[This is the headline over a report in The Times of 16 February. It reads in part:]
The council charged with monitoring the health of the Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi has refused to publish details of his medical condition, angering families of his victims.
Al-Megrahi, East Renfrewshire Council has claimed, has a right to confidentiality and should be treated like any other former prisoner. (...)
Six months [after his release], opposition MSPs, have been calling for evidence that al-Megrahi is close to death, but East Renfrewshire Council said yesterday that monthly reports they receive from Libya about his health, used to update the Scottish government, were confidential — just as they would be for any other criminal they were supervising.
A council spokesman said: “They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client like any other.”
He added that al-Megrahi had satisfied to date the conditions attached to his release, namely that he stays in regular contact — usually twice a month, but there is no specific timescale identified in his release licence — and does not leave Libya. The Times understands that al-Megrahi is staying at his home in Tripoli, where he is receiving palliative care.
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “It is almost bizarre to suggest that the biggest mass murderer in Scottish history should be just like any other client. He is not. The public have a right to know what is going on.”
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Confound these witch-hunters
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Kevin McKenna in today's edition of The Observer. It reads in part:]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
Nelson Mandela's rôle in brokering the Lockerbie trial
[In the course of a long article marking the twentieth anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990, on the website of Côte d'Ivoire television station Luambona TV, the following passage appears:]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Le président Mandela intervient également pour régler le procès des deux Libyens accusés par les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni de l’attentat de Lockerbie qui avait fait 270 victimes en [1988]. Dès 1992, Mandela propose de manière informelle au président George H.W. Bush de juger les Libyens dans un pays tiers. Bush accepte la proposition, ainsi que le président français, François Mitterrand, et le roi Juan Carlos 1er d’Espagne. En novembre 1994, six mois après son élection, Mandela propose que l’Afrique du Sud soit le pays qui héberge le procès, mais le Premier ministre britannique, John Major, rejette l’idée, disant que son gouvernement n’avait pas confiance en une cour de justice étrangère. Mandela renouvelle son offre trois ans plus tard à Tony Blair, en 1997. La même année, à la conférence des responsables des chefs de gouvernement du Commonwealth à Edinburgh, Mandela avertit qu’«aucune nation ne devrait être à la fois plaignante, procureur et juge.»
Un compromis est trouvé pour un procès aux Pays-Bas et le président Mandela commence les négociations avec le colonel Kadhafi pour la remise des deux accusés Megrahi et Fhimah, en avril 1999. Le 31 janvier 2001, Fhimah est acquitté, mais Megrahi est jugé coupable et condamné à 27 ans de prison. Nelson Mandela va le visiter en juin 2002 et dénonce ses conditions d’emprisonnement en isolement total. Megrahi est ensuite transféré dans une autre prison et n’est plus soumis à une incarcération en isolement.
[I have no doubt that President Mandela's influence and his interventions at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Edinburgh in October 1997 were crucial in persuading the recently-elected Labour Government to countenance a "neutral venue" solution to the Lockerbie impasse. Also of crucial importance was the press conference held by the group UK Families-Flight 103 in Edinburgh during the Meeting and the worldwide publicity that it generated.]
Saturday, 13 February 2010
UK Tory leader on Megrahi release
David Cameron has pledged to "repair the relationship" between the Scottish and UK governments if he is elected to become the next Prime Minister.
The Tory leader said he would work "tirelessly" for the whole of the UK and condemned Gordon Brown for taking a year to met Alex Salmond during one of the "worst economic crisis in our modern history".
Mr Cameron also criticised both governments for not co-operating during the Lockerbie bomber's release, describing it as "shameful".
Addressing party members at their Scottish conference in Perth on Friday afternoon Mr Cameron said that "would not happen on my watch". (...)
On the Lockerbie bomber's release, Mr Cameron said: "It’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate."
[From a report on the STV News website.
A commentary on this issue on the Hythlodaeus blog contains the following paragraph:]
"As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston)."
The Tory leader said he would work "tirelessly" for the whole of the UK and condemned Gordon Brown for taking a year to met Alex Salmond during one of the "worst economic crisis in our modern history".
Mr Cameron also criticised both governments for not co-operating during the Lockerbie bomber's release, describing it as "shameful".
Addressing party members at their Scottish conference in Perth on Friday afternoon Mr Cameron said that "would not happen on my watch". (...)
On the Lockerbie bomber's release, Mr Cameron said: "It’s shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish Government and British Government refused to cooperate."
[From a report on the STV News website.
