[This is the heading over a report on the BBC News website. The following are excerpts.]
US officials have said the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve out his sentence following reports that he could be released.
The BBC understands Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, is likely to be freed next week.
A US official told the BBC that they had no information that he was set be released on compassionate grounds.
However, he added that the American position remained that Megrahi should complete his jail term in Scotland. (...)
A US official told the BBC they had "no information to suggest that the Scottish authorities have taken any decision" to release Megrahi.
The official added: "We maintain our long-standing position that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in Scotland for his part in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103." (...)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had listened to the representations from everyone "with a legitimate interest".
"I now have to reflect," he said.
"I'm conscious that I have to do that as speedily as possible.
"Clearly he's terminally ill and there are other factors, but I have made no decision yet."
[A report on the website of The New York Times reads as follows:]
The United States spoke out Thursday against the prospect of an early release for the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, after Scottish government officials confirmed that they are considering freeing him on compassionate grounds next week because he has terminal prostate cancer. The prisoner, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old Libyan and former intelligence agent who is serving a 27-year term in Scotland, was sentenced in 2001 for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died. The majority of the dead were Americans. A State Department spokesman, Philip Crowley, said Thursday that “we have made our views clear to the U.K. government, to other authorities, that we believe that he should spend the rest of his time in jail.” The possible release got mixed reviews from the victims’ families. Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, told Sky News that Mr. Megrahi’s release would be “a disgrace.” But Jim Swire, whose daughter died, told Sky it was “inhumane” to keep Mr. Megrahi in prison.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
From Susan Lindauer
[I have been asked by Susan Lindauer to post the following on this blog.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
I urgently request that you post the following information on your Lockerbie blog.
As the Scottish Courts study the possible release of Mr. Megrahi, the families of Pan Am 103 should be advised that without doubt, Libya gave sanctuary to at least one of the terrorists involved in that bombing.
Until 1998, LIbya gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal, who has been identified by Arab and US sources as one of the masterminds of that attack. His family and friends have confessed it, and he confessed it, too, before his death.
During negotiations for the Lockerbie [?trial?] -- which I started in New York with Libya's diplomats at the UN -- I saw documents* which prove Abu Talb and Ahmed Jibril orchestrated the attack. Abu Nidal was the third head of the hydra.
That means Libya would not be entitled to rescind its apology, or to expect any compensation for the financial damages paid to the Lockerbie families. All of that would remain intact. The only thing that would change is that an innocent man would go home to his family to die shortly. That's most crucial of all.
On those grounds, I urge the families of Pan Am 103 to accept the release of Mr. Megraghi on compassionate grounds. Send him home immediately. He is fully innocent of this crime.
[*In a further e-mail Ms Lindauer writes:]
In late 1997, I gave those documents to Gadhafi's diplomats in New York. That's what persuaded Gadahfi to go forward with talks for the handover of the two men. In back-channel talks, I assured his government that his two men would have access to witnesses and documents to prove their innocence..
That's what changed everything. It wasn't sanctions, and it wasn't appeals from the families that changed Gadhafi's mind. It was those documents.
[Note by RB: If all that Libya can be proved to have done was to provide sanctuary to one of the bombers, that would not under the law of Scotland make that country an accessory to the crime. Nor has Libya made any apology. It has acknowledged responsibility for the acts of its citizens. If Mr Megrahi's conviction is overturned there is then no Libyan citizen convicted of anything for which the state has accepted responsibility.]
Questions remain in Lockerbie case
[What follows is the text of an article on The Guardian website by Oliver Miles, who was the United Kingdom's ambassador in Libya at the time of the severing of diplomatic relations in 1984.]
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
The leak or tip-off to a journalist that Abd al-Basit al-Megrahi, convicted of responsibility for the Lockerbie atrocity, is to be freed on compassionate grounds may – unless Scottish ministers lose their nerve – bring this complex story to its dénouement. But there are still many questions to be answered.
The story is complex because it involves several interlocking issues. First, the guilt or innocence of Libya and of Megrahi personally. Next, the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the atrocity on the basis of the decision of a Scottish court, payment of compensation at a colossal rate and attempts to negotiate his release. Third the British government's responsibility for the curious arrangements (a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands) which led to his conviction and for the new Prisoner Transfer Agreement under which he might be returned to Libya. And fourth the Scottish executive's responsibility for prisoners in Scotland and in particular for decisions about release on compassionate grounds.
Intensive negotiations between all these parties have been going on in recent months, largely behind the scenes, and there have been more than rumours to suggest that the Libyan pressure included threats of interference with prospective business interests including those of BP, whose exploration programme in Libya is currently their largest in the world.
The new report comes as a surprise in that it was previously considered that Megrahi's medical condition was not so acute as to justify compassionate release. That may have changed, and if it has I for one would unconditionally support his release. It will be very welcome to the Libyans, but perhaps less so to the British and Scottish authorities. Why? Because if Megrahi were to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, a precondition is that he should abandon his appeal which has just started, and which even if not successful may well produce considerable embarrassment both in London and in Edinburgh. A Scottish law professor has already gone on the record claiming that it was a disgrace that he was convicted on the evidence presented. But if he is released on compassionate grounds his appeal can continue.
Could the Anglo-Libyan discussions have led to some kind of deal? Libya gets what it wants, and in return offers what? Will Megrahi withdraw his appeal as soon as he returns home? Will the Libyans refrain from embarrassing celebrations at the 40th anniversary of the revolution in September? Will they refrain from asking for their compensation back, a cool $2.7bn?
Lockerbie bombing prisoner to go free
[Most British daily newspapers today contain reports to the effect that compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi is imminent. The following are excerpts from the report in today's edition of The Herald, which is the longest and most detailed.]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Then man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be released next week on compassionate grounds - nearly eight-and-a-half years after he was jailed for life for the murders of 270 people in the atrocity over Scotland.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is in the terminal stages of prostate cancer, is expected to return home to Tripoli before the start of Ramadan on August 21. His return will also coincide with the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Herald understands a final decision on Megrahi will be made and announced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill next week.
