the Scottish Government to institute an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing is on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 in Holyrood’s Committee Room 1 beginning at 10.00. The papers for this meeting can be read here. The committee clerk’s note on the petition and the options open to the committee can be found at pages 10 and 11; and the various written submissions at pages 18 to 23. Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the committee can be read here.
Friday 11 September 2015
Justice for Megrahi petition at forthcoming Justice Committee session
[The next consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) by the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will take place on 22 September 2015. What follows is the text of JFM’s submission for that meeting:]
On the 28th April 2015 the Convener of the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his view on JFM’s suggestion that an independent prosecutor be appointed to consider the forthcoming Police Scotland ‘Operation Sandwood’ report. In his response of 8th May 2015 the Lord Advocate stated that it was his intention to appoint an, ‘independent Crown Counsel who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.’ http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/ 20150508_LA_to_CG.pdf
In our letter to the committee dated 29th May JFM, objecting to this decision, we observed: ‘If the Lord Advocate is proposing a Crown Office advocate depute as an independent prosecutor to consider any Police Scotland report stemming from the investigation of JFM’s 9 allegations of criminality, known as Operation Sandwood, such a proposal falls well short of JFM’s concept of an independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach.’ http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/ 20150526_JFM_response_to_LA.pdf
Our letter lays out precisely why JFM objects in the strongest possible terms to the Lord Advocate’s proposal contained in his letter to the convener dated 8th May 2015 and we would ask the committee to fully consider our detailed objections at its 15th September meeting.
In particular JFM wishes to emphasise the following passage from page 4 of its 26th May letter: ‘We strongly believe that in order to acquire a fair, unprejudiced and truly independent reading of the final police report a special prosecutor must be appointed by a process independent of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, and must be seen to exercise his/ her decision-making and prosecutorial functions without reference to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.
‘Since the Lord Advocate’s position and independence as head of the prosecution system in Scotland is enshrined in the Scotland Act, such a mechanism must be put in place by the Lord Advocate himself, failing which, the Scottish Government should seek from the UK Government a section 30 Order in Council to enable the Scottish Government to do so.’
We believe that these facts offer the Justice Committee a way forward.
Over past years a number of serious questions have been raised about the office of the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and the Scottish Justice System in general. The collapse of the Andy Coulson trial, the hasty decision to take no proceedings in relation to the Bin Lorry accident are but two examples.
The astonishing public outbursts in relation to our 9 allegations first from the Crown Office and then from the Lord Advocate to which we have already referred before they even knew what the allegations were, are two more cases in point.
This latest attempt by the Lord Advocate not to surrender his control, despite irrefutable evidence that he should, only serves to provide further focus to these concerns and throw serious doubt on the Crown’s internal decision making processes.
We feel it is important to emphasise that while we have highlighted the actions of the current Lord Advocate and Crown Office this only serves to highlight a much more central concern about the general constitutional and political position of the Office of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.
We believe that the only authority providing any form of political oversight of the Scottish Justice System is the Justice Committee and as such we believe that your continuing monitoring of the action of the prosecution authorities in relation to our petition is critical and very much in the public interest.
We would respectfully urge the Committee to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.
[A submission from Police Scotland, along with the minute of a meeting between JFM and the police investigating team, can be read here.]
Tuesday 8 September 2015
Invitation to attend Justice Committee's Megrahi petition session
[If any supporters of Justice for Megrahi would be interested in attending the next meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee at which JFM’s petition is to be considered, please contact JFM’s secretary, Robert Forrester, as soon as possible (forrester.robert[at]gmail.com). The circumstances are outlined in the following communication from Mr Forrester:]
I have been informed by the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament (JC) that the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) petition, PE1370, will be called for consideration before the JC on the morning of Tuesday, 15th September 2015.
The JFM Committee has already presented its submission for the event. At the JC's request we have done this well in advance of the normal deadline, should any pertinent matters arise in the interim, we will, of course, send in a supplement to cover this. We will doubtless be in a position to make our submission available to you before the JC session, however, for the time being, we must observe parliamentary protocols.
This particular session is of great significance to our cause since we are now in immediate confrontation with the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office over the issue of our request for an independent prosecutor (ie: independent of the Crown Office, and appointed by an individual or body independent of the Crown Office) to consider the Police Scotland report on the 9 JFM allegations of criminality levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials. Under normal circumstances, of course, such a report would be considered by the Crown Office, however, these are far from normal circumstances.
I include this link, which has been up on the JC site for some months now, in order to provide some context: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20150526_JFM_response_to_LA.pdf
I intend to make a maximum seat booking for JFM (9 seats total). Around half of these are already spoken for by our committee members. I will not be in a position to make the booking until the window opens on Thursday 10th. Therefore, if any of you would like to state an interest in attending, please inform me as soon as possible: first come, first served.
At the end of next week, along with any additional information, I shall send out the usual details regarding how the session may be watched live on the parliamentary television broadcast.
Thank you as ever for your support. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Friday 15 May 2015
Lord Advocate's response to Justice Committee
“At this morning’s meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee it was decided (1) to keep open Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi; and (2) to write to the Lord Advocate enquiring how the Crown Office proposes to deal with the forthcoming Police Scotland report on JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of police officers, prosecutors and Crown forensic scientists in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. This arises out of the suggestion made on this blog that a special prosecutor or independent counsel might be required, in the light of the Lord Advocate’s publicly expressed views about the merits of JFM’s allegations and the character of JFM members.”
“Scotland’s lord advocate has signalled for the first time that he will play no role in prosecutions linked to the Lockerbie bombing if a fresh police investigation unearths evidence of criminality by Crown Office staff.
“Allegations being examined by Police Scotland include claims that some Crown Office staff concealed or tampered with evidence to ensure Libya took the blame for the 1988 atrocity.
