Justice for Megrahi petition further considered

The new Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament meets on Tuesday, 28 June at 10.00am in Committee Room 2. Amongst the items on the agenda is the Justice for Megrahi petition seeking an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The committee clerk's note on the agenda item reads as follows:

Note by the Clerk

PE1370 – lodged November 2010
Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ 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.

Purpose
1. The Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition. This petition has been carried over from the previous session. At the meeting on 1 March 2011, the previous PPC discussed the petition and agreed to keep it open in order to let the incoming committee decide what it wishes to do. The option of passing it on to the Justice Committee was canvassed but given the proximity to dissolution was not acted upon.

Background
2. The previous PPC asked the then Scottish Government whether it would open an independent inquiry. By letter of 7 January 2011, the then Scottish Government responded, saying:
“The Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr AlMegrahi. He was tried and convicted by a Scottish court before three judges and his appeal against conviction, heard by a panel of five judges, was unsuccessful. A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors. The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system i.e. inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. The criminal justice system already provides a mechanism for that to happen. The fact that Mr Al-Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal rather than pursue it is entirely a matter for him and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry as a result.”

In response to the question who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition, the Scottish Government responded in the same letter:
“The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government. Separately, the Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the SCCRC to publish a statement of reasons in cases such as Mr Al-Megrahi's where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the SCCRC such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.”

3. The previous Committee received written evidence from the following—
Scottish Government letter of 7 January 2011
Petitioner letter of 13 January 2011
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission letter of 7 February 2011
Scottish Government letter of 3 February 2011
Lord Advocate letter of 9 February 2011
Petitioner letter of 16 February 2011

4. More recently, the Petitioner submitted the following further evidence (enclosed with these papers):
• PE1370/G: Petitioner letter of 17 June 2001
• A copy of an article by Stephen Raeburn in The Independent Law Journal [The Firm]

Action
5. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take; there are three possible options:
(1) To continue the petition in order to seek an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the SCCRC;
(2) To refer the petition on to another Committee (the Justice Committee) under Rule 15.6.2; or
(3) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. On a strict reading of the petition the Parliament has done what was asked to do and the Scottish Government has responded to say that it does not intend to open an independent inquiry.

Megrahi petition again on Scottish Parliament Justice Committee agenda

Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling on the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday 19 December 2017 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The agenda and accompanying papers can be accessed here. The two documents submitted by Justice for Megrahi for this meeting appear among the papers as Annexe A and Annexe B.

Annexe A reads as follows:

Introduction

As you are aware the above petition has been kept open by the Justice Committee

since 8 November 2011 to allow various developments related to the Lockerbie

case to be monitored by the Committee.

The Committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 5 September 2017,

when it agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation

Sandwood.

In this submission JFM wishes to bring the committee’s attention to matters which

have developed since the petition was last considered.

Developments

Operation Sandwood: JfM has continued to co-operate fully with Police Scotland

and had a further process meeting with them in October. Another meeting is

planned for 15th December.

Our understanding is that in respect of Operation Sandwood, the main enquiry

is completed and essential forensic reports received. It is anticipated the final

report will shortly be passed to Police Scotland’s independent QC as a preliminary

to its being submitted to Crown Office.

We continue to have complete faith in the police to deliver a thorough and

objective report and in particular value the close liaison they have encouraged

as their investigation proceeded.

Crown Office Consideration of Police Report: As previous correspondence with the

Committee shows we continue to have concerns about the objectivity and

independence of Crown Office personnel who will consider the Operation

Sandwood report.

While acknowledging the appointment of James Wolffe QC as Lord Advocate,

we would ask the committee to note that when the Police report is received by

Crown Office, it must be subject to objective, unbiased and independent

consideration.

It remains essential that the ongoing political scrutiny of the process by the

Justice Committee continues and does not stop when the report goes to Crown

Office. It is in the public interest that political monitoring continues while Crown

Office considers the Operation Sandwood report and makes its final conclusions

public.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC): We understand that

an application for another appeal has been made to the SCCRC by Mr Megrahi’s

family.  We are not aware of the details of their submission but believe that

the findings of the Operation Sandwood report will be critical to the appeal

consideration.

