[This is the headline over an article about the Megrahi family’s forthcoming application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission posted today on Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer’s Intel Today website. In the article he quotes an email that I sent to him earlier today. Here is what I wrote:]
I am optimistic about the outcome of the Megrahi family's forthcoming application to the SCCRC. In June 2007 the SCCRC decided, on six grounds, that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Since then even more evidence has come to light casting doubt on the verdict (not least Dr Morag Kerr's masterly analysis of the bomb-damaged luggage, which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the bomb suitcase was ingested at Heathrow, not Luqa in Malta).
My only slight worry is how the SCCRC will apply the "interests of justice" requirement (ie not only must the Commission be satisfied that there might have been a miscarriage of justice, it must also be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for there to be a fresh appeal). It is possible to envisage the SCCRC saying that there have already been two appeals (the first of which Megrahi lost and the second of which he abandoned) and that it is not in the interests of justice for there to be a third bite at the cherry. I am reasonably optimistic that the Commission will not adopt this approach -- the Megrahi conviction still casts a dark shadow over the Scottish criminal justice system and is far from being generally accepted as just by the public in Scotland and elsewhere. I would expect the SCCRC to take the view that it is in the interests of justice in Scotland that an appeal take place that can remove this dark shadow, one way or the other.
It’s difficult to see how SSCRC can avoid making a further reference, but legal procedures are full of surprises. It’s also difficult to see how the Court of Appeal can rule out hearing a third appeal, given the recent ruling.
ReplyDeleteLike, I hope, everyone else on here, I hope that we will eventually see the official record corrected, but I doubt that a third appeal will do anything more than that. My suspicion is that the Crown Office will continue to play out the current narrative in the hope that an appeal won’t happen, but will concede on technical grounds as soon as it becomes clear that the game is up. That would be the practical course to protect the reputations of some of the players, whom I won’t name here. It would close the formal process down permanently, leaving a disgusting fug of guilt over not only Mr Megrahi, but also Libya, Malta and denying closure to the relatives.
I think it's too late for that. I believe that your scenario was the plan for dealing with the second appeal, had it not been abandoned. That appeal was pretty much 95% about the clothes purchase. I think the Crown Office was getting ready to concede the clothes purchase, possibly on technical grounds (Tony Gauci's evidence had to be disallowed because he was bribed), but in fact from what Kenny MacAskill said in his book it looks as if they were prepared to concede it as a factual matter. "The clothes were purchased in Malta, but not by Megrahi."
ReplyDeleteKenny's line on this appears to be simply parroting what he was fed by the Crown Office in 2009 and possibly later. That Megrahi didn't buy the clothes, or may well not have bought the clothes, but nevertheless he was at the airport when the bomb was smuggled on to KM180 so obviously he had something to do with it. That, as you say, would leave a disgusting fug of guilt over both Megrahi and Malta.
However, even at the time it ignored a rather important point. The judges had to decide whether to believe the very tenuous and inferential argument that the bomb suitcase was in tray 8849 in the Frankfurt luggage transfer system, or the evidence pointing to Heathrow (which wasn't negligible even though it wasn't correctly analysed) or even some other idea like a direct Frankfurt insertion. They gave as their reason for preferring the shonky Frankfurt transfer evidence the fact that the man who bought the clothes in the suitcase was at Malta when KM180 took off.
That man, they had decided, was Megrahi, and he was at the airport in Malta at that time. So, Malta it was. But if it has now been decided that Megrahi was not the man who bought the clothes, that argument falls. I don't think any of the people preparing the second appeal actually realised this point, but if you lose the clothes purchase you also lose the Malta ingestion.
Now, however, we’re a lot further on. The re-analysis of the forensic evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the bomb was already in the container at Heathrow an hour before the connecting flight from Frankfurt landed. Therefore it couldn’t possibly have been in tray 8849. Therefore it was not carried on KM180. Therefore Megrahi’s presence at the airport becomes non-incriminating. Indeed, it becomes exculpatory, because it gives him an alibi for the actual time and place of the introduction of the bomb.