The Scottish Government has strongly denied allegations that the prisoner and the recent Libyan delegation were given any suggestion that he should drop his appeal in order to win the right to return home. The decision will be based on Megrahi's deteriorating health and medical assessments.
However, he is expected to drop the appeal which began in April of this year. (...)
Originally it was thought that Megrahi would return home under a recent Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed with Libya. The Justice Secretary consulted with relatives of victims, Megrahi himself and the US State Attorney on this decision.
Prisoner transfer is thought to have been rejected as an option because it would be subject to judicial review and could lead to interminable delays. There is concern that Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence in HMP Greenock, could die before the end of such a review and before the end of the current appeal. (...)
Martin Cadman, whose son lost his life in the Lockerbie bombing, last night welcomed news of Megrahi's imminent release.
"I've been waiting for it for a long time," he said. "First of all they were saying that Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused, then Fhimah was found not guilty, and they were accused of acting with others, and as far as I know the Scottish authorities and everyone else has done nothing try and find who these others are. The whole thing is really very unsatisfactory for relatives like myself."
David Ben [Aryeah], who advised some of the UK families affected by the Lockerbie tragedy, said: "The majority of UK relatives have been extremely unhappy with the whole trial and the first appeal and what has been happening now. I was present the day of the verdicts and I was confused. So, I do not believe, and I will never believe, that this man was guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
"Of the American relatives, the vast majority are very quiet but a few very vocal ones have never accepted anything other than Megrahi's total guilt. Some of them, sadly, would like him to rot in prison for the rest of his days." (...)
History will be the judge if as expected Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, next week takes the decision to send the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The legal process which began almost 21 years ago will finally be over. Whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, did or did not plant the bomb which exploded over Lockerbie may never be known.
[The Herald's contention that Mr Megrahi is expected to abandon his appeal if granted compassionate release and its assertion that once compassionate release is granted the legal process will be finally over are deeply worrying. What is the source of this expectation? The Scottish Government Justice Department has stated unequivocally, in correspondence with me, that it has never been suggested to Mr Megrahi or to his government that compassionate release was dependent upon, or could be influenced by, his agreeing to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's stated position has always been that he wishes the appeal to proceed in order to clear his name, though if it came to a bald choice between clearing his name and being allowed to return to his homeland to die surrounded by his family, he would reluctantly choose the latter. That was the dilemma that faced him when prisoner transfer was the only option on the table. But compassionate release is not contingent upon abandonment of the ongoing appeal: that is precisely its advantage over prisoner transfer from the standpoint of both Mr Megrahi and the Scottish public interest. Why therefore are there still rumblings about the appeal being abandoned if compassionate release is granted?]
Lockerbie bomber 'to be released'
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be freed on compassionate grounds next week, the BBC understands. (...)
Scottish ministers described the development as "complete speculation".
Kathleen Flynn, whose son died on the plane, told the BBC she was horrified the "terrorist" could be released.
She added that he showed no mercy as he planted his bomb and should "never qualify for anything compassionate".
"Did Megrahi as he planted a bomb on a US airliner reflect on any compassion for the people he was about to blow up out of the skies and the people on the ground in Lockerbie? I think not," she said.
The BBC's Daniel Sandford in Washington said "broadly" families in Scotland were concerned about the conviction, whereas US relatives were convinced of his guilt. (...)
It is believed UK and Libyan officials have held talks this week over Megrahi's appeal against his conviction.
The speed of his transfer is thought to be influenced by consensus among all parties that Megrahi be back on Libyan soil in time for Ramadan next week.
News of his release came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill visited Megrahi in prison, amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.
But a spokesman for Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said: "No decision has been taken, either on the application for compassionate release or the application under the prisoner transfer agreement and so it is entirely speculation."
A Scottish Government spokesman added that a decision was expected from Mr MacAskill this month.
[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.
A sidebar by the BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell reads:
'I understand preparations for Mr Megrahi's release are being made in time for him to be home with his family in Libya by Ramadan, which starts next Friday.
'The Parole Board for Scotland has been asked to give its opinion on compassionate release.
'The Libyan authorities - who have held high level talks with the Scottish justice secretary in recent days - have also been advised to make plans to fly Mr Megrahi back to Tripoli.
'The Scottish Government is right to say "no decision has been taken" - but that should change in the next few days and the likelihood is Mr Megrahi will return to Libya by next weekend.' ]
Scottish ministers described the development as "complete speculation".
Kathleen Flynn, whose son died on the plane, told the BBC she was horrified the "terrorist" could be released.
She added that he showed no mercy as he planted his bomb and should "never qualify for anything compassionate".
"Did Megrahi as he planted a bomb on a US airliner reflect on any compassion for the people he was about to blow up out of the skies and the people on the ground in Lockerbie? I think not," she said.
The BBC's Daniel Sandford in Washington said "broadly" families in Scotland were concerned about the conviction, whereas US relatives were convinced of his guilt. (...)
It is believed UK and Libyan officials have held talks this week over Megrahi's appeal against his conviction.
The speed of his transfer is thought to be influenced by consensus among all parties that Megrahi be back on Libyan soil in time for Ramadan next week.
News of his release came after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill visited Megrahi in prison, amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.
A prisoner transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.
But a spokesman for Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said: "No decision has been taken, either on the application for compassionate release or the application under the prisoner transfer agreement and so it is entirely speculation."
A Scottish Government spokesman added that a decision was expected from Mr MacAskill this month.
[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.
A sidebar by the BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell reads:
'I understand preparations for Mr Megrahi's release are being made in time for him to be home with his family in Libya by Ramadan, which starts next Friday.
'The Parole Board for Scotland has been asked to give its opinion on compassionate release.
'The Libyan authorities - who have held high level talks with the Scottish justice secretary in recent days - have also been advised to make plans to fly Mr Megrahi back to Tripoli.
'The Scottish Government is right to say "no decision has been taken" - but that should change in the next few days and the likelihood is Mr Megrahi will return to Libya by next weekend.' ]
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Just to be absolutely clear
The correspondence between the Justice Department and myself makes it clear that no suggestion has ever been made by any official of the Justice Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal.