Conclusion

We believe that the political oversight being provided by the Justice Committee

into this major criminal investigation is very much in the public interest. Having

monitored the progress of the police investigations for nearly 4 years it is essential

that Crown Office, an organisation that has shown provable bias in the past, is

held to political account to ensure the openness and objectivity of its consideration

and the probity of its eventual decision.

Given the central importance of the findings of Operation Sandwood to any future

prosecutions, enquiries or appeals, we would respectfully urge the Committee

to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.

Justice Committee to consider Justice for Megrahi petition on 4 June

[The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will be considering Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE 1370) calling on the Scottish Government to institute an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction at its meeting on Tuesday, 4 June at 09.45 in Committee Room 2 (agenda item 5). The proceedings will be viewable here. Members of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group will be present at the meeting (but not me: I'll be wending my way back from the Roggeveld Karoo to Edinburgh). 

A paper by the Justice Committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

Background

1. Petition PE1370 by Justice for Megrahi (JFM) calls 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.

2. The petition was lodged on 1 November 2010. The petition was carried over to Session 4 and on 28 June 2011, the new Public Petitions Committee referred it to the Justice Committee for further consideration.

3. The Justice Committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 11 December 2012 where it agreed to keep the petition open pending allegations against the Crown Office and the police being investigated. 

Recent Submissions

4. The petitioners have provided the Committee with an update on the complaints they have raised against the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the police. The published versions are attached to this paper as an Annexe. Clerks have circulated the unredacted submissions to the Committee.

5. JFM’s submissions give accounts of their recent interaction and correspondence with the Scottish Government, COPFS and the police.

Justice Directorate of the Scottish Government

6. JFM believes that without an independent inquiry into their allegations, there is a conflict of interest where Police Scotland and COPFS are investigating complaints against themselves.

7. JFM’s submissions indicate that it has asked for an independent investigator to be appointed to look into their allegations against the COPFS and police. It believes that the Scottish Government has powers, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to appoint an independent investigator.

8. The Committee is asked by JFM to write to the Scottish Government to ascertain whether it accepts JFM’s assertion that it has the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 (or any other Act or common law) to appoint an independent investigator and, if so, whether it would be willing to do so to investigate JFM’s allegations.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

9. JFM also has expressed concerns about how it has been portrayed in the press by the Lord Advocate while considerations of their allegations were being considered.

10. JFM requests that the Committee writes to COPFS to ask for comment or further information on the following points:

a. whether it will account for the public criticism of JFM when a

police investigation of their allegations were imminent;

b. what resources have been allocated to the investigation of JFM’s

allegations;

c. whether it will keep JFM informed of developments in the

investigation of their allegations; and

d. whether it has instructed the police on how to proceed with the

investigation into JFM’s allegations.

11. If the Committee agrees to write to COPFS, it is invited to consider whether it wishes to raise all or only some of the above points with COPFS. 

Police

12. JFM’s allegations are being taken forward by the police and investigations are ongoing. Supplement 1 (pages 9 and 10 of this paper) to the petitioners’ submission gives an account of a meeting with former Chief Constable Shearer, who is heading up the investigation for Police Scotland. 

Possible options for action

13. The Committee is invited to consider the petition and agree a course of action:

a. whether to keep the petition open or not;

b. whether to write to the Scottish Government on behalf of the petitioners asking for comments on its powers to appoint an independent investigator into JFM’s allegations; and

c. whether to write to COPFS on behalf of the petitioners and in what terms to do so.

[A Justice for Megrahi press release issued today contains the following:]

The petition should  be considered at approximately mid-day. Dr Jim Swire, Robert Forrester, Iain McKie, Tessa Ransford OBE, James Robertson and other members of the  ‘Justice for Megrahi’ Committee and its signatory membership will attend the meeting and will be  available for interview in the Parliament’s main reception area after the meeting. 

Justice for Megrahi in their most recent submission to the Justice Committee in respect of petition PE 1370, state:

‘The manner in which the Justice Directorate and the Crown Office are currently dealing with our entreaties is something which ought to be of deep concern to anyone who today falls under Scottish jurisdiction. We believe that the Justice Committee members understand that it is not the allegations themselves that is their direct concern but the arrogant, prejudicial and unaccountable manner in which they are being dealt with. We believe it is the committee’s duty to ensure that issues of confidentiality, public officials acting in their own interests, prejudgment of our allegations and the maintenance of equity and accountability are examined. Only the Justice Committee can protect the public interest when complainers like ourselves are subjected to such oppressive conduct at the hands of the state.’

Megrahi petition on agenda for Justice Committee meeting on 1 March

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi is once again on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee for the meeting to be held on 1 March 2016 commencing at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 6. A paper prepared for the meeting by the committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): 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

1. “Operation Sandwood‟ is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into Justice for Megrahi‟s (JFM) nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. The Committee was previously advised that Police Scotland‟s report on this operation would be completed before the end of the 2015 but clerks understand that this is not the case.

Latest developments

2. On 21 September 2015 the Committee received a letter from JFM (Annexe A), which posed eight specific questions relating to the appointment of independent Counsel to evaluate the report arising at the conclusion of Operation Sandwood. Because the letter referred to information provided to JFM by the Lord Advocate, and had arrived so close to the date of the meeting (on 22 September), the Convener took the decision not to circulate it to members until the Lord Advocate had confirmed he was happy for it to be published. The response was circulated to Members after the meeting on 22 September and has been published on the Committee‟s webpage.

3. At the 22 September meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate (Annexe B) seeking further information regarding the appointment of independent Counsel to evaluate the report arising from Police Scotland‟s Operation Sandwood. The letter asked for more information about (1) the appointment process itself, (2) whether the person appointed is a current or former prosecutor with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or is a practising lawyer in another jurisdiction, and (3) what other measures or protocols have been put in place to guarantee the Counsel’s independence.

4. The Lord Advocate‟s short response dated 6 October (Annexe C) does not provide a direct response to these three points. It explains that he has not been involved in the Operation Sandwood investigation nor the appointment of independent counsel. The letter also states that the appointment was dealt with by officials who had no involvement in the Lockerbie investigation. The letter states that issues raised had been dealt with by the Lord Advocate‟s Office in their response to JFM‟s letter (Annexe D) dated 24 August, although again this letter does not directly address the three points the Committee raised.

5. JFM provided an additional submission to the Committee on 5 November 2015, (Annexe E) (forwarded to Members 9 November 2015) which includes reference to the eight specific questions posed to the Lord Advocate.

6. On 5 January 2016, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate (Annexe F), asking him to respond to JFM‟s most recent submission to the Committee (Annexe G) which questions the Lord Advocate‟s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for coordinating matters with the “independent counsel‟. The Committee requested the Lord Advocate‟s response by 5 February. The response was not received until 9.44am on 23 February just before the start of the Committee meeting at 10 am.

7. The Lord Advocate‟s letter of 23 February (Annexe H) explains that an independent senior counsel at the Scottish bar, with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution, has been appointed to undertake prosecutorial functions in relation to the Police investigation. This role includes providing an independent legal overview of the evidence, conclusions and recommendations and directing the inquiry when required.

8. The letter makes specific points in response to JFM’s criticism that the Crown Agent lacks sufficient impartiality to have any role in the investigation. No general comment is made in response to the Deputy Convener’s query as to “what procedures are in place to ensure an appropriate level of impartiality in instances where there have been complaints involving the COPFS’s handling of a case.”

9. The Committee has since received an additional submission from JFM dated 24 February 2016 (Annexe I). The letter reiterates their position with regards to the role of the current Crown Agent in the process and seeks clarification as to the appointment of the independent counsel. It also raises the question of the powers the COPFS might have to ignore or change the recommendations made by the independent counsel.

Options for action on petition PE1370

10. The Committee may wish to agree to:  

• request more information regarding the progress of Operation Sandwood,
• ask for more specific information about the appointment of the “independent” Crown Counsel, in line with the points made above,  
• take no further action on the petition before dissolution (without closing it) and leave it for a future justice committee to decide what further action, if any, to take on it.

[RB: Annexes A to I, referred to above, can be accessed here.]

Consideration of petition PE1370

[What follows is the text of the petitioners' submission to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee in advance of today's resumed consideration of the Justice for Megrahi petition.]

On 15th February 2011, the ‘Justice for Megrahi Committee’ (JFM) delivered their latest submission to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) in relation to the above petition. At their meeting of 1st of March 2011, the PPC voted to maintain the status of petition 1370 as open and carry it over to the new PPC in its ‘Legacy Paper’ inviting the new committee to give further consideration to the petition.

