An internet trawl of the UK, Scottish and foreign press discloses not a single report on the proceedings at the second day of the Lockerbie appeal. This is disappointing but not really a surprise, given the experience at the original trial at Camp Zeist. Then, the press turned up in droves for the opening day, for "star" witnesses, like Edwin Bollier, Tony Gauci and Majid Giaka, and for the announcement of the verdict, but otherwise were conspicuous by their absence. The coverage, particularly in the Scottish media, was shockingly poor. The same was true of the first appeal in 2002, but there at least there was live television coverage through the BBC News website.
What media reports there are today relate to the ratification of the prisoner transfer agreement. Lucy Adams's article in The Herald can be read here.
The report in The Times does, however, include one paragraph on day two's proceedings. It reads:
'Yesterday the appeal court was told that there was “a massive gap” in the case against al-Megrahi concerning the means by which the suitcase containing the explosive device was put on board the New York-bound Pan Am Boeing 747 aircraft at Luqa airport, in Malta. Ms Scott told the court: “There was no evidence of where any of the putting together of the device occurred and there is a massive gap in respect of the ingestion of the suitcase.”'
The following are further excerpts from this report:
'The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must decide whether to apply to serve the rest of his sentence at home in Libya, surrounded by his family, or remaining in a Scottish jail and attempt to clear his name.
'The choice comes after Britain ratified a long-awaited prisoner transfer agreement with Libya yesterday. In order to pursue a move to a Libyan jail, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has continually protested his innocence and is dying of cancer, would have to abandon his appeal, which began on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal, in Edinburgh. (...)
'Last night al-Megrahi's legal team refused to be drawn on whether or not he will apply for a transfer. Should he do so, the decision will ultimately be made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary.
'Although the transfer deal, negotiated between Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in 2007, caused a furious cross-border row when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted that Scotland should have been consulted, the fate of prisoners in Scottish jails remains a devolved matter. A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said: “It would be for Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prison transfer in relation to any prisoners in Scotland.
'“We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision. Scottish ministers judge each application on its own merits,” she added.
'Despite declining to comment on the case, there has been speculation that the Scottish government would look favourably on a transfer application from al-Megrahi's legal team.
'According to a recent newspaper report, Robert Gordon, director general of the SNP Administration's justice department, who held discussions recently with Libyan officials about the prisoner deal, encouraged them to seek a transfer.'
Thursday 30 April 2009
Wednesday 29 April 2009
Prisoner transfer: the relevant legal provisions
The relevant provisions of the prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya which was ratified today are as follows:
“Art 2(2): A person who has received a liberty depriving sentence in the territory of one Party may be transferred to the territory of the other Party, in order to complete the sentence imposed upon him. To that end he may express his interest to the transferring State or to the receiving State in being transferred under this Treaty.
Art 2(3): Transfer may be requested either by the transferring State or the receiving State.
Art 3: A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)
(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)
(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer.”
The relevant UK legislation, which the Scottish Government would have to apply in the case of Mr Megrahi, used to be the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c 47), section 1 of which provided:
“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where—
(a) the United Kingdom is a party to international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country of territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (7) below applies, and
(b) the relevant Minister [defined, in the case of prisoners in Scotland as "the Scottish Ministers"] and the appropriate authority of that country or territory have each agreed to the transfer under those arrangements of a particular person (in this Act referred to as “the prisoner”), and
(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements
the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.”
This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.
“Art 2(2): A person who has received a liberty depriving sentence in the territory of one Party may be transferred to the territory of the other Party, in order to complete the sentence imposed upon him. To that end he may express his interest to the transferring State or to the receiving State in being transferred under this Treaty.
Art 2(3): Transfer may be requested either by the transferring State or the receiving State.
Art 3: A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)
(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)
(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer.”
The relevant UK legislation, which the Scottish Government would have to apply in the case of Mr Megrahi, used to be the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c 47), section 1 of which provided:
“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where—
(a) the United Kingdom is a party to international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country of territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (7) below applies, and
(b) the relevant Minister [defined, in the case of prisoners in Scotland as "the Scottish Ministers"] and the appropriate authority of that country or territory have each agreed to the transfer under those arrangements of a particular person (in this Act referred to as “the prisoner”), and
(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements
the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.”
This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.
UK and Libya make prisoner deal
[The following is from the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.]
The UK has signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, the Foreign Office has confirmed. [Note by RB: More accurately, the agreement, which was signed some time ago, has now been formally ratified by both countries and is now in force.]
The agreement will allow the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to apply to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail.
Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, is currently being held in Greenock prison in Scotland.
He has begun a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 attack on Pan AM Flight 103. (...)
Any possible transfer to a Libyan prison would depend on Megrahi dropping his current appeal, which is expected to last a year.
And any transfer agreement would have to be ratified by Scottish ministers, who would have the final say before the Foreign Office. [Note by RB: I am not sure precisely what this means. The correct position is that, if an application for transfer is made, it is the Scottish Government that has to decide whether or not to grant it.]
There has been no comment from Megrahi's legal team about whether they are to apply for him to be transferred to a Libyan jail.
Megrahi's second appeal is being heard by five judges in Edinburgh, headed by Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton.
He has already lost one appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died.
Since then he has been in prison in Scotland, and must remain in jail until at least 2026.
The UK has signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, the Foreign Office has confirmed. [Note by RB: More accurately, the agreement, which was signed some time ago, has now been formally ratified by both countries and is now in force.]
The agreement will allow the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to apply to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail.
Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, is currently being held in Greenock prison in Scotland.
He has begun a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 attack on Pan AM Flight 103. (...)
Any possible transfer to a Libyan prison would depend on Megrahi dropping his current appeal, which is expected to last a year.
And any transfer agreement would have to be ratified by Scottish ministers, who would have the final say before the Foreign Office. [Note by RB: I am not sure precisely what this means. The correct position is that, if an application for transfer is made, it is the Scottish Government that has to decide whether or not to grant it.]
There has been no comment from Megrahi's legal team about whether they are to apply for him to be transferred to a Libyan jail.