A commentary on this issue on the Hythlodaeus blog contains the following paragraph:]
"As regards the Lockerbie Bomber, there was no need for the Scottish and British Governments to cooperate. There was no issue between Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Justice Minister made a decision about a prisoner in his custody, and Westminster has no more right to have a say in that then the Scottish Government has to have a say about the release of Ronnie Biggs (held in an English Prison and released by Home Secretary Alan Johnston)."
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Kenny MacAskill pressed to share reports on Megrahi's health
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is under pressure to prove the Lockerbie bomber is close to death, with the six-month anniversary of his release coming up next week.
There are increasing calls for Mr MacAskill to publish the latest medical reports on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)
Until this week, Mr MacAskill refused to confirm whether he was monitoring Megrahi's health. And last week when asked in the Scottish Parliament about Megrahi's health by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes, Mr MacAskill compared people waiting for the terrorist's death to "vultures".
In a written answer to Lord Foulkes published this week, the minister has admitted he is receiving updates from East Renfrewshire Council which has responsibility for checking whether Megrahi is following the terms of his conditional release and monitoring his health.
Lord Foulkes said: "I think that Mr MacAskill is getting more nervous. He may accuse people of being vultures for taking an interest in this, but I think he realises that the longer Megrahi lives, the more ridiculous his flawed decision to release him looks."
Lord Foulkes is also demanding that medical reports received on Megrahi are made public to provide evidence that Megrahi really only has a short time to live.
The demand has been rejected by the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary sent Mr al-Megrahi back to Libya to die based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and prison governor, and the medical report submitted by the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.
"As was said at the time, he may die sooner or may live longer, but he is dying of terminal prostate cancer."
[The evidence that the newspaper provides for there being "increasing calls" for publication of medical reports is a question and comment by a single MSP, Lord Foulkes, a well-known Labour rent-a-quote.
The many readers' comments that follow the article on the newspaper's website provide perhaps a more accurate reflection of Scottish public opinion on the issue.
A letter from Malcolm Ewen published in The Scotsman on 11 February, reads as follows:]
At no time has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, "had less than three months to live" (your report, 10 February). Lord George Foulkes's belief that Mr MacAskill "is getting more nervous" because Megrahi is still with us almost six months on is unlikely, given that he followed the correct procedure on compassionate release.
Mr MacAskill actually said: "A report ... from the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate."
Friday, 5 February 2010
Flaws in evidence at Lockerbie trial
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
The Chilcot Inquiry has examined the role of the Blair government’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, allegedly converted to believing the Iraq war to be legal following “consultations in the USA”.
Should not the Lockerbie inquiry, when we get it, examine why the government of the day chose to ignore the words of its Lord Chief Justice, and appointed [Alan] Feraday to supply the forensic input to the Lockerbie trial?
Mr Feraday was criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of R v Berry (1991). He declared that the nature of his evidence was dogmatic in the extreme and that he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in this field. Also, the Home Office has paid compensation from the public purse to Mr Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Mr Feraday.
The Lockerbie case depended heavily upon a piece of timer circuit board allegedly recovered from the wreckage and labelled “PT35B” presented to the court by the same Mr Feraday, who also had consultations with the USA.
Assuming the British Government wanted the Lockerbie trial to reach a fair verdict, was this really the best we had to offer?
Holyrood committee splits over handling of Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report posted earlier today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
FBI is sued for not releasing Megrahi files
This is the headline over an article -- tagged as exclusive -- in today's edition of The Herald. It relates to the legal action raised in the United States by Judicial Watch following its fruitless FOIA application for documents held by the FBI relating to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. This was the subject of a post on this blog as long ago as 22 January 2010.
Scottish Parliament’s verdict on Lockerbie bomber sacrifices justice for political point-scoring
[This is the headline over an article by Alan Cochrane in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
An entirely predictable event occurred at Holyrood yesterday. The Scottish Parliament’s justice committee met to finalise its report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber and guess what it concluded?
The committee found by a majority that the decision last autumn by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, was wrong. It will say so in public when the report is published tomorrow.
Mind you, it is peppered with caveats insisted upon by the minority SNP members. It is hedged to such an extent, in fact, that, unless I am mistaken, any criticism of the minister may well be much diminished. (...)
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the whole thing is a farce. Given that the composition of the justice committee is three SNP members, three Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat — in other words a majority for the opposition parties, all of which opposed the bomber’s release — the report was always going to come down against MacAskill.
It was as certain as the morning, as sure as eggs is eggs and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
While there may be many, not least the families of the victims of Britain’s worst terrorist outrage, who will pore over every word of the justice committee report, they should take no solace from its findings.
It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.