Over the past four months, there have been important developments in relation to the Lockerbie enquiry and matters related to the conviction, appeals and compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. We believe that these matters are relevant to the consideration of our petition and the related submission of 15th February 2011 and we wish to update the Petitions Committee members on them.

Civil War in Libya
Since mid February, 2011, Libya has degenerated into civil war. The rebel forces are currently represented by a body known as the ‘Transitional National Council’. Many commentators have suggested that this conflict could lead to the secrets of Lockerbie being revealed. Claims and counterclaims have proliferated.

Since becoming Chairman of the ‘Transitional National Council’, the former Libyan Justice Minister, Mr Abdel Jalil, has made numerous claims that he is in possession of proof that Colonel Gaddafi and Libya were behind the downing of Pan Am 103. He has, however, been unable to substantiate his claims.

The visit to London of the former Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Moussa Koussa (formerly also former head of the Libyan Intelligence Agency), on the 30th of March 2011 has also failed to deliver any additional insight into who was responsible for Lockerbie.

During his stay, he had discussions with representatives of the UK Government and others, including the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. He departed the UK for Qatar on the 15th of April and the Scottish delegation have so far refused to divulge any information regarding their meeting on the grounds that to do so may compromise the on-going police investigation of the Lockerbie case. ‘JFM’ finds it quite extraordinary that the interviewers refused to offer even a general comment which might suggest that Mr Koussa had at least supplied information which could substantiate and justify the Crown case for Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction or open the way for further enquiry. Effectively, parliament and the people are being denied the opportunity to assess whether any information received from Mr Koussa supports or otherwise the Crown’s position over Lockerbie. Yet again, a curtain of secrecy is drawn over matters related to revealing the truth about Lockerbie and the subsequent events.

On the 6th April the Guardian reported:
‘Libya's rebel administration has said that it signed an apology for the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government, and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding"’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/libya-rebels-lockerbie-apology.

It is alleged that following talks with a lawyer whom they believed represented the British Government, the ‘Transitional National Council’ signed a document offering an unequivocal apology from Libya for international crimes carried out by the Gaddafi regime, including
Lockerbie and deaths resultant from IRA activities where Libyan supplied Semtex was employed.

It is now alleged that the document might have been signed under duress and in the hope of alleviating their dire circumstances. If the claim that the lawyer has been operating at the behest of the UK government on this fishing expedition is true, it shows the lengths that the UK authorities will go to hide the truth.

Scottish Government Undertaking
According to recent media reports, the new SNP government intends to honour the commitment given by Alex Salmond before the election to seek a change in the law to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish papers relating to their decision that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in the conviction of Mr Megrahi. Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1009738.aspx

The Lord Advocate and Crown Office has remained implacably opposed to such release and, as we pointed out in our submission of 15th February, we totally refute the Lord Advocate’s argument for failing to disclose any matters related to Mr Megrahi’s appeal.

In our petition, we argue for the release of these papers and we believe it is important that Parliament monitors this government undertaking carefully.

Election of a Majority SNP Government
For the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament one political party enjoys an absolute majority. The next 5 years therefore are uncharted waters and many commentators have warned about the need to ensure that this SNP majority government is subject to effective scrutiny and held to account.

‘For the first time in the parliament’s history, a single party is now in control of the Government, the legislature and its committees, and has supplied the Presiding Officer.’…...Most obviously, Holyrood is a unicameral parliament: there is no second chamber to fine tune legislation and force MSPs to think again. In theory, the committees should compensate for this, scrutinising and revising laws, as well as delivering unwelcome home truths to Ministers. But while committees aspire to cross-party ideals, they often split on partisan lines, as the health committee did last year when it rejected a minimum price for alcohol. The SNP majority means every committee can railroad through legislation if it chooses, and there is no risk of a comeback, no matter how infuriated the opposition might get.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/politics/monarch-of-the-glens-1.1101477

While the ‘JFM’ committee believes that to date it has been well served by the Public Petitions Committee, this unprecedented centralisation of power concerns us greatly. Given the opposition to any further inquiry by the Lord Advocate, Crown Office and other establishment organisations, we fear Lockerbie will be further sidelined. The Petitions and Justice Committees have the power to prevent this happening and hold our government to account. Should the PPC allow our petition to fall, it will mean that the continuing disputes over the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated on Scottish soil will no longer be subject to open and accountable scrutiny in any corner of the Scottish Parliament.