If any official of the Justice Department or of the Libyan Government formed the view that such a suggestion had been made, he or she was clearly mistaken.
If any official of the Justice Department or of the Libyan Government formed the view that such a suggestion had been made, he or she was clearly mistaken.
A simple question -- and at last a simple reply
[Here is a transcript of my correspondence with the Scottish Government Justice Department on the subject of my simple question.]
From a Justice Department official at 13.03:
'Thank you for your email earlier today.
'In response to your question below - This is baseless and ill informed speculation. There may be confusion with the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments, which at Article 3(b) states as a condition for transfer that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State". An application for compassionate release depends on different criteria. Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal is entirely a matter for the Court, Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal and have not done so.'
From me to the Justice Department at 13.30:
'Thank you for your reply.
'I assure you that I am well aware of the different criteria that apply to prisoner transfer and to compassionate release, which is precisely why I addressed my question to the Department.
'You state that it would inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal (which is entirely a matter for the Court and for Mr Megrahi). I have never asked the Department to do so. The question that I posed was whether any suggestion had been made to Mr Megrahi, his legal representatives or officials of his government that the decision on compassionate release would or could be influenced by the abandonment of his appeal. Your reply does not answer that very simple question. I should be grateful if you would now do so.'
From a Justice Department official at 17.22:
'I believe that my answer to your simple question was and is 'no'.'
From a Justice Department official at 13.03:
'Thank you for your email earlier today.
'In response to your question below - This is baseless and ill informed speculation. There may be confusion with the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments, which at Article 3(b) states as a condition for transfer that: "the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence or any other offence committed by the prisoner are pending in the transferring State". An application for compassionate release depends on different criteria. Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal is entirely a matter for the Court, Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal team. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal and have not done so.'
From me to the Justice Department at 13.30:
'Thank you for your reply.
'I assure you that I am well aware of the different criteria that apply to prisoner transfer and to compassionate release, which is precisely why I addressed my question to the Department.
'You state that it would inappropriate for the Scottish Government to make any comment on the appeal (which is entirely a matter for the Court and for Mr Megrahi). I have never asked the Department to do so. The question that I posed was whether any suggestion had been made to Mr Megrahi, his legal representatives or officials of his government that the decision on compassionate release would or could be influenced by the abandonment of his appeal. Your reply does not answer that very simple question. I should be grateful if you would now do so.'
From a Justice Department official at 17.22:
'I believe that my answer to your simple question was and is 'no'.'
A simple question
Because of persistent rumours that are circulating and which I have been informed by sources close to the Scottish Government Justice Department are accurate, I address the following simple question to the Justice Department:
Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or any official of that Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department suggested to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal?
[The issue has now been raised on its website by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its report can be read here and an editorial can be read here.]
Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or any official of that Department or any person acting on behalf of the Department suggested to Abdelbaset Megrahi or to anyone representing him or to any Libyan Government minister or official that Mr Megrahi's prospects of being granted compassionate release were dependent upon, or would be improved by, his abandoning his current appeal?
[The issue has now been raised on its website by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its report can be read here and an editorial can be read here.]
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
The Lockerbie case and the corruption of justice, or: justice delayed is justice denied
[This is the heading over an article by Professor Hans Köchler which was published yesterday on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Back in August 1998 the United Nations Security Council had “welcomed” the resolution of the legal-political dispute between Libya and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom over the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie through the trial of two Libyan suspects before an extraterritorial Scottish Court in the Netherlands. While the dispute between the governments has been settled years ago and Libya now entertains businesslike relations with both the US and UK, the only individual convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, still awaits a final verdict in his case, the announcement of which he may not live to see because, while in Scottish custody, he has fallen ill with cancer that was detected only at a time when, so the prison authorities say, it was already too late to administer more than palliative care.
The hopeless, indeed Kafkaesque, situation which the lone Libyan prisoner finds himself in is further aggravated by the fact that his second appeal has suffered from enormous delays – which are scandalous under any circumstances and, seen in the context of deliberate withholding of evidence, are tantamount to an obstruction of justice. His predicament became even more serious when certain quarters confronted him with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.
Under these circumstances, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice (who certainly has seen the latest medical reports) should act without further delay on Mr. al Megrahi’s second request (the first was rejected) for “compassionate release” under the provisions of Scots law. This would allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail” the Lockerbie prisoner faces in regard to the prisoner exchange option. Apart from the convicted Libyan national’s right – under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – to a proper judicial review, it is in the supreme public interest of Scotland and the United Kingdom that this second appeal proceed unhindered and that, eventually, a decision be reached beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental criterion of Scots law was not in any way met by the trial verdict and (first) appeal decision of the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands back in 2001 and 2002. The Opinions of the Court issued by the two panels of Scottish judges were inconsistent and based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence; on testimony of at least two key witnesses who had received huge amounts of money; on the opinions of forensic experts of, to say the least, dubious reputation and with problematic links to intelligence services; and on at least one piece of evidence that had been inserted at a later stage into the list of documents and apparently been tampered with. Furthermore, vital evidence such as that of a break-in at a luggage storage area at Heathrow airport in the night before the departure of the doomed flight had been withheld from the court during the first trial (a fact that still has not been properly explained), and further vital evidence is still being withheld in the phase of the second appeal due to the British Foreign Secretary’s having issued a so-called Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Concerns similar to those which I had raised in my reports to the United Nations Organization in 2001 and 2002 about improprieties, irregularities and judicial malpractices have also been raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that, in June 2007, referred Mr. al Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court, suspecting – as I had done on the day of the original verdict on 31 January 2001 – that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Regrettably, the SCCRC has decided to keep some of the reasons for its decision secret.
The public is also kept in the dark about what Scotland’s Justice Secretary discussed at his meeting with Mr. al Megrahi at Greenock prison, which was indeed an unprecedented step in Scottish legal history. One thing should be taken for certain, however: If Mr. MacAskill is a man of honour, he will not have made granting the prisoner’s request for “compassionate release” conditional upon the latter’s dropping the ongoing appeal. This would not only be morally outrageous, it would also be illegal in terms of Scots law and, as infringement upon a convicted person’s freedom to seek judicial review, in outright violation of the European Human Rights Convention the provisions of which are binding upon Scotland.