The main aim of the opposition MSPs was to bash the Nats. Those who owe allegiance to Mr MacAskill’s party saw it as their bounden duty to protect their man. They may all take this as an insult to their honour — I hope they do — but this report was base coinage right from the start. (...)
It is unsurprising that this is the case. Those responsible for setting up the ground rules for Holyrood supposed, stupidly as it turns out, that members of the Scottish Parliament would, somehow, be unlike their Westminster colleagues and would pay no heed to party politicking.
In fact, Edinburgh’s lot has turned out pretty much like London’s, as was bound to be the case. With a minority SNP administration in power holding a one-seat advantage over Labour there is always scope for the opposition to embarrass and defeat ministers.
It is a shame that a report on such an emotional subject as the release of a mass murderer should be devalued like this.
But I’m afraid that is the way they do things at Holyrood.
[In a comment posted on the newspaper's website, Dr Jim Swire writes:
"Surely the real scandal is that we still refer to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' or 'mass murderer'without a second thought when we don't know yet whether even that is true.
"To what purpose did Scotland's SCCRC decide there may have been a miscarriage of justice here? Should we not pursue that finding? Many now support the doubts voiced by the SCCRC. Scotland needs to work through all her own provisions for a just verdict before squabbling over Kenny's decision. Future confidence in our prosecution system depends upon that."
Alan Cochrane returns to the issue at the end of an article published on the Telegraph website on Friday, 5 February. He writes:
"I was wrong earlier this week when I expressed fears about the nature and content of the justice committee’s report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It is much worse than I had envisaged.
"It broke down completely on party lines, as I predicted, but the extent of their partisanship is staggering to behold with the three Labour MSPs saying one thing and the three SNP members saying another. The upshot, and on such an important issue, is that the report is a mouse, worthy only of the incinerator."]
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Interview with Dr Swire
Monday, 1 February 2010
Documents on Lockerbie may never be seen
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Hundreds of pages of documents that could prove the key to the Lockerbie bombing and which are expected to be released today may never see the light of day.
Contrary to public expectations following an announcement in December last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) will not yet be able to release its 800-page report on the case, and is unlikely to be able to disclose much information in the future.
Without the approval of all the key players in the case, including Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, the Crown Office, Dumfries and Galloway Police and witnesses such as Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci, it is unlikely that any of the material could legally be disclosed to the public. Gauci’s evidence was central to Megrahi’s conviction.
Today, the commission will begin writing to hundreds of different parties involved, asking for their permission to disclose. But it could be months or weeks before permission is granted and many of those involved are expected to decline.
Gerard Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said: “Like any other public body dealing with personal sensitive data, the commission is subject to a number of legal constraints. We will have to comply with all the appropriate statutory obligations, including the Data Protection Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information legislation.”
Legally, the commission has to respect the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, it has to consider whether disclosure would constitute “a breach of confidence”, contains “personal data” or information that has been lodged in court.
The Scottish Government has made it clear that it wants to see as much information made public as possible but, even if the prosecution and key witnesses agree to disclosure, there are other documents that are never expected to be released and have not even been seen by the defence team because Westminster has blocked them with arguments about national security. (...)
Since devolution, the power [to allow the SCCRC to disclose information] has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument [permitting the SCCRC to disclose] would come into force on February 1.
At the time, Mr MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government has always been clear that as much information as possible in this case is published where relevant and where appropriate consents are given.
“The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
Europe "lost" Lockerbie observer's trial reports
[This is the headline over a news report on the website on the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.
The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.
Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”
Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”
“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.
“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Kenny MacAskill rapped over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, is accused of mishandling the release of the Lockerbie bomber in a damning report to be published next week.
The findings of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee are expected to include strong criticism of MacAskill’s decision to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in prison before he was freed and of his failure to secure assurances from the Libyan government that the bomber would not return to a hero’s welcome.
The draft document suggests MacAskill failed to consider adequately the feelings of the victims’ families before releasing the former intelligence officer on compassionate grounds last autumn.
Committee members viewed the prison visit as unnecessary, suggesting he could have accepted representations from Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in writing. They believe the minister was insensitive, given that he spoke to the US relatives of victims of the bombing by video-conference rather than visiting them.
When Megrahi returned home to Libya he was greeted by cheering crowds waving saltires. The scenes angered the relatives of those who died and led to threats of an American boycott of Scottish goods.
“The report will be highly critical of MacAskill,” said a source close to the committee. “It will make very embarrassing reading for him and the Scottish government by focusing yet more attention on one of Scotland’s darkest days. After the international and domestic outrage that the government’s decision caused it just wants to make the issue disappear.”
Labour members do not believe MacAskill followed Scottish prison service guidelines in freeing Megrahi. They insist he should have sought a second opinion on the prognosis that Megrahi had three months to live.
Only a prison doctor was willing to state that Megrahi would be likely to die in three months’ time, while four cancer specialists refused to back that opinion. (...)
A spokesman for MacAskill said: “The justice secretary followed due process every step of the way, and has repeatedly expressed his deepest sympathy for the relatives of all victims of the Lockerbie atrocity.”
A separate Commons inquiry by the Scottish affairs select committee is considering whether dealings between the UK government and Libya led to the prisoner transfer agreement which put Megrahi’s case on MacAskill’s agenda.
In Seeking Gaddafi, a book to be published next week, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski calls on the government after the general election to hold a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
[1. Once Kenny MacAskill -- presumably after taking advice from officials -- decided to allow face-to-face (and not just written) representations from relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103, he was legally obliged to offer the same opportunity to Mr Megrahi. A failure to do so would have been a breach of the rules of natural justice and would have made any decision reached vulnerable to successful judicial challenge.
2. Four cancer specialists may very well have refused to give a precise time for Mr Megrahi's life expectancy. This is not in the least surprising and is not sinister. Cancer specialists in practice always refuse to do so, taking the view that their job is to make the patient's remaining time as comfortable as it can be, however long or short that time may be. If the patient (or his family) needs to have an estimate of how long remains to him, it is the general practitioner who is likely to provide it, on the basis of the opinions and reports of the specialists. This is precisely what happened in Mr Megrahi's case.
3. If the justice committee's report does indeed criticise Mr MacAskill on these grounds next week, it will be yet another sad instance of the party political posturing that has characterised the stance of the Labour and Conservative opposition at Holyrood over this issue.]
The justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, is accused of mishandling the release of the Lockerbie bomber in a damning report to be published next week.
The findings of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee are expected to include strong criticism of MacAskill’s decision to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in prison before he was freed and of his failure to secure assurances from the Libyan government that the bomber would not return to a hero’s welcome.
The draft document suggests MacAskill failed to consider adequately the feelings of the victims’ families before releasing the former intelligence officer on compassionate grounds last autumn.
Committee members viewed the prison visit as unnecessary, suggesting he could have accepted representations from Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in writing. They believe the minister was insensitive, given that he spoke to the US relatives of victims of the bombing by video-conference rather than visiting them.
When Megrahi returned home to Libya he was greeted by cheering crowds waving saltires. The scenes angered the relatives of those who died and led to threats of an American boycott of Scottish goods.
“The report will be highly critical of MacAskill,” said a source close to the committee. “It will make very embarrassing reading for him and the Scottish government by focusing yet more attention on one of Scotland’s darkest days. After the international and domestic outrage that the government’s decision caused it just wants to make the issue disappear.”
Labour members do not believe MacAskill followed Scottish prison service guidelines in freeing Megrahi. They insist he should have sought a second opinion on the prognosis that Megrahi had three months to live.
Only a prison doctor was willing to state that Megrahi would be likely to die in three months’ time, while four cancer specialists refused to back that opinion. (...)
A spokesman for MacAskill said: “The justice secretary followed due process every step of the way, and has repeatedly expressed his deepest sympathy for the relatives of all victims of the Lockerbie atrocity.”
A separate Commons inquiry by the Scottish affairs select committee is considering whether dealings between the UK government and Libya led to the prisoner transfer agreement which put Megrahi’s case on MacAskill’s agenda.
In Seeking Gaddafi, a book to be published next week, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski calls on the government after the general election to hold a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing.
[1. Once Kenny MacAskill -- presumably after taking advice from officials -- decided to allow face-to-face (and not just written) representations from relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103, he was legally obliged to offer the same opportunity to Mr Megrahi. A failure to do so would have been a breach of the rules of natural justice and would have made any decision reached vulnerable to successful judicial challenge.
2. Four cancer specialists may very well have refused to give a precise time for Mr Megrahi's life expectancy. This is not in the least surprising and is not sinister. Cancer specialists in practice always refuse to do so, taking the view that their job is to make the patient's remaining time as comfortable as it can be, however long or short that time may be. If the patient (or his family) needs to have an estimate of how long remains to him, it is the general practitioner who is likely to provide it, on the basis of the opinions and reports of the specialists. This is precisely what happened in Mr Megrahi's case.
3. If the justice committee's report does indeed criticise Mr MacAskill on these grounds next week, it will be yet another sad instance of the party political posturing that has characterised the stance of the Labour and Conservative opposition at Holyrood over this issue.]
A shameful anniversary
Today is the ninth anniversary of the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. How much longer will it be before this stain is removed from the Scottish criminal justice system?
Straw fights release of transcript of calls over Libyan oil deal
Justice Secretary denies agreeing to release of Lockerbie bomber in talks with BP lobbyist
Jack Straw was accused last night of trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Secretary of State for Justice has turned down a Freedom of Information request from a Commons select committee to reveal whether, during two phone calls with the lobbyist, he agreed to include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Britain's Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya.
Mr Straw has admitted having two conversations with Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent turned BP consultant, in the autumn of 2007. But he has insisted that "at no stage was any undertaking promised, hinted, given to the Libyans, that in return for an overall bilateral arrangement Mr Megrahi would be released". (...)
Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing which killed 270, was released last August on compassionate grounds – rather than under the PTA – by the Scottish Executive.
But Mr Straw's discussions with BP are still contentious because MPs believe ministers gave a smooth path for the release in the interests of trade with the Libyan government.
In early 2007, BP signed a $900m (£562m) oil exploration deal with Libya but the energy giant was concerned that the ongoing stalemate over the PTA would damage the contract. Sir Mark, who was involved in the 2003 deal for Colonel Gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction programme, left MI6 in 2004 to work for BP. He telephoned Mr Straw, whom he knew from the minister's time as Foreign Secretary, on 15 October and 9 November 2007. On 19 December 2007, Mr Straw wrote to Mr MacAskill informing him of the British government's change of position.
The Conservative MP and member of the Scottish affairs committee Ben Wallace has written to Mr Straw demanding to see notes of the calls.
During Mr Straw's appearance before the committee last Wednesday, Mr Wallace told him: "I think we should know to what extent HM Government gave commitments in exchange for trade and whether that included Megrahi."
Mr Straw replied: "There's been no secret about the fact that I took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen – I take telephone calls from all sorts of people. Sir Mark Allen is somebody I knew from my time in the Foreign Office. He actually had very extensive knowledge of the Middle East and in a role in the Foreign Office had been very much involved in these negotiations. I thought he was worth listening to. And that's what I did."
Asked by Mr Wallace whether he would release the notes, Mr Straw said tersely: "Decisions about the release of material under FOI are dealt with separately, with respect, all right?"
Mr Straw's spokesman said the request was turned down under section 35 of the FOI Act, which exempts ministerial communications. Mr Wallace is appealing on public interest grounds.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. Readers may also care to have a look at this blog post.]
Jack Straw was accused last night of trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Secretary of State for Justice has turned down a Freedom of Information request from a Commons select committee to reveal whether, during two phone calls with the lobbyist, he agreed to include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Britain's Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya.
Mr Straw has admitted having two conversations with Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent turned BP consultant, in the autumn of 2007. But he has insisted that "at no stage was any undertaking promised, hinted, given to the Libyans, that in return for an overall bilateral arrangement Mr Megrahi would be released". (...)
Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing which killed 270, was released last August on compassionate grounds – rather than under the PTA – by the Scottish Executive.
But Mr Straw's discussions with BP are still contentious because MPs believe ministers gave a smooth path for the release in the interests of trade with the Libyan government.
In early 2007, BP signed a $900m (£562m) oil exploration deal with Libya but the energy giant was concerned that the ongoing stalemate over the PTA would damage the contract. Sir Mark, who was involved in the 2003 deal for Colonel Gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction programme, left MI6 in 2004 to work for BP. He telephoned Mr Straw, whom he knew from the minister's time as Foreign Secretary, on 15 October and 9 November 2007. On 19 December 2007, Mr Straw wrote to Mr MacAskill informing him of the British government's change of position.
The Conservative MP and member of the Scottish affairs committee Ben Wallace has written to Mr Straw demanding to see notes of the calls.
During Mr Straw's appearance before the committee last Wednesday, Mr Wallace told him: "I think we should know to what extent HM Government gave commitments in exchange for trade and whether that included Megrahi."
Mr Straw replied: "There's been no secret about the fact that I took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen – I take telephone calls from all sorts of people. Sir Mark Allen is somebody I knew from my time in the Foreign Office. He actually had very extensive knowledge of the Middle East and in a role in the Foreign Office had been very much involved in these negotiations. I thought he was worth listening to. And that's what I did."
Asked by Mr Wallace whether he would release the notes, Mr Straw said tersely: "Decisions about the release of material under FOI are dealt with separately, with respect, all right?"
Mr Straw's spokesman said the request was turned down under section 35 of the FOI Act, which exempts ministerial communications. Mr Wallace is appealing on public interest grounds.
[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. Readers may also care to have a look at this blog post.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)