Instead of being in a position where they can concede the clothes purchase and acknowledge that without that the conviction merely cannot be regarded as safe (while still implying that they were right all along), they are now in a position where they will have to acknowledge that the entire Lockerbie investigation was up a gum tree from about day nine. That detectives chased a red herring down a blind alley while wilfully ignoring clear and compelling evidence that would have pointed them in the right direction.
The key is the Heathrow introduction, and I fervently hope that the new appeal is going to pursue that part for all it’s worth. Foggy, implied guilt on the balance of probabilities isn’t going to survive that.
Well said Rolfe.Your logic is impecable. Great pity that people in the legal profession are not capable of showing such logic but then they have their orders to follow and that requires maintaining Megrahi's guilt at all costs.
DeleteThey have refused to refer for a second time quite a few times now including the recent Graham Gordon V SCCRC (UKSC)
ReplyDeleteThey are not bound by any laws which is perverse.
They bragged at their 10 year conference that a case they were looking into was a stone walled certainty to win an appeal but Peter Duff said they refused to refer it because they knew he was guilty such is their powers in Scotland.
Zellick from the English CCRC said single commissioners decide cases in England but in Scotland applicants are never told who has decided their applications.
Do single commissioners decide cases in Scotland also ?
Who knows.
I suggest it is perverse for arguable and competent grounds to be rejected because surely this is what the appeal courts need to overturn convictions.
I would also suggest the need for finality might also come into play in any appeal not only to SCCRC but the appeal courts have rejected appeals on this ground (Carberry) and refused to even hear the grounds.
Out of interest can anyone tell us what the interests of justice test consists of ?
The statutory requirement that the SCCRC consider the need for finality and certainty in determining whether an appeal is in the interests of justice (introduced in 2010) ceased to exist on 17 January 2017, when section 96 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 was brought into force. On the same date the power of the High Court to refuse to hear a SCCRC reference on the ground of the need for finality and certainty was also abolished. So it's doubtful if the cases that you mention are any longer a useful guide as to how the interests of justice test will now be interpreted and applied. A better guide may now be the pre-2010 cases.
DeleteThat's good to hear. I'm pleased to see you're fairly up-beat about the current situation.
DeleteDOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2017: google translation German/English:
ReplyDeleteEdwin Bollier / MEBO Ltd., relies 100% on the additional result of ongoing, criminal investigation of the Scottish police - "Operation Sandwood" - under the direction of Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone!
A proof of fraud with the central piece of evidence in an 'MST-13' timer circuit board (PT35) and false witness statements under oath - sworn in 1999, by officials at the Court in Kamp van Zeist – become the absolute FACTICITY in the new appeal submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)!
°°°
Edwin Bollier/MEBO Ltd, vertraut 100% auf das ergänzende Resultat der laufenden, Strafuntersuchung der Scottish Police - "Operation Sandwood" - unter der Leitung von Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone !
Ein Beweisbetrug mit dem zentralen Beweisstück eines 'MST-13' Timer Circuit Board (PT35) und falschen Zeugen Aussagen, unter Eid - geschworen 1999, von OFFIZIELLEN, am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist - werden bei der Appeal Eingabe bei der Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) zur FAKTIZITÄT !
by Edwin/Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
DOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2017:
ReplyDeleteDatum: 23. April 2017 um 17:56
Dear Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone
I would like to informe you that Scottish lawyer mr.aamwer anwar will launch the appeal by the Megrahi family in the coming days.
Link: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/exclusive-family-lockerbie-bomb-convict-10278107
I would appreciate very much if you could give me a rough idea when you are expecting to hand over the "Operation Sandwood report" to the Scottish authorities.
Thanks you and best regards
Edwin Bollier
Mebo Ltd.
+++
Answer:
GPMS Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Good morning Mr Bollier,
Thank you for your e-mail … I managed to pick up on the media reporting in the UK over the weekend, but I appreciate you signposting me to the Sunday Mail article.
In terms of the final report, as it stands I cannot commit to providing a definitive completion date. The enquiry is still ongoing and, whilst in the final stages, it remains a work in progress.
Kind regards,
Stuart.
+++
MEBO: A proof of fraud with the central piece of evidence in an 'MST-13' timer circuit board (PT35) and false witness statements under oath - sworn in 1999, by officials at the Court in Kamp van Zeist – become the absolute FACTICITY in the new appeal submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)!
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO LTD Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch