SCCRC 'queried Lockerbie verdict'

[This is the headline over a report published on the Evening Standard website on this date in 2012. It reads as follows:]

New details of the legal grounds that could have cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction have been disclosed, according to a newspaper report.

The six grounds for referral back to the appeal court are contained in a document by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), the body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, with extracts printed in The Herald newspaper.

The Scottish Government has brought forward legislation to bring about the publication of the full report but data protection rules still bar its formal publication.

On claims the verdict was unreasonable, the SCCRC report quoted in The Herald states: "The commission has reached the view that the trial court's verdict is at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned."

The six grounds for referral were previously published by the SCCRC in summary. Four of the reasons refer to undisclosed evidence from the Crown to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's defence team.

Those grounds cover evidence about a positive identification of Megrahi by Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who said he sold clothes to a Libyan man. The clothes were linked to a suitcase loaded onto the plane, which was then linked to the bomb and eventually to Megrahi.

The SCCRC raised concerns that evidence suggesting Mr Gauci had seen a magazine article linking Megrahi to the bomb was not passed to the defence.

Contradictions about the day Megrahi was said to have bought the clothes were also highlighted. The court was told the purchase was on December 7 but the SCCRC said Mr Gauci also thought it might have been November 29.

"In the commission's view, by withholding this information the Crown deprived the defence of the opportunity to take such steps as it might have deemed necessary," the report in The Herald adds.

Also of concern to the SCCRC was undisclosed evidence about Mr Gauci's interest in rewards. A fifth reason covered "secret" intelligence documents not seen by Megrahi's legal team while the sixth referred to new evidence on the date of clothes purchased in Malta.

The truth about Lockerbie is likely to be ignored

[What follows is the text of an article by Jonathan S Tobin published on this date in 2014 on the website of Commentary magazine:]

Could there be a worse week for new revelations about the 1988 Lockerbie tragedy to be unveiled? The report claiming that Iran rather than Libya was the culprit in the atrocity should raise eyebrows around globe. But despite the persuasive case made for this theory, don’t expect the United States or any other Western country to heed the new evidence and re-open the case. With both the US and its European allies desperate to reach a new nuclear deal with Tehran that will enable them to halt the sanctions on the Islamist regime, discussions about the true nature of the administration’s diplomatic partner are, to put it mildly, unwelcome. If Washington isn’t interested in drawing conclusions about Iran from the seizure of an arms ship bound for terrorist-run Gaza last week or even the latest threat from its Revolutionary Guard about destroying Israel uttered yesterday, why would anyone think the Obama administration would be willing to rethink its conclusions about a crime that was long thought to be solved?

To be fair to the administration, a lot of time has passed since the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that cost the lies of 259 passengers and crew and 11 persons on the ground. The US and the West put a lot of energy into proving that agents of the Libyan Gaddafi regime were responsible. The Libyans were known state sponsors of terror and had an axe to grind against the US at the time. After the conviction of a Libyan intelligence agent for these murders, even more energy was spent on vainly trying to persuade a Scottish court from letting him go home to Libya, where he eventually died of cancer. [RB: It was, of course, a Scottish Government minister, not a Scottish court, that granted compassionate release.] Why would anyone in the US government want to admit that we were wrong all these years? Nor would most Americans think an investigation undertaken by a news organization like the reliably anti-American Al Jazeera, no matter how meticulous, would persuade them to rethink their long-held conclusions about the case.

But, as David Horovitz writes persuasively in the Times of Israel, Al Jazeera’s report is based on information from the same Iranian defector that accurately testified about the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina that killed 85 persons. Though the full truth about Lockerbie is yet to be uncovered, Horovitz is right to point out that if we accept the word of former Iranian intelligence agent Abolghasem Mesbahi about Tehran’s terrorist plot in South America, there’s no reason to dismiss his detailed claims about Lockerbie. The pieces here fit too well to allow us to merely shrug and move on.

But the problem isn’t Mesbahi’s credibility or even the embarrassment that a finding that debunked previous Western intelligence work on Lockerbie would cause in Washington and London. Rather, it’s the fact that the defector is pointing the finger at a government that the West wants very much to rehabilitate these days.

The United States and its European allies are deeply invested in the notion that Hassan Rouhani’s victory in Iran’s faux election last year marked a genuine change in the country’s political culture. Justifying a weak interim nuclear deal that granted Iran both significant sanctions relief and a tacit recognition of its “right” to enrich uranium was made possible not only by the arguments about Iran’s supposed desire for a new start with the West but also by a determination by the administration that it wanted to step away from confrontation with Tehran at all costs.