Salmond criticism of the Supreme Court
We feel that the current heated debate taking place about the place of the Supreme Court in dealing with Scottish Human Rights issues is extremely relevant to our petition. While not wishing to take sides in the dispute, we would observe that it is human rights issues like Lockerbie that are at the very heart of the dispute.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-launches-scathing-attack.6785206.jp

What is of concern to us, and we would suggest to the people of Scotland, is that justice is served no matter the court. The Scottish Government is claiming that the human rights of the Scottish people are best served by Scottish courts sitting in Scotland.

We would argue that for nearly 23 years Scottish Courts and the Scottish Government have failed to deliver the truth about Lockerbie despite these claims of supremacy in human rights matters. We are at a loss to equate the current government’s refusal to hold a judicial inquiry into Lockerbie with this principle that Scotland and Scotland alone is capable of delivering justice to all of its people.

Media coverage
Media interest in Lockerbie and associated events has remained high across the world with the fall out from the Civil War in Libya being high on the agenda.

Of particular significance is a film, ‘The Pan Am Bomber’, commissioned by ‘Al Jazeera English’ which is being broadcast throughout June and July and can now be found on ‘You Tube’. This film casts even more doubt on the Megrahi conviction and makes a powerful case for an immediate inquiry.

We would recommend that committee members view this film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVVmt1W-6U

Conclusion and recommendations
Much has occurred in the interim between the last Public Petition’s Committee meeting, which voted to carry petition 1370 forward in its ‘Legacy Paper’, and today. As ever, most of this information is shrouded in controversy and as a result the truth about Lockerbie becomes even more elusive.

Effectively year in and year out new information, rumour and supposition is released about the Lockerbie tragedy and the Megrahi conviction. Year after year the UK and US governments continue their conspiracy of silence. The whole affair has become a running sore and, despite having the power to do so, the Scottish Government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry into the worst case of mass murder ever perpetrated on Scottish soil, a disaster which taints the Scottish Justice System across the world.

The fact remains that while we might not be able to force the UK and American governments to the table, the Scottish Government has the power to launch a public inquiry that will ensure that we as a country have done everything in our power to reveal the truth about Lockerbie. Our conscience will at last be clear.

That public inquiry would be able to examine many important witnesses including representatives of the Crown Office, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the SCCRC and the police. It will have the power to review the SCCRC papers and many other documents currently held in secret by the Crown Office, Government and police. It will be able to probe matters related to the Lockerbie investigation, all legal proceedings relating to Mr al-Megrahi’s 2001 conviction and his subsequent release, and any new information that has been obtained over the years.

We urge the committee to keep this petition live by carrying out further enquiry itself or referring it to the Justice Committee. Surely it cannot be right that the search for the truth about the worst terrorist outrage ever to be perpetrated on Scottish soil should not continue to be the subject of enquiry in our own Scottish parliament.

In closing, we would refer Petition’s Committee members to a recent article In the ‘The Firm’ magazine where editor Steven Raeburn interviews Gareth Pierce the lawyer who was instrumental in having the wrongful conviction of the ‘Birmingham Six’ and ‘Guildford Four’ overturned on appeal. This article (see link below*) offers a powerful review of the controversy surrounding Lockerbie and we believe will help members understand just why a public inquiry is urgently needed.

*Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm, interviews Gareth Peirce.
http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/932/The_Quiet_Storm.html

The Lockerbie inquiry petition

What follows is an item posted on this blog on 25 January 2011:

Lockerbie inquiry petition 'remains open'

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.

The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.

It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.

The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.

The JFM group claimed it was "imperative" that the case be examined once more.

However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction". (...)

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.

He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.

Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.

"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."

[A report on the Public Petitions Committee's proceedings from The Press Association news agency reads in part:]

A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.

MSPs on Holyrood's Petitions Committee made the decision after discussing the request by pressure group Justice For Megrahi (JFM).

SNP MSP Christine Grahame backed the group's position, appealing to the committee that the petition should be kept alive.

She argued that recent changes to legislation had raised questions over the remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice.

She said: "I think the SCCRC has been neutered, in many respects. If I may say to the committee, I wish you to continue to pursue the inquiry route, not close this down."

[RB: Four years later, the petition (PE1370) remains open. It is expected to feature on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee for the meeting to be held on 3 February 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.]