Megrahi's second appeal is being heard by five judges in Edinburgh, headed by Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton.
He has already lost one appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died.
Since then he has been in prison in Scotland, and must remain in jail until at least 2026.
Further reports on, and reactions to, day one of the appeal
The Scotsman's report on the first day's proceedings, and on the differing views expressed by relatives of those killed in the disaster, can be read here. The report in The Times can be accessed here. Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's account on OhMyNews International can be seen here.
The Dutch television film that had a private showing in the Scottish Parliament on 23 April has now been broadcast in The Netherlands. It can be viewed by accessing this website (click on "video" at the top right corner of the screen). Most of the film is in English.
The Dutch television film that had a private showing in the Scottish Parliament on 23 April has now been broadcast in The Netherlands. It can be viewed by accessing this website (click on "video" at the top right corner of the screen). Most of the film is in English.
Tuesday 28 April 2009
The appeal: day one
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal started today in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh before the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton), Lords Wheatley, Eassie and Kingarth and Lady Paton. A member of the public who attended the first part of today's proceedings -- not a lawyer -- was far from impressed with the process or with the level of interest generated. As someone remarked of proceedings at the first appeal in 2002: "It was as exciting as watching paint dry."
Numerous accounts of the day's proceedings have appeared (almost all of them based on the same news agency reports). The report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on The Guardian website here; that on the CNN website here; that on The New York Times website here; and the Reuters news agency report here.
The report on The Herald's website contains the following account of the opening submissions by Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi:
'Beginning legal submissions on Al Megrahi's behalf, Margaret Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
'She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Al Megrahi was involved in the crime.
'"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said.
'She told the panel of five judges - led by Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton - that Al Megrahi's condition has "deteriorated".
'As a consequence, Al Megrahi, who is able to listen to proceedings via a live link-up, would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings and would need to take breaks, she said.
'Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".
'These were that Al Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing the bomb, that the purchase happened on December 7 1988, that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought, and that the suitcase containing the bomb entered the system at Luqa airport in Malta.
'But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.
'"The appellant challenges the drawing of each of these critical inferences and consequently the conclusion that he was involved in the crime," she said.
'She argued the inferences were not "sufficiently supported" by the accepted evidence and that the inferences relied on "defective reasoning".
'Ms Scott went on: "No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty."
'She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.'
Numerous accounts of the day's proceedings have appeared (almost all of them based on the same news agency reports). The report on the BBC News website can be read here; that on The Guardian website here; that on the CNN website here; that on The New York Times website here; and the Reuters news agency report here.
The report on The Herald's website contains the following account of the opening submissions by Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi:
'Beginning legal submissions on Al Megrahi's behalf, Margaret Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
'She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Al Megrahi was involved in the crime.
'"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said.
'She told the panel of five judges - led by Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton - that Al Megrahi's condition has "deteriorated".
'As a consequence, Al Megrahi, who is able to listen to proceedings via a live link-up, would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings and would need to take breaks, she said.
'Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".
'These were that Al Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing the bomb, that the purchase happened on December 7 1988, that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought, and that the suitcase containing the bomb entered the system at Luqa airport in Malta.
'But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.
'"The appellant challenges the drawing of each of these critical inferences and consequently the conclusion that he was involved in the crime," she said.
'She argued the inferences were not "sufficiently supported" by the accepted evidence and that the inferences relied on "defective reasoning".
'Ms Scott went on: "No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty."
'She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.'
The appeal begins
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal commences today. There is a preview report on the BBC News website. It can be read here. There is also a long article by Lucy Adams in The Herald, which can be read here. The following are excerpts:
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
'A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)
'These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.
'Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.
'A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)
'The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.
'The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.
'They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLPG-C), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.
'They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.
'The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.
'The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.
'However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.'
Monday 27 April 2009
Press reports on the eve of the appeal
[The following is from today's edition of The Guardian. The complete article can be read here.]
The key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial was coached and steered by Scottish detectives into wrongly identifying a Libyan sanctions buster as the bomber, his appeal lawyers claim.
Lawyers acting for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will tell an appeal court that Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, was interviewed 23 times by Scottish police before giving the evidence that finally led to Megrahi's conviction for the bombing in 1991 (sic; the correct year is 2001). (...)
The first stage of the Libyan's lengthy appeal, which may take until next year to complete, will focus on his claims that the original trial judges were wrong in law to convict him and wrong to discard crucial evidence which undermined their guilty verdict.
Gauci identified Megrahi as the purchaser of clothes at his shop on Malta which were later allegedly packed in the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. But the Libyan's lawyers will claim there is now substantial evidence undermining the credibility of Gauci's testimony.
Megrahi's lawyers now believe Gauci received a "substantial" reward from the US government after his conviction thought to be as much as $2m - a payment not disclosed at the trial. The case against Megrahi hinges on Gauci's claim that the clothes allegedly packed into the suitcase bomb were bought on 7 December - the only day when Megrahi was in the area. Megrahi's lawyers say they can now prove they were bought up to two weeks before then, when the Libyan was not in the country.
Megrahi's lawyers will claim that in nearly two dozen formal police interviews, Gauci gave contradictory dates of purchase, changed his account of the sale, and on one occasion appeared to identify the Palestinian terrorist leader Abu Talb as the purchaser. Gauci's evidence is made unreliable by "undisputed factors", the appeal court will hear. They include an "extraordinary" delay in Gauci recalling the events of December 1988 and naming Megrahi; the "extraordinary amount of post-event suggestion to which the witness was subjected"; and his exposure to photos of Megrahi.
The appeal, which Megrahi is expected to watch live on a video link from Greenock prison near Glasgow, is being contested by the Scottish prosecution service, and the British government.
[The following are excerpts from today's edition of The Scotsman. The complete article can be read here.]
Megrahi, 57, who was diagnosed with cancer last year, has just completed ten years in custody for the bombing and it could be nearer 11 years before the appeal is fully determined.
It is almost two years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there were grounds for believing Megrahi's conviction might be a miscarriage of justice.