The president is so worried about hurting the delicate feelings of the anti-Semitic government in Tehran that he is willing to veto new sanctions legislation that would have strengthened his hand in the talks. This policy is difficult enough to justify in the face of Iran’s continued support for terrorism, its genocidal threats against Israel (which make its possession of nuclear weapons more than a theoretical security problem), and its long record of diplomatic deception. The last thing the president and Secretary of State Kerry want is to have the Lockerbie case disinterred and for the regime—many of whose leading players were active in the security apparatus at the time—indicted for mass murder of innocent Americans.

So don’t expect anyone in Washington to take the new evidence about Lockerbie seriously or even to pay lip service to the notion of re-opening the case. Horovitz is right that Al Jazeera’s report ought to justify a new investigation that will fearlessly follow the evidence to the guilty parties. But as long as making nice with Iran is one of the diplomatic priorities of the United States, the truth about Lockerbie is likely to be ignored.

Lockerbie was not a Libyan bomb

[This is part of the headline over an editorial in The Independent on this date in 2014. It reads as follows:]

The idea that anybody in authority still believes the Libyans were guilty has become harder to swallow

The evidence that the Lockerbie bomb – which detonated on Flight 103 from London to Washington, killing 270 people – was planted by the Libyans gets thinner and thinner. Soon after the explosion, on 21 December 1988, many assumed that it was a revenge attack for the blowing up of an Iranian commercial flight six months earlier, killing 290 people. Certainly, given the fraught nature of Iranian-US relations in the 1980s, that seemed to make sense. Yet before long there was a screech of brakes in the official investigation and the focus of attention fell on Libya, culminating in the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in the Netherlands in 2001.

Jim Swire, father of Flora, one of the victims, went to the trial expecting to see a bad man get his comeuppance, and came away convinced the Libyan was not guilty. Many others who approached with an open mind saw the gaping holes in the prosecution and went away believing that a hideous wrong was done to Mr Megrahi, who died of cancer in 2012 still proclaiming his innocence. The official version of the chemical make-up of the timer fragment has been entirely discredited, as have claims that the bomb could have been put on board in Malta.

With news that a former Iranian intelligence officer, Abolghassem Mesbahi, has claimed – indeed, confirmed – that the bombing was ordered by Ayatollah Khomeini “to copy exactly what happened to the Iranian airbus”, and that it was planted in London, the idea that anybody in authority still believes the Libyans were guilty becomes harder to swallow. The fact that their leader, Muammar Gaddafi, desperate to lift international sanctions, seemingly accepted responsibility, or that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was unsuccessful, should not let those responsible off the hook. It is hard to look back on the unseemly wrangling over Mr Megrahi’s compassionate return from Scotland to Tripoli in 2009 without thinking that some of those quietly lobbying for it knew that he was less guilty than they were willing to admit publicly, and that the least they could do was let him die at home. Maybe they will find a bit more courage now. “Megrahi is innocent” is no longer a conspiracy theory – it is official.

[RB: The report in The Independent which prompted this editorial can be read here.]

No justification

[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire that was published in The Herald on this date in 2008. It reads as follows:]

It is hard to see how the Westminster Foreign Secretary can justify his attempt to "protect" documents with Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates on the grounds that they would harm the UK's relations with other nations, and that their release to the defence in the Lockerbie case would disadvantage the very public PIIs are designed to serve.

It appears these documents were supplied to the prosecution (and Dumfries and Galloway police) about 12 years ago, and concern the truth about a terrorist atrocity of nearly 20 years ago. It also appears they were considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to be part of their reason for considering the original trial and appeal might have been unsafe. The Foreign Secretary must realise that the longstanding release of them to the prosecution, but not the defence, wrecks any chance of the next appeal being considered fair. Coupled with their inclusion in the SCCRC's referral back to appeal, this grossly selective restriction can only destroy any remaining vestige of faith in the freedom and independence of Scotland's judicial system.

No doubt the defence will continue to fight for the documents to be released to them. Meanwhile, the use of the PII certificates will be seen outside these islands as at best a delaying tactic by Whitehall, and at worst a calculated attempt to ensure Mr Megrahi does not get a fair appeal and the relatives are denied the truth about the murder of their loved ones, as are the the public, while Scotland's independent criminal law is seen as enslaved to Britain's politicians.

London talks on acknowledgment of Lockerbie responsibility

[What follows is the text of a report by David Leppard that was published in The Sunday Times on this date in 2003:]

Ambassador William Burns, head of the US state department’s Middle East section, is expected to meet Libyan and British officials for talks in London this Tuesday. A formal announcement is expected soon afterwards.

Sources close to the talks disclosed yesterday that officials may be close to finalising a deal in which Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi finally admits responsibility for Lockerbie.

In exchange for a formal statement of admission, the United Nations Security Council is expected to permanently lift crippling sanctions against Tripoli.

Discussions have been going on for years about compensating relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland in December 1988.

Libya has previously denied reports that it was prepared to pay £7m to each Lockerbie victim, provided sanctions were lifted. It is currently on the US state department’s list of countries that sponsor international terrorism.

This week’s London meeting will involve Burns, a US assistant secretary of state, and a senior Libyan official, probably Mohammed Abdul Quasim al-Zwai, Gadaffi’s ambassador in London. A senior Foreign Office official will also attend.

The security council has demanded that Libya pay “appropriate compensation” and accept general responsibility for the bombing. As well as renouncing terrorism, it must also undertake to comply with any future inquiry.

If those demands are fully met, UN sanctions — imposed in 1992 but suspended at the moment — will be scrapped.

America imposed its own separate sanctions after the Libyans bombed a disco used by American soldiers in Germany in 1986. Libya is desperate to get rid of the sanctions so it can sell oil.

Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, said he believed the wording of a statement admitting Libya’s responsibility had already been agreed.

At an international court in the Hague two years ago, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a senior Libyan intelligence official, was convicted of the bombing. He is now serving a life sentence at Barlinnie high security prison in Glasgow. [RB: The only evidence that Megrahi was an intelligence official came from the defector Abdul Majid Giaka whose evidence on every other issue was dismissed by the court as wholly lacking in credibility. The court gave no reasons for their acceptance of Giaka’s testimony on this single topic.]

Gadaffi has always denied responsibility for the attack. But evidence uncovered during the Scottish police investigation revealed that it had been sanctioned by the head of his own intelligence service. [RB: I have no idea what “evidence” this refers to. Certainly no such evidence was produced at the Zeist trial.]

The Libyans are said to have wanted revenge for the bombing of their country by American planes, in which Gadaffi’s six-year-old adopted daughter had been killed.

[RB: The Libyan letter acknowledging responsibility (which I played a part in drafting) can be read here.]

UK Government held entitled to claim public interest immunity

[What follows is the text of a report by Lucy Adams in The Herald on this date in 2008:]

The defence team for the Libyan jailed for the Lockerbie bombing yesterday suffered a set-back in its attempts to get access to a top-secret document.

The document, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in 1988.

At the previous hearing, the UK Government said the document could not be disclosed for reasons of national security, leading the defence team to accuse it of "interference" in the appeal.

Margaret Scott QC, senior counsel for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan currently serving 27 years in Greenock prison for the bombing, objected to the Advocate General for Scotland - the law officer who represents the UK Government in Scottish affairs - playing a part in the debate.

She accused the government of meddling - an allegation hotly disputed by Lord Davidson, the Advocate General, and by Elish Angiolini QC, the Lord Advocate and head of prosecutions in Scotland.

However, yesterday the appeal judges ruled against her. Their decision opens the way for several days of future debate about whether letting lawyers see the document would have any security implications.

The Libyan's defence team say it needs to see the document in order for Megrahi to have a fair appeal.

Earlier this year, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was told that Ms Angiolini would be prepared to disclose the document but that has also been disputed.

The document itself was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer.

The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose this document, which is thought to contain information about the electronic timer used to detonate the bomb, could constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material they have refused to disclose it to the defence.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband claims the document should remain confidential.

Now Lord Davidson will be allowed to put the case for "public interest immunity", on his behalf, at a future hearing - for which no date has yet been set. The hearing of Megrahi's actual appeal is still months away.

Megrahi, who was jailed in 2001, was not in court yesterday - but the appeal judges have been told he would like to attend future appeal hearings.

Death of US Lockerbie judge Thomas Platt

[What follows is excerpted from an obituary that appeared in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times:]

Thomas C Platt, a federal judge in New York (...) died on Saturday in North Branford, Conn. He was 91. (...)

Judge Platt, who sat in federal courthouses in Brooklyn and on Long Island, also presided over lawsuits against the Libyan government and Pan American World Airways stemming from the terrorist bombing of a jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. A Libyan intelligence officer was convicted of orchestrating the attack, which killed 259 people aboard a London-to-New York flight and 11 on the ground. (...)

In the lawsuits against Pan Am over the bombing of Flight 103, victims’ families contended that inadequate baggage-security procedures had let an unaccompanied suitcase containing the bomb be placed on the plane.