“Last week, members of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee declared support for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to ensure public confidence in further investigations and agreed to seek assurances from the lord advocate that he would play no part in fresh prosecutions. Concerns were also raised that Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate, cannot be objective and impartial because he has expressed confidence in the guilt of Abdelbaset Ali al- Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing, and the integrity of the case against him.
“‘Frankly, some of the lord advocate’s comments during hearings on the petition were not helpful,’ said Christine Grahame, the committee’s convener. ‘That may in some ways colour one’s feeling of being content that there is — I hesitate to say — an independence of spirit.’
“John Finnie, an independent MSP, added: ‘When the police come to submit their report, they are, as things stand, submitting it to someone who has already prejudged the situation with intemperate remarks.’ Finnie said it would be ‘interesting to hear the lord advocate’s views’ on the merits of an independent prosecutor.
“On Friday, the Crown Office said moves had already been made internally to appoint an independent prosecutor. ‘The lord advocate already anticipated this as an issue some time ago and decided it would be improper for him to personally deal with the matter. Arrangements have already been put in place for an independent crown counsel, who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case, to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.’”
The Lord Advocate’s official reply to the convener of the Justice Committee is a letter dated 8 May 2015, twelve days after the report in The Sunday Times. This now appears on the Justice Committee’s website. Its only substantive paragraph reads as follows:
“I had anticipated this as a potential issue some time ago given my involvement in the investigation and the nature of the allegations which have been made. Arrangements were therefore put in place for an independent Crown Counsel who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.”
Thursday 23 April 2015
Official Report of consideration of Megrahi petition
[What follows is the text of the Official Report (Hansard) of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition on Tuesday, 21 April 2015:]
The Convener (Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, SNP): PE1370 calls for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. We have received an update from Justice for Megrahi on its latest meeting with Police Scotland—the update is available at annex B of paper J/S4/15/12/1. Justice for Megrahi asks us to consider the principle of appointing an independent prosecutor to consider the forthcoming Police Scotland report. Separately, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has asked the High Court for a ruling on the legal status of the victims’ relatives, to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on Megrahi’s behalf. A date for a full hearing is yet to be fixed. Do members have any comments on those developments?
I declare that I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind): The request is entirely reasonable, and I would hope that the committee would throw its weight behind it. There is an independent Queen’s counsel who is assisting with the on-going police investigation. The reports that we have received are very encouraging. Certainly, Justice for Megrahi seems to have “full confidence” in Police Scotland, which is welcome. Police Scotland has said that it will act as an honest broker and thoroughly investigate the incidents that have been alleged in good faith. Of course, it is what happens thereafter that is the challenge. However, I suggest that there is precedent in the system, given that an independent QC is assisting with the police inquiry.
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP): I have a couple of points. On the procedural hearings to determine whether a reference to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can go ahead, we have to wait and watch. That is a very good reason for keeping the petition open. On an independent prosecutor, we should not take a decision without specifically referring the matter to the Crown Office and asking for its comments.
The Convener: My concern is whether it would be competent for the committee to appoint an independent prosecutor. I concur with Roddy Campbell on asking the Crown Office for its comments. I see that John Finnie wants to come back in. I am just giving my views—I am not summing up. I also suggest that we ask the Government for its views on competence in relation to the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
John Finnie: For the avoidance of doubt, I was not saying that that is in the committee’s gift; I was saying that we should lend our support to Justice for Megrahi’s calls for such an appointment to be made. Clearly, there will be a role for the statutory prosecuting office, which is the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Roddy Campbell’s point about the SCCRC is interesting, but it is a separate issue altogether.
The Convener: It is indeed. That is not a problem for us because, with regard to that part of the process, we must wait and see what happens at any full hearing The issue of the roles of the Crown Office and the police throughout is a separate matter.
I take the view that we need to find out the position on who would investigate the Crown Office. How would one go about that? I do not know whether that has ever happened. I am looking around for guidance.
John Finnie: Should we not assume that that is part of the on-going police inquiry? In some respects, the issue is more that, when the police come to submit their report, they are, as things stand, submitting it to someone who has already prejudged the situation with intemperate remarks.
The Convener: Does anyone else want in? I see that Roderick Campbell is shaking his head.
Roderick Campbell: No—I just think that it is premature.
The Convener: That is because we are waiting for the police report.
Do members want me to write to find out whether, in principle, an independent prosecutor could be considered?
John Finnie: It would be interesting to hear the Lord Advocate’s views on that.
The Convener: Okay.
John Finnie: It is clear that, given his prior involvement in the case, he will not be able to have any direct hands-on role anyway in any report that is received.
The Convener: Yes. Frankly, some of the Lord Advocate’s comments during hearings on the petition were not helpful. That may in some ways colour one’s feeling of being content that there is—I hesitate to say—an independence of spirit. What are we going to do? Will we continue the petition? Who will we write to? I seek members’ guidance.
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con): Is the key issue not that we should wait until the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has reported on the victims’ status?
The Convener: Well, there are two issues. The issue that you raise is not a problem—it is fine; we will just wait for the full hearing. We will keep the petition open for that reason. The question is whether we should take any action in relation to an independent prosecutor.
John Finnie: I suggest that we write to the Lord Advocate to ask for his views on that question. Alternatively, we could ask how, given his prior personal involvement, he would envisage being able to take forward a report that was presented to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service by Police Scotland.
The Convener: Do you want us to refer to some of the comments that have already been made by the Crown Office? Do you want to be as pointed as that?
Roderick Campbell: I would prefer the request to be neutral. The committee can relay the petitioners’ position and comments, but without expressing a view on the matter.
The Convener: What we have already heard and said is on the record. We will write a fairly neutral letter. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The Convener: Thank you. We will keep the petition open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)