Preliminary disputes, over such issues as public interest immunity and the scope of the appeal, have dogged attempts to arrange an early hearing for the case in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
The first hearing, which is scheduled to last four weeks, will concentrate on an area for which preparatory work has been completed – that the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi at his trial was not supported by the evidence – and, were the plea to succeed, it would be enough for the conviction to be overturned and for Megrahi to be freed.
However, some observers believe this part of the appeal is far from Megrahi's strongest argument, and that other areas will require to be pursued, explaining why work is continuing.
A source said: "Three judges at the trial decided there was enough evidence to convict Megrahi and five judges said the same thing at his first appeal. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome, and while there's nothing to be lost in having another go, you can't imagine five different judges this time being easily persuaded.
[Note by RB: The five judges in Megrahi's first appeal did not say that there was enough evidence to convict him. Megrahi's then lawyer, Bill Taylor QC, specifically stated to the court that that appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence in law; and the appeal judges made it clear in their written opinion that (a) the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to convict, as well as (b) the issue of whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on that evidence, were not issues which they had considered in reaching their decision to sustain the conviction.]
"So, in theory, Megrahi could win this first point and be on his way back to Libya by the end of the summer, but it seems much more likely that the other grounds of appeal will have to be heard, and that will take us months further down the line, to have them heard and for the judges to go away and think about them and then announce their decision."
Megrahi will not attend the hearing, but will follow the proceedings by a closed circuit television link between the court and Greenock Prison.
The key witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial was coached and steered by Scottish detectives into wrongly identifying a Libyan sanctions buster as the bomber, his appeal lawyers claim.
Lawyers acting for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will tell an appeal court that Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, was interviewed 23 times by Scottish police before giving the evidence that finally led to Megrahi's conviction for the bombing in 1991 (sic; the correct year is 2001). (...)
The first stage of the Libyan's lengthy appeal, which may take until next year to complete, will focus on his claims that the original trial judges were wrong in law to convict him and wrong to discard crucial evidence which undermined their guilty verdict.
Gauci identified Megrahi as the purchaser of clothes at his shop on Malta which were later allegedly packed in the suitcase carrying the Lockerbie bomb. But the Libyan's lawyers will claim there is now substantial evidence undermining the credibility of Gauci's testimony.
Megrahi's lawyers now believe Gauci received a "substantial" reward from the US government after his conviction thought to be as much as $2m - a payment not disclosed at the trial. The case against Megrahi hinges on Gauci's claim that the clothes allegedly packed into the suitcase bomb were bought on 7 December - the only day when Megrahi was in the area. Megrahi's lawyers say they can now prove they were bought up to two weeks before then, when the Libyan was not in the country.
Megrahi's lawyers will claim that in nearly two dozen formal police interviews, Gauci gave contradictory dates of purchase, changed his account of the sale, and on one occasion appeared to identify the Palestinian terrorist leader Abu Talb as the purchaser. Gauci's evidence is made unreliable by "undisputed factors", the appeal court will hear. They include an "extraordinary" delay in Gauci recalling the events of December 1988 and naming Megrahi; the "extraordinary amount of post-event suggestion to which the witness was subjected"; and his exposure to photos of Megrahi.
The appeal, which Megrahi is expected to watch live on a video link from Greenock prison near Glasgow, is being contested by the Scottish prosecution service, and the British government.
[The following are excerpts from today's edition of The Scotsman. The complete article can be read here.]
Megrahi, 57, who was diagnosed with cancer last year, has just completed ten years in custody for the bombing and it could be nearer 11 years before the appeal is fully determined.
It is almost two years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there were grounds for believing Megrahi's conviction might be a miscarriage of justice.
Preliminary disputes, over such issues as public interest immunity and the scope of the appeal, have dogged attempts to arrange an early hearing for the case in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
The first hearing, which is scheduled to last four weeks, will concentrate on an area for which preparatory work has been completed – that the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi at his trial was not supported by the evidence – and, were the plea to succeed, it would be enough for the conviction to be overturned and for Megrahi to be freed.
However, some observers believe this part of the appeal is far from Megrahi's strongest argument, and that other areas will require to be pursued, explaining why work is continuing.
A source said: "Three judges at the trial decided there was enough evidence to convict Megrahi and five judges said the same thing at his first appeal. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome, and while there's nothing to be lost in having another go, you can't imagine five different judges this time being easily persuaded.
[Note by RB: The five judges in Megrahi's first appeal did not say that there was enough evidence to convict him. Megrahi's then lawyer, Bill Taylor QC, specifically stated to the court that that appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence in law; and the appeal judges made it clear in their written opinion that (a) the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to convict, as well as (b) the issue of whether any reasonable court could have convicted him on that evidence, were not issues which they had considered in reaching their decision to sustain the conviction.]
"So, in theory, Megrahi could win this first point and be on his way back to Libya by the end of the summer, but it seems much more likely that the other grounds of appeal will have to be heard, and that will take us months further down the line, to have them heard and for the judges to go away and think about them and then announce their decision."
Megrahi will not attend the hearing, but will follow the proceedings by a closed circuit television link between the court and Greenock Prison.
Sunday 26 April 2009
New witness casts doubt on Lockerbie bomb conviction
[The following are excerpts from an article under this headline in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The full article can be read here.]
A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim. (...)
[Note by RB: In the first session of the appeal, which starts on Tuesday and runs until 22 May, there will be no new witnesses, just legal argument. Any new witnesses, if the Appeal Court allows them to be heard -- and the rules about fresh evidence in appeals are very restrictive -- will only feature in later sessions.]
Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.
"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."
Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.
Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.
The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".
All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.
Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.
"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."
A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim. (...)
[Note by RB: In the first session of the appeal, which starts on Tuesday and runs until 22 May, there will be no new witnesses, just legal argument. Any new witnesses, if the Appeal Court allows them to be heard -- and the rules about fresh evidence in appeals are very restrictive -- will only feature in later sessions.]
Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.
"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."
Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.
Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.
The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".
All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.
Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.
"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."
Friday 24 April 2009
The Dutch TV documentary and reactions
[The Herald's report on the film shown last night in the Scottish Parliament can be read here. A letter from Dr Jim Swire in the same newspaper can be read here. The following are two accounts of the film from persons who attended the showing, and to whom I am extremely grateful.]
1. From Dr Swire
I saw the film last night in the Scottish Parliament. Lord Fraser, Stuart Henderson, Richard Marquise, Fred Whitehurst, Tom Thurman, Prof Hans Koechler and Robert Baer all made contributions in it.
The subject was the famous 'timer circuit board fragment', called PT35B in the court records.
There was evidence of widespread confusion over what was supposed to have been the way in which PT35B was handled, some claimed it had been to the USA others that it had not. The impression was that at least some of these were trying to contribute to a story the truth of which they did not want us to know.
Their stories could not all be true, for they differ widely.
'Oh what a complex web we weave when first we practice to deceive'
For me Robert Baer of the CIA was the most significant. His view was basically that of course it was a Iranian/Syrian job, but that even the USA (and therefore the UK) could not confront Iran militarily over it. That would, without question, have been to strangle the straits of Hormuz and therefore US oil supplies for a start. That sounds common sense to me.
The interviewer of these men was Gideon Levy himself [the film-maker], who showed great skill in extracting a maximum of information from them.
There was one criticism and that was that the film did show the famous picture of a tiny piece of circuit board on someone's finger tip. This is a picture of a shattered piece from a domestic cct board such as a tape recorder. It carried the codes of the former components printed in white on the fragment which appeared to have been of 'Paxolin' (mid brown) and bore no resemblance to a piece of fibre-glass board.
Use of this image will cause some confusion and allow the critics to get their knives in.
Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.
I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.
There is also said to be evidence that PT35B was never tested prior to the trial, for explosives residues, but that this has now been done and shown no trace of such residues.
Incredibly one contributor to the film claimed that the failure to do this was ' for reasons of economy'. Can you believe it? PT35B was only the most important forensic item in the entire 'evidence' armoury.
2. From an interested observer
Although the film obviously had the approval of all (or most?) of those present, my own feeling is that it required the audience to already know something – of course it did the usual intro.
Around 18:05, Christine Grahame (MSP) introduced one or two of the better known names. Then hands over to Gideon Levy who introduces his film – played, I think, from his laptop to a beamer (not the BMW variety). His preamble is simply to say we will see conflicting statement between CIA and Scottish authorities.
*Film starts
*Initially just various quotes for effect, giving cause to doubt the verdict. And then showing that he has been to a ceremony for the 20th anniversary at Arlington.
*In charge of the investigation were Marquise (FBI) and Stewart Henderson, Scottish Police.
*Interview with Hans Köchler and a review of his opinion; why one guilty verdict and one not guilty? Initial indictment based on conspiracy, so how could it change?
*Interview with Ian Ferguson [co-author of Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie] (who turns up at other times in film).
*Chopping of interviews with Bob Baer (ex CIA), Fred Whitehurst (FBI), and Marquise and Lord Fraser; he (Levy) required of all his interviewees a handshake on their saying that they’d tell him the truth. They all agreed (although one of them – possibly Marquise, can’t remember – did reserve the right not to answer a question).
*Fraser says his successors (4 or 5 of different parties) could have stopped the proceeding
*Marquise shown Bob Baer saying he had been a bomb maker for the CIA. He (BB) found it very unlikely that anyone would have a bomb transferred from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow and onwards.
*BB mentions PFLP-GC (on behalf of Iran) being responsible after the USS Vincennes/Iran Air
*Why was the agent Khreesat released back to Jordan by the German BKA; Fraser said K was double agent of PFLP and CIA; Marquise suggested double agent of PFLP and Jordan spying agency.
*Ferguson (on film) now says there was a change of focus in the investigation because the U.S. was somehow involved.
*A video is shown of Gaddafi (we have to rely on subtitles naturally) saying U.S. companies have had to pay to get back in to Libya – the same amount as Libya has paid out to relatives of victims.
*Marquise says no money paid to witnesses prior to the trial; does not answer regarding after the trial.
*Fraser says he gave instructions, there should be no money to be paid to witnesses; admits he was conscious of the effects if discovered afterwards.
*Tom Thurman explains his analysis of the circuit chip which he found – it is pointed out by Gideon Levy that T.T’s degree is in political science.
*Whitehurst says that Thurman altered his (W.’s) reports. W. also asks why the chip was given to the FBI when the Brits should have experts to look at it. (Fraser denies knowing chip was ever in USA). W. claims it is Thurman’s finger behind the chip fragment in the photo ‘going the rounds’ – later in film, TT seems to agree, or at least lets the comment of Levy go without any complaint. Marquise says it was brought to the U.S. – Fraser is seen raising his eyebrows!
*Ferguson asks why fragment not tested for explosive residue – talk of cost, but various people waffle (sorry can’t really explain what was going on here, except that people could not really believe cost was a factor).
*Fraser states that he was never satisfied with the investigation that went into the PFLP-GC – should have been pushed further to show that they were not involved.
*Thurman denies that he was thrown out of his job, he retired voluntarily; his opinion regarding the fragment was verified in England.
*Marquise acknowledges “People don’t trust government”
*Then Marquise at Arlington (in company of Henderson) says the fragment was never in the U.S., but the circuit board was in the U.S. (yes, I am confused – perhaps he was talking of an example of such a circuit board). Henderson confirms fragment never left the U.K. Henderson says loudly in walking away ‘culprit is in custody’.
*Film ends, but Levy now adds that he received a letter from Marquise after the shooting while the film was being completed to say that (effectively) to clarify the interview he had given, he agrees that the fragment did come to Washington but under the control of Faraday of the U.K.
After the film, the two MSPs Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald lead the ‘discussion’ – not much is actually discussed – mostly just points people want to draw attention to. Dr Swire speaks first on the film, and then to the question of the break-in at Heathrow the night before the crash. Asks why there were no restrictions on flights because of that breach of security. Also wanted to know why details of the break-in only became public knowledge (or at least available to defence) very late. Prof John Grant gives his opinion and is asked a couple of legal questions by one of the MSPs. Swire also asks Grant about the break-in and whether it can still be used in argument. Grant wants to know why Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have not published their reasons – says they do publish a couple of wishy-washy (my words) paragraphs, but no detail.
1. From Dr Swire
I saw the film last night in the Scottish Parliament. Lord Fraser, Stuart Henderson, Richard Marquise, Fred Whitehurst, Tom Thurman, Prof Hans Koechler and Robert Baer all made contributions in it.
The subject was the famous 'timer circuit board fragment', called PT35B in the court records.
There was evidence of widespread confusion over what was supposed to have been the way in which PT35B was handled, some claimed it had been to the USA others that it had not. The impression was that at least some of these were trying to contribute to a story the truth of which they did not want us to know.
Their stories could not all be true, for they differ widely.
'Oh what a complex web we weave when first we practice to deceive'
For me Robert Baer of the CIA was the most significant. His view was basically that of course it was a Iranian/Syrian job, but that even the USA (and therefore the UK) could not confront Iran militarily over it. That would, without question, have been to strangle the straits of Hormuz and therefore US oil supplies for a start. That sounds common sense to me.
The interviewer of these men was Gideon Levy himself [the film-maker], who showed great skill in extracting a maximum of information from them.
There was one criticism and that was that the film did show the famous picture of a tiny piece of circuit board on someone's finger tip. This is a picture of a shattered piece from a domestic cct board such as a tape recorder. It carried the codes of the former components printed in white on the fragment which appeared to have been of 'Paxolin' (mid brown) and bore no resemblance to a piece of fibre-glass board.
Use of this image will cause some confusion and allow the critics to get their knives in.
Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.
I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.
There is also said to be evidence that PT35B was never tested prior to the trial, for explosives residues, but that this has now been done and shown no trace of such residues.
Incredibly one contributor to the film claimed that the failure to do this was ' for reasons of economy'. Can you believe it? PT35B was only the most important forensic item in the entire 'evidence' armoury.
2. From an interested observer
Although the film obviously had the approval of all (or most?) of those present, my own feeling is that it required the audience to already know something – of course it did the usual intro.
Around 18:05, Christine Grahame (MSP) introduced one or two of the better known names. Then hands over to Gideon Levy who introduces his film – played, I think, from his laptop to a beamer (not the BMW variety). His preamble is simply to say we will see conflicting statement between CIA and Scottish authorities.
*Film starts
*Initially just various quotes for effect, giving cause to doubt the verdict. And then showing that he has been to a ceremony for the 20th anniversary at Arlington.
*In charge of the investigation were Marquise (FBI) and Stewart Henderson, Scottish Police.
*Interview with Hans Köchler and a review of his opinion; why one guilty verdict and one not guilty? Initial indictment based on conspiracy, so how could it change?
*Interview with Ian Ferguson [co-author of Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie] (who turns up at other times in film).
*Chopping of interviews with Bob Baer (ex CIA), Fred Whitehurst (FBI), and Marquise and Lord Fraser; he (Levy) required of all his interviewees a handshake on their saying that they’d tell him the truth. They all agreed (although one of them – possibly Marquise, can’t remember – did reserve the right not to answer a question).
*Fraser says his successors (4 or 5 of different parties) could have stopped the proceeding
*Marquise shown Bob Baer saying he had been a bomb maker for the CIA. He (BB) found it very unlikely that anyone would have a bomb transferred from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow and onwards.
*BB mentions PFLP-GC (on behalf of Iran) being responsible after the USS Vincennes/Iran Air
*Why was the agent Khreesat released back to Jordan by the German BKA; Fraser said K was double agent of PFLP and CIA; Marquise suggested double agent of PFLP and Jordan spying agency.
*Ferguson (on film) now says there was a change of focus in the investigation because the U.S. was somehow involved.
*A video is shown of Gaddafi (we have to rely on subtitles naturally) saying U.S. companies have had to pay to get back in to Libya – the same amount as Libya has paid out to relatives of victims.
*Marquise says no money paid to witnesses prior to the trial; does not answer regarding after the trial.
*Fraser says he gave instructions, there should be no money to be paid to witnesses; admits he was conscious of the effects if discovered afterwards.
*Tom Thurman explains his analysis of the circuit chip which he found – it is pointed out by Gideon Levy that T.T’s degree is in political science.
*Whitehurst says that Thurman altered his (W.’s) reports. W. also asks why the chip was given to the FBI when the Brits should have experts to look at it. (Fraser denies knowing chip was ever in USA). W. claims it is Thurman’s finger behind the chip fragment in the photo ‘going the rounds’ – later in film, TT seems to agree, or at least lets the comment of Levy go without any complaint. Marquise says it was brought to the U.S. – Fraser is seen raising his eyebrows!
*Ferguson asks why fragment not tested for explosive residue – talk of cost, but various people waffle (sorry can’t really explain what was going on here, except that people could not really believe cost was a factor).
*Fraser states that he was never satisfied with the investigation that went into the PFLP-GC – should have been pushed further to show that they were not involved.
*Thurman denies that he was thrown out of his job, he retired voluntarily; his opinion regarding the fragment was verified in England.
*Marquise acknowledges “People don’t trust government”
*Then Marquise at Arlington (in company of Henderson) says the fragment was never in the U.S., but the circuit board was in the U.S. (yes, I am confused – perhaps he was talking of an example of such a circuit board). Henderson confirms fragment never left the U.K. Henderson says loudly in walking away ‘culprit is in custody’.
*Film ends, but Levy now adds that he received a letter from Marquise after the shooting while the film was being completed to say that (effectively) to clarify the interview he had given, he agrees that the fragment did come to Washington but under the control of Faraday of the U.K.
After the film, the two MSPs Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald lead the ‘discussion’ – not much is actually discussed – mostly just points people want to draw attention to. Dr Swire speaks first on the film, and then to the question of the break-in at Heathrow the night before the crash. Asks why there were no restrictions on flights because of that breach of security. Also wanted to know why details of the break-in only became public knowledge (or at least available to defence) very late. Prof John Grant gives his opinion and is asked a couple of legal questions by one of the MSPs. Swire also asks Grant about the break-in and whether it can still be used in argument. Grant wants to know why Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have not published their reasons – says they do publish a couple of wishy-washy (my words) paragraphs, but no detail.
Thursday 23 April 2009
TV documentary on aspects of Lockerbie
A private screening of a new Dutch television documentary, focusing particularly on the provenance of the fragment of circuit board alleged to have come from the timer attached to the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, was held earlier this evening in a committee room at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. The documentary will be broadcast soon in the Netherlands and Germany. The following is the text of the background note supplied to those invited to attend the Edinburgh screening:
'Dutch Public TV network VPRO, in conjunction with German TV, ZDF and Arte, commissioned a documentary investigation into aspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
'The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, following a three year investigation has stated there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that Mr Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of this atrocity should have a fresh appeal. This appeal is scheduled to start on April 28th 2009. If there has been, as many believe, a miscarriage of justice, the implications for the Scottish Judicial system will be immense and could result in charges of perverting the course of justice.
'The film focuses mainly on a crucial piece of circuit board fragment alleged to have been found at Lockerbie. Investigations carried out by Scottish police and the United Sates of America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that this fragment came from a timer mechanism sold only to Libya.
'Statements made on camera to the documentary film makers by some of the most senior personnel involved in the investigation in Scotland and the USA cast even more doubt specifically on this piece of circuit board. The FBI agent who headed the USA’s part of the investigation has stated that without this fragment of circuit board there would not have been an indictment let alone a trial. Clearly, from filmed interviews, it can be seen that the FBI and Scottish police tell completely different stories about this fragment. They cannot both be correct.
'The shocking new evidence gathered in this film will, it is believed, impact greatly on the forthcoming appeal and the producers intend to make this material available to the Crown Office and to Mr Megrahi’s defence team.
'The screening will be by invitation only and it is hoped that a wide ranging audience will attend from elected representatives to relatives of those died on Pan Am 103.'
'Dutch Public TV network VPRO, in conjunction with German TV, ZDF and Arte, commissioned a documentary investigation into aspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
'The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, following a three year investigation has stated there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that Mr Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of this atrocity should have a fresh appeal. This appeal is scheduled to start on April 28th 2009. If there has been, as many believe, a miscarriage of justice, the implications for the Scottish Judicial system will be immense and could result in charges of perverting the course of justice.
'The film focuses mainly on a crucial piece of circuit board fragment alleged to have been found at Lockerbie. Investigations carried out by Scottish police and the United Sates of America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that this fragment came from a timer mechanism sold only to Libya.
'Statements made on camera to the documentary film makers by some of the most senior personnel involved in the investigation in Scotland and the USA cast even more doubt specifically on this piece of circuit board. The FBI agent who headed the USA’s part of the investigation has stated that without this fragment of circuit board there would not have been an indictment let alone a trial. Clearly, from filmed interviews, it can be seen that the FBI and Scottish police tell completely different stories about this fragment. They cannot both be correct.
'The shocking new evidence gathered in this film will, it is believed, impact greatly on the forthcoming appeal and the producers intend to make this material available to the Crown Office and to Mr Megrahi’s defence team.
'The screening will be by invitation only and it is hoped that a wide ranging audience will attend from elected representatives to relatives of those died on Pan Am 103.'
Wednesday 22 April 2009
UK relatives' reaction to alleged repatriation moves
Both of the "heavy" Scottish daily newspapers today run stories about the reaction of UK relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie to the recent press reports that transfer of Abdelbaset Megrahi back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence may be imminent. The Herald's long piece can be read here, and The Scotsman's shorter one here.
I would reiterate, however, that the only person who knows whether and, if so, when an application for transfer will be made is Mr Megrahi; and that the granting of any such application, if made, by the Scottish Ministers cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
I would reiterate, however, that the only person who knows whether and, if so, when an application for transfer will be made is Mr Megrahi; and that the granting of any such application, if made, by the Scottish Ministers cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion.
Tuesday 21 April 2009
Libya to seek repatriation of Megrahi?
Libya plans to seek the extradition of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi who is serving a life term in Scotland and suffering from terminal cancer, a Libyan source said on Monday.
"Libya and Britain are due to exchange ratified extradition documents at the end of April, and after that Libya will officially submit a request for Abdelbaset Megrahi's extradition," the source close to the case told AFP.
This would allow Megrahi "to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live," the source added on condition of anonymity.
In May 2007, Britain and Libya signed a protocol agreement on the transfer of prisoners which the Libyan source says has been ratified by the two countries. The documents are due to be exchanged later this month. (...)
[H]is wife Aisha told AFP in February that he "is in danger of dying" because of his worsening cancer and complained that he had been refused bail.
On Monday Aisha pleaded anew for her husband's release.
"I call on the entire entire world to take pity on my children and the Abdelbaset family," she told AFP by telephone.
"Our only wish is to spend a few days with him before he dies. We have suffered every day these past 10 years. How much longer are we to pay the price of injustice."
[From an Agence France Presse report, published online yesterday.]
"Libya and Britain are due to exchange ratified extradition documents at the end of April, and after that Libya will officially submit a request for Abdelbaset Megrahi's extradition," the source close to the case told AFP.
This would allow Megrahi "to continue his sentence in a Libyan prison, particularly since he is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and has only a few weeks left to live," the source added on condition of anonymity.
In May 2007, Britain and Libya signed a protocol agreement on the transfer of prisoners which the Libyan source says has been ratified by the two countries. The documents are due to be exchanged later this month. (...)
[H]is wife Aisha told AFP in February that he "is in danger of dying" because of his worsening cancer and complained that he had been refused bail.
On Monday Aisha pleaded anew for her husband's release.
"I call on the entire entire world to take pity on my children and the Abdelbaset family," she told AFP by telephone.
"Our only wish is to spend a few days with him before he dies. We have suffered every day these past 10 years. How much longer are we to pay the price of injustice."
[From an Agence France Presse report, published online yesterday.]
Monday 20 April 2009
Ministers deny that Lockerbie bomber will be moved to Libya
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Ministers [of the Scottish, not the United Kingdom, Government] moved quickly yesterday to dismiss suggestions that they were preparing to transfer the Lockerbie bomber to Libya to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
They were reacting to the decision of the Crown Office to write to the families of the victims informing them about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, which is due to come into force at the end of this month.
That sparked renewed speculation that ministers were preparing to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home because he has terminal cancer.
But a spokesman for the First Minister insisted yesterday that no decision would be taken on Megrahi's future until a formal application for his return to Libya had been received.
Megrahi's appeal is due to start shortly after the agreement comes into force on 27 April, meaning it is unlikely he will be able to submit an application for transfer for at least several months – no-one can apply while they are appealing.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: "It will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer."
Ministers [of the Scottish, not the United Kingdom, Government] moved quickly yesterday to dismiss suggestions that they were preparing to transfer the Lockerbie bomber to Libya to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
They were reacting to the decision of the Crown Office to write to the families of the victims informing them about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, which is due to come into force at the end of this month.
That sparked renewed speculation that ministers were preparing to send Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi home because he has terminal cancer.
But a spokesman for the First Minister insisted yesterday that no decision would be taken on Megrahi's future until a formal application for his return to Libya had been received.
Megrahi's appeal is due to start shortly after the agreement comes into force on 27 April, meaning it is unlikely he will be able to submit an application for transfer for at least several months – no-one can apply while they are appealing.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: "It will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer."
Sunday 19 April 2009
More on the prisoner transfer agreement
I have found two follow-up stories on yesterday's revelations in The Herald.
The Reuters news agency website carries an article by Kate Kelland. The following are excerpts:
'The British government is discussing the ratification of an agreement with Tripoli which could allow a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be sent home to the oil-exporting North African country. (...)
'[A UK] government source declined to confirm or deny a report in a Scottish newspaper that the PTA is to be ratified on April 27 and said any transfer of Megrahi would require an individual application to be made.
'"The PTA doesn't actually provide for the transfer of any individual prisoner. It is a framework under which such transfers, if they were to be considered, would happen," the source said. (...)
'A Scottish government spokeswoman said the PTA was "a matter for the UK and Libyan governments" but it would be for Scottish ministers "to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland."
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision," she said.'
The article by David Leask in Scotland on Sunday contains the following:
'The Crown Office yesterday confirmed it had written to the families of all 270 victims of the 1989 bombing to spell out how any transfer would take place. (...)
'A spokeswoman for the Crown Office declined to reveal the details of the letter but stressed that prosecutors had been keeping families up to date with the case.
'She said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement in 2007 we have communicated with the families about it because of their long-standing interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."
'Some reports have suggested that officials in both England and Scotland have encouraged Libya to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is set in stone. (...)
'First Minister Alex Salmond has previously said he feels Megrahi should serve his entire term in Scotland. The initial prisoner transfer agreement, dubbed "the deal in the desert", sparked fury north of the border.
'Even after the deal is finalised, it will be up to MacAskill to decide whether to release Megrahi to the Libyans. The UK Government has no power over prisoners in the Scottish system.'
It is important to stress that, once the PTA comes into force, an application would have to be made by Megrahi to be considered for repatriation. Journalistic speculation notwithstanding, no-one but Abdelbaset Megrahi (and perhaps his lawyers) knows what his intention in this regard is. Furthermore, whether any such application would be granted is a matter for the Scottish Ministers (effectively the Justice Minister and -- perhaps -- the First Minister). Given the published statements of SNP politicians on the matter when the PTA was being negotiated by the UK Government, and given the possible political (and international public relations) consequences of a decision to permit repatriation, the success of any application can hardly be regarded as a foregone conclusion. But, of course, the pressure to grant it from Justice Department and Crown Office sources (who, I confidently believe, would like nothing better than to avoid the appeal that is due to start on 28 April) would be immense.
The Reuters news agency website carries an article by Kate Kelland. The following are excerpts:
'The British government is discussing the ratification of an agreement with Tripoli which could allow a Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be sent home to the oil-exporting North African country. (...)
'[A UK] government source declined to confirm or deny a report in a Scottish newspaper that the PTA is to be ratified on April 27 and said any transfer of Megrahi would require an individual application to be made.
'"The PTA doesn't actually provide for the transfer of any individual prisoner. It is a framework under which such transfers, if they were to be considered, would happen," the source said. (...)
'A Scottish government spokeswoman said the PTA was "a matter for the UK and Libyan governments" but it would be for Scottish ministers "to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland."
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision," she said.'
The article by David Leask in Scotland on Sunday contains the following:
'The Crown Office yesterday confirmed it had written to the families of all 270 victims of the 1989 bombing to spell out how any transfer would take place. (...)
'A spokeswoman for the Crown Office declined to reveal the details of the letter but stressed that prosecutors had been keeping families up to date with the case.
'She said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement in 2007 we have communicated with the families about it because of their long-standing interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."
'Some reports have suggested that officials in both England and Scotland have encouraged Libya to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is set in stone. (...)
'First Minister Alex Salmond has previously said he feels Megrahi should serve his entire term in Scotland. The initial prisoner transfer agreement, dubbed "the deal in the desert", sparked fury north of the border.
'Even after the deal is finalised, it will be up to MacAskill to decide whether to release Megrahi to the Libyans. The UK Government has no power over prisoners in the Scottish system.'
It is important to stress that, once the PTA comes into force, an application would have to be made by Megrahi to be considered for repatriation. Journalistic speculation notwithstanding, no-one but Abdelbaset Megrahi (and perhaps his lawyers) knows what his intention in this regard is. Furthermore, whether any such application would be granted is a matter for the Scottish Ministers (effectively the Justice Minister and -- perhaps -- the First Minister). Given the published statements of SNP politicians on the matter when the PTA was being negotiated by the UK Government, and given the possible political (and international public relations) consequences of a decision to permit repatriation, the success of any application can hardly be regarded as a foregone conclusion. But, of course, the pressure to grant it from Justice Department and Crown Office sources (who, I confidently believe, would like nothing better than to avoid the appeal that is due to start on 28 April) would be immense.