If Scotland prides itself in its unique judicial system, which it has practiced since long before devolution, the authorities should exercise all efforts to repair the damage that has been done to the country’s reputation by the flawed judicial proceedings in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. If Mr. MacAskill is indeed serious about dealing with the matter strictly within legal parameters, as he repeatedly said, the competent Scottish authorities should finally make those steps that are necessary to identify the actual “Lockerbie bombers” (in the plural!) wherever they may be and however powerful they still may be, apparently having succeeded for so long in using the Scottish judicial system to make Mr. al Megrahi a scapegoat in the strange and ugly world of international power politics.
Back in August 1998 the United Nations Security Council had “welcomed” the resolution of the legal-political dispute between Libya and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom over the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie through the trial of two Libyan suspects before an extraterritorial Scottish Court in the Netherlands. While the dispute between the governments has been settled years ago and Libya now entertains businesslike relations with both the US and UK, the only individual convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, still awaits a final verdict in his case, the announcement of which he may not live to see because, while in Scottish custody, he has fallen ill with cancer that was detected only at a time when, so the prison authorities say, it was already too late to administer more than palliative care.
The hopeless, indeed Kafkaesque, situation which the lone Libyan prisoner finds himself in is further aggravated by the fact that his second appeal has suffered from enormous delays – which are scandalous under any circumstances and, seen in the context of deliberate withholding of evidence, are tantamount to an obstruction of justice. His predicament became even more serious when certain quarters confronted him with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.
Under these circumstances, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice (who certainly has seen the latest medical reports) should act without further delay on Mr. al Megrahi’s second request (the first was rejected) for “compassionate release” under the provisions of Scots law. This would allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail” the Lockerbie prisoner faces in regard to the prisoner exchange option. Apart from the convicted Libyan national’s right – under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – to a proper judicial review, it is in the supreme public interest of Scotland and the United Kingdom that this second appeal proceed unhindered and that, eventually, a decision be reached beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental criterion of Scots law was not in any way met by the trial verdict and (first) appeal decision of the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands back in 2001 and 2002. The Opinions of the Court issued by the two panels of Scottish judges were inconsistent and based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence; on testimony of at least two key witnesses who had received huge amounts of money; on the opinions of forensic experts of, to say the least, dubious reputation and with problematic links to intelligence services; and on at least one piece of evidence that had been inserted at a later stage into the list of documents and apparently been tampered with. Furthermore, vital evidence such as that of a break-in at a luggage storage area at Heathrow airport in the night before the departure of the doomed flight had been withheld from the court during the first trial (a fact that still has not been properly explained), and further vital evidence is still being withheld in the phase of the second appeal due to the British Foreign Secretary’s having issued a so-called Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Concerns similar to those which I had raised in my reports to the United Nations Organization in 2001 and 2002 about improprieties, irregularities and judicial malpractices have also been raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that, in June 2007, referred Mr. al Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court, suspecting – as I had done on the day of the original verdict on 31 January 2001 – that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Regrettably, the SCCRC has decided to keep some of the reasons for its decision secret.
The public is also kept in the dark about what Scotland’s Justice Secretary discussed at his meeting with Mr. al Megrahi at Greenock prison, which was indeed an unprecedented step in Scottish legal history. One thing should be taken for certain, however: If Mr. MacAskill is a man of honour, he will not have made granting the prisoner’s request for “compassionate release” conditional upon the latter’s dropping the ongoing appeal. This would not only be morally outrageous, it would also be illegal in terms of Scots law and, as infringement upon a convicted person’s freedom to seek judicial review, in outright violation of the European Human Rights Convention the provisions of which are binding upon Scotland.
If Scotland prides itself in its unique judicial system, which it has practiced since long before devolution, the authorities should exercise all efforts to repair the damage that has been done to the country’s reputation by the flawed judicial proceedings in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. If Mr. MacAskill is indeed serious about dealing with the matter strictly within legal parameters, as he repeatedly said, the competent Scottish authorities should finally make those steps that are necessary to identify the actual “Lockerbie bombers” (in the plural!) wherever they may be and however powerful they still may be, apparently having succeeded for so long in using the Scottish judicial system to make Mr. al Megrahi a scapegoat in the strange and ugly world of international power politics.
Libyans in talks with MacAskill about fate of Megrahi
Libyan Government officials visited St Andrew's House yesterday for final discussions with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ahead of his final decision on the fate of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The six-strong delegation from Tripoli then travelled to Greenock Prison to see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, which left 270 people dead.
The prisoner is appealing his conviction but has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. Last week Mr MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.
However, for that transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal, unless Mr MacAskill decided to release him on compassionate grounds, which could permit the appeal to continue while Megrahi returned to die in his homeland.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a delegation from the Libyan Government met the Justice Secretary today as part of the continuing process started in June to hear representations from relevant parties in relation to Mr Al Megrahi's applications for release. This was a follow- up meeting to help clarify a number of issues and the Justice Secretary will now finalise his considerations over the next few weeks."
Yesterday's was the third meeting between Libyan representatives and the Justice Secretary, who has also met US Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as representatives of the US and UK dead from the flight and those from Lockerbie itself.
Megrahi wants to clear his name through the appeal, which began in April, but he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and it is not known if he will survive the lengthy legal process.
Despite the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referring the case for a fresh appeal two years ago, the process is barely under way.
[This is the text of an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. A report on the visit is also to be found in The Sun.]
The six-strong delegation from Tripoli then travelled to Greenock Prison to see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, which left 270 people dead.
The prisoner is appealing his conviction but has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. Last week Mr MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.
However, for that transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal, unless Mr MacAskill decided to release him on compassionate grounds, which could permit the appeal to continue while Megrahi returned to die in his homeland.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a delegation from the Libyan Government met the Justice Secretary today as part of the continuing process started in June to hear representations from relevant parties in relation to Mr Al Megrahi's applications for release. This was a follow- up meeting to help clarify a number of issues and the Justice Secretary will now finalise his considerations over the next few weeks."