Judge Platt presided at the trial, in 1992. A jury agreed with the families, permitting trials on each family’s damage claim, though most were settled without trial.

In 1995, the judge dismissed family members’ lawsuits against the Libyan government, ruling that American law granted other nations immunity from suits in American courts, with exceptions that did not pertain to this case.

But after Congress amended the law in 1996 to allow suits in the United States against nations sponsoring terrorism, the families again filed their claims, and Judge Platt rejected Libyan arguments that the suits still warranted dismissal despite the change in law.

In 2002, Libya preliminarily agreed to settle the case by paying up to $10 million to each family. It was six more years before a final agreement was reached.

Judges back Lockerbie evidence suppression

[This is the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2008. It reads in part:]

A legal battle to release a secret intelligence report which could free the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to continue after judges ruled the foreign secretary had the right to suppress the document.

The ruling from the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, dashes the hopes of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi that he would be quickly released.

It emerged last year that two secret papers had been given to the UK by a foreign government in September 1996, four years before al-Megrahi's trial began, but had never been disclosed to his defence team even though Scottish police and prosecutors had seen them.

Last July, the Scottish criminal cases review commission said that one of those documents raised further doubts about his guilt, and had played a key role in its decision to return al-Megrahi's conviction to the appeal court. It refused to disclose its contents or origin, however.

The Libyan's lawyers claim the document is essential to his appeal and are contesting the decision by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, to grant public interest immunity suppressing the papers on behalf of the British government.

The lawyers told three appeal judges last month that only the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, had the right to withhold papers in a Scottish court and she had said she had no objection to them being released.

However, the judges ruled that the Lord Advocate had said that disclosure of those papers was a decision for the foreign secretary – an opinion they upheld. Al-Megrahi's lawyers will make a further attempt to force disclosure of the documents later this summer.

Miliband has told the court that releasing either document would cause "real harm" to the UK's national security, its counter-terrorism efforts and its relations with the country which supplied the papers.

Government lawyers have denied claims it came from the US government or the CIA, but said the foreign government involved had refused requests to release it.

Al-Megrahi, then a sanctions buster for Colonel Muammar Gadafy, was convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 passengers, crew and townspeople after planting a suitcase bomb in Malta which eventually blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, the small town in south west Scotland.

Parliamentary questions and answers on Lockerbie

[On this date in 1995, Tam Dalyell MP received answers in the House of Commons to several written questions about Lockerbie. The following are three of the questions and answers:]

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the court case, Air Malta v Granada Television, and pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 31 January, Official Report, column 558, what evidence has been found to substantiate a Malta connection with the Lockerbie bombing.

Mr Douglas Hogg: Two Libyan nationals are accused of having placed, or having caused to be placed, the bomb which destroyed flight PA 103 on board an Air Malta flight from Luqa airport on 21 December 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the detail of the evidence against the two accused while criminal proceedings are pending. The recent out-of-court settlement between Air Malta and Granada Television has no bearing on the prosecution case against the two accused. I understand that the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action was based on allegations different in detail from those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to evidence involving officials of countries other than Libya in relation to Lockerbie; and what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to obtain such evidence concerning nationals of countries, other than Libya, undertaken on 20 January 1992, Official Report, column 159.

Mr Douglas Hogg: The Lockerbie investigators have given exhaustive consideration to all information relevant to the Lockerbie bombing. The possible involvement by nationals of a number of countries has been very closely investigated. Despite the unprecedented scale of the investigation, the available evidence does not support charges against the nationals of any country besides Libya. But the investigation remains open and any relevant new information will be considered.

Mr Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Her Majesty's Government supported the United States decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie; and what the preferred action was through the UN Security Council.

Mr Douglas Hogg: The question of the applicability of the Montreal convention is pending before the International Court of Justice. We and the US Government referred to the UN Security Council Libya's failure to surrender the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing in view of the frequently expressed concerns of the United Nations about the effect of terrorism on international peace and security.

Differentiating between personal opinions and scientific fact

[On this date in 1997 Tam Dalyell MP asked a question in the House of Commons arising out of the soon-to-be-published US Department of Justice Inspector-General’s report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases. An FBI internal memo subsequent to that report contained the following:

"It is clear that SSA Thurman does not understand the scientific issues involved with the interpretation and significance of explosives and explosives residue composition. He therefore should realise this deficiency and differentiate between his personal opinions and scientific fact. An expert's opinion should be based upon objective, scientific findings and be separated from personal predilections and biases. (...) SSA Thurman acted irresponsibly. He should be held accountable. He should be disciplined accordingly".

The exchange in the House of Commons reads as follows:]

HC Deb 05 March 1997 vol 291 cc883-4

Mr. Dalyell To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of the Lord Advocate to the hon Member for Linlithgow of 14 February, by whom the allegations were considered and the conclusions drawn that proof of the Scottish case against the two accused Libyans did not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) The allegations concerning Mr Thurman are a matter for the United States authorities. I am advised that the United States inspector general's report, after investigation of the allegations, has not yet been published. When the American allegations became known, Mr Thurman's role in the Lockerbie case was considered by the then Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. As long ago as October 1995, he advised the hon. Gentleman that proof of the Lockerbie case does not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

Mr. Dalyell Now we know that the Crown Office has slavishly followed information from the United States. At the time, did the Americans know that Mr Thurman would be accused and lose his job for having fabricated forensic evidence? If it was not Mr Thurman, who was it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Obviously, the Law Officers are well aware of the allegations. However, the report has not been published, and it would be wrong to prejudge its outcome. I repeat what I have already said: the Lord Advocate has never suggested that Mr Thurman did not play a significant part in the investigation. The Lord Advocate and his predecessor have chosen their words carefully in saying that the case does not depend on evidence that Mr Thurman might give.

Sir Hector Monro Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who live in Lockerbie or, like me, near it firmly believe that the investigations conducted by the Dumfries and Galloway police, the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate show that the alleged criminals in Libya must be brought to book in a court in Scotland or the United States, and that diversions to other possible suspects only cause harm?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I agree with my right hon Friend. I was at Lockerbie literally within hours of the tragedy and atrocity. I believe that the Law Officers would not have brought forward the accusations if they had not been based on very strong evidence.

Dr Godman Despite the excellent work done by the police force mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H Monro) and the Prime Minister's acknowledgement to me, some months ago, that any such trial will be held in Scotland and not in America, when will the Minister admit that it is highly unlikely that any such trial will take place at the High Court in Edinburgh? Almost nine years have passed since the terrible affair at Lockerbie, yet we are no nearer to bringing the culprits to trial. Why have the Government failed so signally in the matter?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Those issues could well be addressed to the Libyan Government. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made it clear at the Dispatch Box last Friday that we should look to the Libyan Government to assist with the investigation. He went on to say: Libya's record of state sponsorship of terrorism is, rightly, a matter of deep and abiding concern."—[Official Report, 28 February 1997; Vol 291, c 603.] I reject arguments for a third-country trial for the case, which could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair. We cannot allow alleged terrorists to determine where they are tried.

Mr John Marshall Everyone agrees that the Lockerbie disaster was a great human tragedy. Is it not incumbent on hon Members to congratulate the Scottish police on their investigation, to emphasise that Scottish justice would be even-handed between the alleged criminals and the forces of law, and to condemn those in the House who act as apologists for the evil terrorists of Libya?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I have confidence in the Scottish system of criminal justice, which is one of the best in the world. I do not believe that attempts to have a trial elsewhere in Europe would succeed. The Libyans have given no indication that they would co-operate with such attempts.

Mr Dalyell On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall try to get my 11th Adjournment debate on the subject.

Independent counsel to consider any Lockerbie criminality allegations

[What follows are written questions answered on 2 March 2017 in the Scottish Parliament:]

Question S5W-06844: Alex Neil, Airdrie and Shotts, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/02/2017

To ask the Scottish Government who will decide on what action should be taken arising from the findings of the Police Scotland report on Operation Sandwood.

Answered by James Wolffe QC (02/03/2017):

If there is any report submitted by Police Service of Scotland alleging criminality by named individuals, the Law Officers consider it important that such allegations in accordance with normal practice are dealt with fairly and robustly by independent counsel, supported as required by a senior Procurator Fiscal with no prior involvement in the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103. Independent counsel would therefore be expected to decide on what action should be taken.

Current Status: Answered by James Wolffe QC on 02/03/2017

Question S5W-06832: Alex Neil, Airdrie and Shotts, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/02/2017

To ask the Scottish Government whether it remains the case that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service personnel involved in Lockerbie-related matters would take part in the consideration of the Police Scotland report on Operation Sandwood and that an independent counsel would consider the report and, if so, who this counsel will be.

Answered by James Wolffe QC (02/03/2017):

As has been confirmed previously, in accordance with normal practice any report emanating from Operation Sandwood will be dealt with fairly and robustly by independent counsel, supported as required by a senior Procurator Fiscal with no prior involvement in the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103. Independent counsel will be appointed if any report alleging criminality is received.

Current Status: Answered by James Wolffe QC on 02/03/2017