Saturday 18 April 2009
Megrahi may return to Libya, Lockerbie families told
This is the heading over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:
'Senior legal officials, in a tacit acknowledgement that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be allowed to return home, have written to all relatives of the victims explaining the transfer process.
'After years of denial by ministers and officials, the Crown Office e-mail suggests that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison for the bombing that killed 270 people, will be allowed to return to Libya under a transfer agreement to be ratified before the end of this month.
'The e-mail also suggests that ratification may take place on April 27, the day before Megrahi's long-awaited appeal begins in Edinburgh.
'Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified. (...)
'Yesterday's revelation coincided with the publication of a critical report on the transfer agreement by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster.
'The report makes apparent the committee's disdain of Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, for failing to delay ratification to allow for proper scrutiny.
'Mr Straw wrote to the committee in March to say he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude this and three other judicial co-operation agreements".'
The full article can be read here.
An accompanying piece headlined ‘The relatives of the victims also have human rights’, also by Lucy Adams, contains the following:
'Little has been allowed to get in the way of plans to return the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to his home country since the global political axis turned. (...)
'Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005, but the Foreign Office has consistently denied that such discussions bear any relevance to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
'The agreement, signed by Westminster and due to be ratified by the end of the month, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.
'But the wheels are turning in spite of concerns and opposition. While the appeal itself has taken years to begin, the machinery behind the transfer agreement is moving with haste.
'Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights publicly stated last month that the treaty raises concerns and requested that ratification be delayed until the end of April so that it could publish a substantive report.
'However, Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, said he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya".
'The committee report states: "In our view, when a select committee states that it intends to scrutinise a treaty, ratification should be delayed until the committee's inquiry has concluded."
'Despite the pleas of relatives of the victims of the tragedy and Scottish ministers demanding that Megrahi be exempt from the agreement, it appears from both the Crown Office e-mail and official sources that he may be the first prisoner to be dealt with.
'First Minister Alex Salmond made clear in April 2008 that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland and that he would "defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system". However, officials have privately made clear to the Libyans that they are prepared to go back on such claims, which were allegedly "made more in relation to the murky politics of the deal in the desert than Megrahi". (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the tragedy, said: "Jack Straw has overridden the wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and refused to delay ratification in order to ensure it can be active by April 27 - the day before the appeal starts.
"For those who think the Scottish legal process is nothing more than a political pantomime, here's the confirmation. The whole thing has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with convenience and financial gain.
'"The relatives also have human rights, including the right to know what happened to a loved one and why they were not better protected."
'A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: "The PTA was negotiated and signed by the UK and Libyan Governments and so is it is a matter for those governments. Once ratified, it will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland.
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge any decision."
'A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement, we have communicated with the families because of their interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."'
The full text of the article can be read here, and a short piece entitled Dialogue and denial on the way to a deal, which contains a catalogue of governmental prevarication and obfuscation on the prisoner transfer issue, can be read here.
'Senior legal officials, in a tacit acknowledgement that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be allowed to return home, have written to all relatives of the victims explaining the transfer process.
'After years of denial by ministers and officials, the Crown Office e-mail suggests that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison for the bombing that killed 270 people, will be allowed to return to Libya under a transfer agreement to be ratified before the end of this month.
'The e-mail also suggests that ratification may take place on April 27, the day before Megrahi's long-awaited appeal begins in Edinburgh.
'Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified. (...)
'Yesterday's revelation coincided with the publication of a critical report on the transfer agreement by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster.
'The report makes apparent the committee's disdain of Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, for failing to delay ratification to allow for proper scrutiny.
'Mr Straw wrote to the committee in March to say he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude this and three other judicial co-operation agreements".'
The full article can be read here.
An accompanying piece headlined ‘The relatives of the victims also have human rights’, also by Lucy Adams, contains the following:
'Little has been allowed to get in the way of plans to return the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to his home country since the global political axis turned. (...)
'Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005, but the Foreign Office has consistently denied that such discussions bear any relevance to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
'The agreement, signed by Westminster and due to be ratified by the end of the month, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.
'But the wheels are turning in spite of concerns and opposition. While the appeal itself has taken years to begin, the machinery behind the transfer agreement is moving with haste.
'Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights publicly stated last month that the treaty raises concerns and requested that ratification be delayed until the end of April so that it could publish a substantive report.
'However, Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, said he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya".
'The committee report states: "In our view, when a select committee states that it intends to scrutinise a treaty, ratification should be delayed until the committee's inquiry has concluded."
'Despite the pleas of relatives of the victims of the tragedy and Scottish ministers demanding that Megrahi be exempt from the agreement, it appears from both the Crown Office e-mail and official sources that he may be the first prisoner to be dealt with.
'First Minister Alex Salmond made clear in April 2008 that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland and that he would "defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system". However, officials have privately made clear to the Libyans that they are prepared to go back on such claims, which were allegedly "made more in relation to the murky politics of the deal in the desert than Megrahi". (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the tragedy, said: "Jack Straw has overridden the wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and refused to delay ratification in order to ensure it can be active by April 27 - the day before the appeal starts.
"For those who think the Scottish legal process is nothing more than a political pantomime, here's the confirmation. The whole thing has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with convenience and financial gain.
'"The relatives also have human rights, including the right to know what happened to a loved one and why they were not better protected."
'A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: "The PTA was negotiated and signed by the UK and Libyan Governments and so is it is a matter for those governments. Once ratified, it will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland.
'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge any decision."
'A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement, we have communicated with the families because of their interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."'
The full text of the article can be read here, and a short piece entitled Dialogue and denial on the way to a deal, which contains a catalogue of governmental prevarication and obfuscation on the prisoner transfer issue, can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)