Yesterday's was the third meeting between Libyan representatives and the Justice Secretary, who has also met US Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as representatives of the US and UK dead from the flight and those from Lockerbie itself.
Megrahi wants to clear his name through the appeal, which began in April, but he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and it is not known if he will survive the lengthy legal process.
Despite the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referring the case for a fresh appeal two years ago, the process is barely under way.
[This is the text of an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. A report on the visit is also to be found in The Sun.]
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Church of Scotland: free Lockerbie bomber
The Church of Scotland has intervened in the case of the Lockerbie bomber, urging the government to free the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history.
The Kirk claims it is unchristian to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in jail and has urged Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to free him on compassionate grounds.
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk’s church and society council, appealed to the government after medical reports suggested the Libyan may only have weeks to live. His intervention comes just weeks before the justice minister is due to rule on the case.
“We have to continue to feel hugely for the families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing. Nonetheless it would seem that the compassionate response would be to release Mr Megrahi to his family for the remaining days of his life,” said Galloway.
“The Christian faith places forgiveness and compassion close to its centre and while the justice system rightly always includes an element of punishment, in the current circumstances we have to be able to lay some of that aside.
“In other words, to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness is where on balance we believe society should seek to lean.” (...)
The intervention by the church, which has 600,000 members, will put pressure on MacAskill, whose decision to meet Megrahi was widely criticised and prompted accusations that the convicted terrorist was being given preferential treatment.
Megrahi’s supporters have grown hopeful that he will either be handed over to Libya or freed, believing it would be a severe embarrassment to the government if he were to die in a Scottish jail. Last week Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, freed Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, on compassionate grounds after being told he is severely ill with pneumonia and is unlikely to recover.
MacAskill requested a new medical report on the condition of Megrahi, who has been advised by consultants that the disease is at an advanced stage.
A condition of the prisoner transfer treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. The 57-year-old is believed to be prepared to drop his appeal against his conviction in order to spend the rest of his life close to his family in Libya. If, however, he is freed on compassionate grounds he could continue to pursue his appeal.
Last night American relatives of those who died criticised the Kirk’s intervention.
Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said: “This is nonsense. This is the first word I have ever heard from the Church of Scotland in 21 years. They didn’t send us any condolences, they didn’t send us any support.
“The reason the United States has separation of church and state is because church people usually get it wrong. I’d like to be compassionate but this man may die next week or he may live 10 years.”
John Lamont, community safety spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “Unless we have compelling medical evidence suggesting release on the grounds of compassion is considered, justice requires that the sentence imposed is the sentence served, subject of course to Mr Megrahi’s ongoing appeal.”
A recent Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times indicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.
This story has been picked up by the Monday editions of a number of daily newspapers. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and the Daily Express's here.]
The Kirk claims it is unchristian to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in jail and has urged Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to free him on compassionate grounds.
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk’s church and society council, appealed to the government after medical reports suggested the Libyan may only have weeks to live. His intervention comes just weeks before the justice minister is due to rule on the case.
“We have to continue to feel hugely for the families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing. Nonetheless it would seem that the compassionate response would be to release Mr Megrahi to his family for the remaining days of his life,” said Galloway.
“The Christian faith places forgiveness and compassion close to its centre and while the justice system rightly always includes an element of punishment, in the current circumstances we have to be able to lay some of that aside.
“In other words, to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness is where on balance we believe society should seek to lean.” (...)
The intervention by the church, which has 600,000 members, will put pressure on MacAskill, whose decision to meet Megrahi was widely criticised and prompted accusations that the convicted terrorist was being given preferential treatment.
Megrahi’s supporters have grown hopeful that he will either be handed over to Libya or freed, believing it would be a severe embarrassment to the government if he were to die in a Scottish jail. Last week Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, freed Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, on compassionate grounds after being told he is severely ill with pneumonia and is unlikely to recover.
MacAskill requested a new medical report on the condition of Megrahi, who has been advised by consultants that the disease is at an advanced stage.
A condition of the prisoner transfer treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. The 57-year-old is believed to be prepared to drop his appeal against his conviction in order to spend the rest of his life close to his family in Libya. If, however, he is freed on compassionate grounds he could continue to pursue his appeal.
Last night American relatives of those who died criticised the Kirk’s intervention.
Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said: “This is nonsense. This is the first word I have ever heard from the Church of Scotland in 21 years. They didn’t send us any condolences, they didn’t send us any support.
“The reason the United States has separation of church and state is because church people usually get it wrong. I’d like to be compassionate but this man may die next week or he may live 10 years.”
John Lamont, community safety spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “Unless we have compelling medical evidence suggesting release on the grounds of compassion is considered, justice requires that the sentence imposed is the sentence served, subject of course to Mr Megrahi’s ongoing appeal.”
A recent Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times indicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.
This story has been picked up by the Monday editions of a number of daily newspapers. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and the Daily Express's here.]
Saturday, 8 August 2009
He’s dying: does it matter where?
[This is the headline over an article in The Sunday Herald by their distinguished columnist Ian Bell. It reads in part:]
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is dying in a Scottish jail because of his conviction for the mass murder of Pan Am Flight 103's 259 passengers in 1988 and for the deaths of 11 people in Lockerbie. Many - and I am one - do not believe he is guilty. For once, that is not the point. Why is it impossible for the dying prisoner to end his days confined in Libya, his homeland?
Because the worst mass murder "in British legal history" deserves no leeway? Because Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not to be trusted, even if Britain's government these days says otherwise? Or just because, under the tendentious terms of a "prisoner transfer agreement" between Libya and the United Kingdom, al-Megrahi must first drop his latest appeal? Which is to say that he must accept his guilt and the flawed (at best) process that led to his conviction, if he hopes to die at home? (...)
Chile's Augusto Pinochet was responsible for many thousands of murders: no serious doubt exists. But when England ceased to be his favourite shopping destination, and when a trial in Madrid seemed likely, Mrs Thatcher's chum was suddenly transformed into a poor, infirm, senile old man. Straw chose to believe it, officially, and to exercise compassion. Safely across the Atlantic, Pinochet hopped instantly from his wheelchair. Justice, if such is the yardstick, was denied.
What does the yardstick amount to, in any case? If British citizens are convicted abroad for crimes large or small the first priority, it seems, is repatriation. We find it cruel that foreign jurisdictions sometimes hesitate to release callow drug smugglers to the British penal system. There were those, indeed, who thought that even Gary Glitter deserved better than an Asian clink. But al-Megrahi? That's too much, apparently.
Perhaps it is. Some of the friends and relatives of those lost in the bombing of Clipper Maid Of The Seas, the Americans in particular, are horrified by the transfer agreement, far less by the notion the prisoner in HMP Greenock deserves consideration. If guilty, al-Megrahi exhibited not a shred of humanity in plotting mass murder. His rights, you might say, are forfeited. But the fact remains the principle of transfer has been agreed. The law, Scots law, seems only to demand its own reputation be protected in the process.
So al-Megrahi could die of prostate cancer in Greenock. Equally, the Scottish government could decide the absence of compassion amounts to cruelty, and that cruelty has no place in a justice system: a line of thinking that seems to have occurred to Jack Straw, who last week granted the "compassionate release" of terminally ill train robber Ronnie Biggs. Kenny MacAskill, our own justice minister, has visited the prisoner and seems inclined to interpret the rules flexibly. These say a terminally ill inmate should have no more than three months to live. And why should that guideline be sacrosanct, exactly?
I don't ask these questions simply because I doubt al-Megrahi's guilt. This has more to do with the point and the purpose of retribution generally. I could point out the Crown continues to be devious, suspiciously so, in its efforts to counter the Libyan's second appeal. I could also note that an entirely safe conviction does not have to be protected by attempts to limit the grounds for such an appeal, as we witnessed from the Crown in 2008.
But with the Scottish system demanding an effective admission of guilt in exchange for repatriation, and American relatives threatening to seek judicial review to block any exchange, ensuring al-Megrahi will die at Greenock, I fail to envy MacAskill's task. Even his prison visit was condemned by Labour and supportive lawyers. It was "shameful", supposedly, and likely to undermine the legal process. It was in fact perfectly proper, well within his rights and, arguably, his duty. In a Britain that proposes to extradite diagnosed Asperger's victims to satisfy US paranoia over computer hacking, with no hope of reciprocity, MacAskill is a small beacon of sanity. What difference does it make if al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli rather than Greenock? What need is served? And must I add that Western allies who conspire in extraordinary rendition and franchised torture do not hold much moral high ground?
Al-Megrahi is a pawn. He is a pawn for governments, a pawn for investigators and prosecutors, most of all, a pawn in the grief and unresolved anger of the bereaved. He could be repatriated, if he drops his appeal. He could, conceivably, continue his appeal, if he is released on compassionate grounds. So ask yourself this: when a dying man denies guilt for a crime that still beggars belief, why should any avenue ever be blocked?
Justice, idealised justice, is meant, above all, to reflect our moral worth as a society. By that measure alone the al-Megrahi case is, as lawyers like to say, unsatisfactory. Deeply unsatisfactory.
[There is an editorial on the subject in the same newspaper. The following are extracts:]
This weekend two old men, long resident in different British jails, are being treated very differently and for very different reasons. One of them, the great train robber Ronnie Biggs, was released from his 30-year prison sentence, though such is the gravity of his physical condition that the 80-year-old will probably live out the rest of his life in hospital. In making the decision, the justice secretary finally agreed that he had come to the conclusion that the risk posed by the old boy was "manageable", hence the decision to grant "compassionate release on medical grounds". (...)
Compare this to the treatment meted out to Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who is incarcerated in Greenock Prison for his role in the destruction of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in December 1988.
In the incident, 259 passengers lost their lives while 11 other innocents were killed on the ground. Almost from the start, the Lockerbie bombing was destined to be a cause celebre. Then as now, it came during a period of heightened tensions between the West and the Arab world and although it predated the so-called war against terrorism, the incident was still regarded as a challenge to Western values.
Twenty years later, it is still impossible to claim with absolute certainty - surely the cornerstone of any decent criminal justice system - that al-Megrahi was the only instigator of that dreadful crime. Others, too, must have been involved and it is even possible that he was an innocent caught up in a hall of mirrors and that he was left to take the rap. There are certainly those who think so and the opinion is given weight by the fact that these include a number of the families who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103. Of course, there are also those who believe that al-Megrahi is irredeemably guilty and they, too, include victims' families, proving that there is no freehold on grief and suffering.
Whatever else the Scottish prison system has done to al-Megrahi, he is no longer the man that he once was. Age has caught up with him and he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer. As with the case of Biggs, there are reasonable grounds for showing compassion and allowing him to be released from prison, although in his case this would not keep him in hospital, but allow him to return to his native Libya.
Two months ago the Libyan authorities made just such an application under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK and then followed it last week with a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
So far the good sense shown in Biggs's case has been lacking in the dealings with al-Megrahi - a result no doubt of the outrage expressed by some of the victims' families - but last week there was a sudden outbreak of objective thinking. Justice minister Kenny MacAskill met al-Megrahi at Greenock - the first minister to do such a thing - and that visit will do much to concentrate his mind in the days ahead when the Libyan government's request is given due consideration.
It was right and proper that MacAskill took this step, not because of any doubts about al-Megrahi's sentence, but because justice should always go the extra mile to convince itself - and us - that the right thing is being done.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is dying in a Scottish jail because of his conviction for the mass murder of Pan Am Flight 103's 259 passengers in 1988 and for the deaths of 11 people in Lockerbie. Many - and I am one - do not believe he is guilty. For once, that is not the point. Why is it impossible for the dying prisoner to end his days confined in Libya, his homeland?
Because the worst mass murder "in British legal history" deserves no leeway? Because Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not to be trusted, even if Britain's government these days says otherwise? Or just because, under the tendentious terms of a "prisoner transfer agreement" between Libya and the United Kingdom, al-Megrahi must first drop his latest appeal? Which is to say that he must accept his guilt and the flawed (at best) process that led to his conviction, if he hopes to die at home? (...)
Chile's Augusto Pinochet was responsible for many thousands of murders: no serious doubt exists. But when England ceased to be his favourite shopping destination, and when a trial in Madrid seemed likely, Mrs Thatcher's chum was suddenly transformed into a poor, infirm, senile old man. Straw chose to believe it, officially, and to exercise compassion. Safely across the Atlantic, Pinochet hopped instantly from his wheelchair. Justice, if such is the yardstick, was denied.
What does the yardstick amount to, in any case? If British citizens are convicted abroad for crimes large or small the first priority, it seems, is repatriation. We find it cruel that foreign jurisdictions sometimes hesitate to release callow drug smugglers to the British penal system. There were those, indeed, who thought that even Gary Glitter deserved better than an Asian clink. But al-Megrahi? That's too much, apparently.
Perhaps it is. Some of the friends and relatives of those lost in the bombing of Clipper Maid Of The Seas, the Americans in particular, are horrified by the transfer agreement, far less by the notion the prisoner in HMP Greenock deserves consideration. If guilty, al-Megrahi exhibited not a shred of humanity in plotting mass murder. His rights, you might say, are forfeited. But the fact remains the principle of transfer has been agreed. The law, Scots law, seems only to demand its own reputation be protected in the process.
So al-Megrahi could die of prostate cancer in Greenock. Equally, the Scottish government could decide the absence of compassion amounts to cruelty, and that cruelty has no place in a justice system: a line of thinking that seems to have occurred to Jack Straw, who last week granted the "compassionate release" of terminally ill train robber Ronnie Biggs. Kenny MacAskill, our own justice minister, has visited the prisoner and seems inclined to interpret the rules flexibly. These say a terminally ill inmate should have no more than three months to live. And why should that guideline be sacrosanct, exactly?
I don't ask these questions simply because I doubt al-Megrahi's guilt. This has more to do with the point and the purpose of retribution generally. I could point out the Crown continues to be devious, suspiciously so, in its efforts to counter the Libyan's second appeal. I could also note that an entirely safe conviction does not have to be protected by attempts to limit the grounds for such an appeal, as we witnessed from the Crown in 2008.
But with the Scottish system demanding an effective admission of guilt in exchange for repatriation, and American relatives threatening to seek judicial review to block any exchange, ensuring al-Megrahi will die at Greenock, I fail to envy MacAskill's task. Even his prison visit was condemned by Labour and supportive lawyers. It was "shameful", supposedly, and likely to undermine the legal process. It was in fact perfectly proper, well within his rights and, arguably, his duty. In a Britain that proposes to extradite diagnosed Asperger's victims to satisfy US paranoia over computer hacking, with no hope of reciprocity, MacAskill is a small beacon of sanity. What difference does it make if al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli rather than Greenock? What need is served? And must I add that Western allies who conspire in extraordinary rendition and franchised torture do not hold much moral high ground?
Al-Megrahi is a pawn. He is a pawn for governments, a pawn for investigators and prosecutors, most of all, a pawn in the grief and unresolved anger of the bereaved. He could be repatriated, if he drops his appeal. He could, conceivably, continue his appeal, if he is released on compassionate grounds. So ask yourself this: when a dying man denies guilt for a crime that still beggars belief, why should any avenue ever be blocked?
Justice, idealised justice, is meant, above all, to reflect our moral worth as a society. By that measure alone the al-Megrahi case is, as lawyers like to say, unsatisfactory. Deeply unsatisfactory.
[There is an editorial on the subject in the same newspaper. The following are extracts:]
This weekend two old men, long resident in different British jails, are being treated very differently and for very different reasons. One of them, the great train robber Ronnie Biggs, was released from his 30-year prison sentence, though such is the gravity of his physical condition that the 80-year-old will probably live out the rest of his life in hospital. In making the decision, the justice secretary finally agreed that he had come to the conclusion that the risk posed by the old boy was "manageable", hence the decision to grant "compassionate release on medical grounds". (...)
Compare this to the treatment meted out to Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who is incarcerated in Greenock Prison for his role in the destruction of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in December 1988.
In the incident, 259 passengers lost their lives while 11 other innocents were killed on the ground. Almost from the start, the Lockerbie bombing was destined to be a cause celebre. Then as now, it came during a period of heightened tensions between the West and the Arab world and although it predated the so-called war against terrorism, the incident was still regarded as a challenge to Western values.
Twenty years later, it is still impossible to claim with absolute certainty - surely the cornerstone of any decent criminal justice system - that al-Megrahi was the only instigator of that dreadful crime. Others, too, must have been involved and it is even possible that he was an innocent caught up in a hall of mirrors and that he was left to take the rap. There are certainly those who think so and the opinion is given weight by the fact that these include a number of the families who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103. Of course, there are also those who believe that al-Megrahi is irredeemably guilty and they, too, include victims' families, proving that there is no freehold on grief and suffering.
Whatever else the Scottish prison system has done to al-Megrahi, he is no longer the man that he once was. Age has caught up with him and he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer. As with the case of Biggs, there are reasonable grounds for showing compassion and allowing him to be released from prison, although in his case this would not keep him in hospital, but allow him to return to his native Libya.
Two months ago the Libyan authorities made just such an application under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK and then followed it last week with a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.
So far the good sense shown in Biggs's case has been lacking in the dealings with al-Megrahi - a result no doubt of the outrage expressed by some of the victims' families - but last week there was a sudden outbreak of objective thinking. Justice minister Kenny MacAskill met al-Megrahi at Greenock - the first minister to do such a thing - and that visit will do much to concentrate his mind in the days ahead when the Libyan government's request is given due consideration.
It was right and proper that MacAskill took this step, not because of any doubts about al-Megrahi's sentence, but because justice should always go the extra mile to convince itself - and us - that the right thing is being done.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Lockerbie bomber deserves the same compassion as Ronnie Biggs
It is interesting to note the contrasting treatment of Ronnie Biggs and Abdelbaset Mohmed al Megrahi, both of whom are said to be terminally ill and have applied for release from prison on compassionate grounds ("Ronnie Biggs will spend his last days free - but in a hospital bed", The Herald, August 7).
Biggs has now been released by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, despite having served in total just one-third of his 30-year sentence after escaping from prison and enjoying 35 years of a comfortable life "on the run". Megrahi languishes in Greenock Prison, while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, and his legal advisers agonise over what to do about him and his justified appeal case against conviction.
Biggs was convicted for his involvement in the Great Train Robbery, in which the train driver was viciously attacked and almost killed. But his notoriety was due to the powerful and ruthless gang which he and his brother ran in London's East End, engaging in protection rackets, extortion, intimidation, robbery and criminal violence, probably including murder. Biggs escaped justice only because his reign of terror ensured that no-one was willing to testify against him.
In contrast, the Libyan Megrahi was, at worst, a pawn in the international terrorist plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, and was certainly not a terrorist mastermind. In fact, he might not even have been involved at all, since his conviction is based almost entirely on what I believe to be questionable identification evidence. He might also be the victim of the security services and the UK government's refusal to release certain relevant documents to his defence team, which might make his conviction unsafe.
If Megrahi has only a few months to live, as we are told, I believe he should be released as soon as possible on compassionate grounds and allowed to spend his remaining time with his wife and family in Libya. Such a decision would bring credit, not disrepute, to our Scottish justice system. Why should the wishes of a dying man be denied by judicial red tape and the demands of some American families?
[The above is the text of a letter by Iain A D Mann in the edition of The Herald for 8 August. A letter by Malcolm W Ewen in The Scotsman of the same date reads as follows:]
Criticising the controversial meeting between the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Greenock Prison (your report, 6 August), the advocate Paul McBride QC, suggests people seem to have forgotten that Megrahi has been found guilty.
No, we haven't. We remember he was convicted eight years ago, by three judges in the absence of much relevant information which has come to light since the trial. We particularly remember that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded Megrahi might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Many believe the whole truth about the atrocity will probably be forever withheld, but people need to know once and for all if the conviction of the only person held responsible is safe.
Referring to Megrahi's lawyers, Mr McBride asks: "Tell me what Mr Megrahi can tell Mr MacAskill that these professionals can't?"
I suggest only Megrahi can look the justice secretary in the eye and say: "I'm innocent."
Biggs has now been released by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, despite having served in total just one-third of his 30-year sentence after escaping from prison and enjoying 35 years of a comfortable life "on the run". Megrahi languishes in Greenock Prison, while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, and his legal advisers agonise over what to do about him and his justified appeal case against conviction.
Biggs was convicted for his involvement in the Great Train Robbery, in which the train driver was viciously attacked and almost killed. But his notoriety was due to the powerful and ruthless gang which he and his brother ran in London's East End, engaging in protection rackets, extortion, intimidation, robbery and criminal violence, probably including murder. Biggs escaped justice only because his reign of terror ensured that no-one was willing to testify against him.
In contrast, the Libyan Megrahi was, at worst, a pawn in the international terrorist plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103, and was certainly not a terrorist mastermind. In fact, he might not even have been involved at all, since his conviction is based almost entirely on what I believe to be questionable identification evidence. He might also be the victim of the security services and the UK government's refusal to release certain relevant documents to his defence team, which might make his conviction unsafe.
If Megrahi has only a few months to live, as we are told, I believe he should be released as soon as possible on compassionate grounds and allowed to spend his remaining time with his wife and family in Libya. Such a decision would bring credit, not disrepute, to our Scottish justice system. Why should the wishes of a dying man be denied by judicial red tape and the demands of some American families?
[The above is the text of a letter by Iain A D Mann in the edition of The Herald for 8 August. A letter by Malcolm W Ewen in The Scotsman of the same date reads as follows:]
Criticising the controversial meeting between the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Greenock Prison (your report, 6 August), the advocate Paul McBride QC, suggests people seem to have forgotten that Megrahi has been found guilty.
No, we haven't. We remember he was convicted eight years ago, by three judges in the absence of much relevant information which has come to light since the trial. We particularly remember that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded Megrahi might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Many believe the whole truth about the atrocity will probably be forever withheld, but people need to know once and for all if the conviction of the only person held responsible is safe.
Referring to Megrahi's lawyers, Mr McBride asks: "Tell me what Mr Megrahi can tell Mr MacAskill that these professionals can't?"
I suggest only Megrahi can look the justice secretary in the eye and say: "I'm innocent."
CID looking into McFadyen claims
Lothian and Borders police have confirmed that MSP Christine Grahame's letter -in which she makes claims regarding Crown Agent Norman McFadyen's handling of the Lockerbie investigation- has been passed to the force's Criminal Investigations Department (CID). (...)
The police had previously only comfirmed that the letter had been received. The news that the CID are now examining its contents raises the possibility that a criminal investigation may follow.
"In relation to your request for information about the letter sent by Ms Grahame we can confirm that the letter contains a significant amount of information which is currently being considered by the Criminal Investigation Department," the force said in a statement from the Head of CID.
"Lothian and Borders Police will reply to Ms Grahame once the information contained in the letter has been considered."
A prosecution against a sitting Crown Agent would be unprecedented.
The details of Ms Grahame's claims are not known. However, following its receipt by the police, the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr MacFadyen, saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[From an exclusive report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
The police had previously only comfirmed that the letter had been received. The news that the CID are now examining its contents raises the possibility that a criminal investigation may follow.
"In relation to your request for information about the letter sent by Ms Grahame we can confirm that the letter contains a significant amount of information which is currently being considered by the Criminal Investigation Department," the force said in a statement from the Head of CID.
"Lothian and Borders Police will reply to Ms Grahame once the information contained in the letter has been considered."
A prosecution against a sitting Crown Agent would be unprecedented.
The details of Ms Grahame's claims are not known. However, following its receipt by the police, the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr MacFadyen, saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[From an exclusive report on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Victims' relatives disagree over bomber's release
This is the headline over a lengthy article in today's edition of the Times of Malta. It can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)