[Len Murray, one of the most distinguished of Scotland's criminal court solicitors and a signatory of the Justice for Megrahi petition, has authorised me to publish the following statement:]
When I retired I was senior partner in the firm of Levy & McRae. I am a graduate of Glasgow University and I am a member of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland. I specialised in Litigation, both civil and criminal, and in media law. I was appointed the first ever media spokesman for the Law Society of Scotland in the late 60’s and some years later I became legal adviser news and current affairs for ITN and the Independent Television companies in Scotland, namely Scottish Television, Grampian Television and Borders Television.
I was a Justice of the Peace for the then districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and I was Vice-Chairman of the JP Advisory Committee for the district. Our function was to recommend appointments as Justices to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I served on many of the bodies involved in the conduct and running of my profession, including Glasgow Bar Association, the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and the Law Society of Scotland. Indeed, latterly I was Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee of the Law Society. My practice was very extensive and I think I might claim to have been one of the more experienced Court solicitors in the country.
I represented members of the Joint Branch Boards of the Scottish Police Federation in Strathclyde, Lothian & Borders, Tayside and Northen Constabulary in civil, criminal and Police disciplinary matters. This gave me a rather unique insight into the investigation and reporting of crime in Scotland. I also had experience as a Prosecutor, as a Temporary Sheriff and as a Chairman of Employment Tribunals.
I followed the trial as far as it was reported in the press at the time and I well remember thinking that the accused would not be convicted. I was not surprised that Al-Amin Khalifi Fhima was acquitted but equally I was surprised that Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi was.
I have had the benefit of reading Professor Black's lengthy submissions and I agree entirely with what he has written. Personally, I could not understand a number of things about the outcome of the case. Let me illustrate what I mean:
1. I could not and still cannot understand how the Court could hold, on the evidence of Gauci, that Megrahi made the purchase of the clothing. Without Gauci's evidence, which at its height was that Megrahi resembled the purchaser, there was no case.
2. Their finding that the purchase was made on 7 December bordered upon the perverse.
3. Their finding about the unaccompanied baggage fell within the same category.
Let me quote from Dickson on The Law of Evidence at Section 98. In speaking of inferences to be drawn in cases of circumstantial evidence he says: "It is not enough that his guilt [the accused] be a rational and probable inference as well as the most probable of several inferences from the circumstances. It must also be the only rational hypothesis which they will bear."
If that is still the law then how on earth could the Court have drawn so many adverse inferences against the accused when there were other explanations and explanations that were just as likely?
Megrahi was convicted on circumstantial evidence. That is frequently the strongest evidence that a court can hear. It may be likened to a chain - the more strands there are, the stronger is the chain. But just like a chain, if any link is broken, then that is the end of the matter. It seems to me that there were many broken links in that chain of evidnce upon which the Crown relied.
The other aspect relates to the Appeal. With the greatest respect to learned Senior Counsel who conducted the Appeal on behalf of Megrahi, in my respectful opinion two crucial errors were made, namely (i) a concession that there was sufficient evidence to convict; and (ii) a failure to argue s106(3)(b) of the Act. I would have thought that the outstanding ground of appeal was that based upon the Statutory provision to which I have just referred. Had I been the instructing solicitor then those would have been my instructions to Counsel.
It is fairly trite to say that the verdict of the Appeal Court did not "back up" the verdict of the Court of first instance. The appeal was taken on the wrong points and the refusal of the appeal came as little surprise. Had it been taken on the correct grounds then I would have expected a quite different result.
Apart from all these points, it respectfully seems to me that an enquiry is called for to investigate other matters. Was Gauci paid a huge sum of money by the CIA? Why? What was their interest? What was the evidence about the break in at Heathrow? To whom was that known? Why was that withheld from the defence and on whose instructions? The total impartiality of our prosecutors is fundamental to our system of prosecution and their duty to make available all the evidence is crucial.
Perhaps I should add that I know Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean. Indeed I worked with each of them while they were at the Bar and I have the highest regard for them all. The point, however, must be made that while they all have considerable experience of presiding over trials and directing juries, they have never had to determine guilt or innocence of an accused person in the course of their careers.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Cardinal backs call for independent inquiry into conviction of Megrahi
[This is the headline over The Herald's report on yesterday's event at the Scottish Parliament. It reads in part:]
The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has said the “web of mystery” surrounding the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must be cleared up.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien was speaking as campaigners handed in a 1500-strong petition to the Scottish Parliament yesterday calling for an independent inquiry into the verdict on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Cardinal O’Brien said: “We’re living in the 21st century now and really it shouldn’t be beyond us, it shouldn’t be beyond the Scottish Government, to take this on. Or are we all eventually going to die in a web of mystery about what happened at the time of the horrible Lockerbie bombing?
“What I am concerned with is basic justice, to find out what exactly went on. I want to find out the truth and I think when I say that I am speaking for many, many people, not just religious people, people of no faiths at all are desperate to find out what went on that time.” (...)
Cardinal O’Brien said he wanted to see not only justice for Megrahi but also “justice for all the innocent people who died at that time, and their families and friends who are grieving and wanting to be able to draw a line under that horrible episode in the history of Scotland”.
The Cardinal’s support was welcomed by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity.
Dr Swire, speaking for the Justice For Megrahi campaign, said if the Scottish Government could not find the “get up and go to find a way to resolve this issue, then it’s a poor day for Scotland”.
He said there was a “need to sort out the uncertainty about this verdict sooner or later”. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said there was no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. He added: “The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government.”
[The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission -- an independent, expert, official body -- concluded, after a three-year investigation, that there were six grounds on which Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. How can the Scottish Government have the effrontery to parrot the mantra that there is "no doubt about the safety of Megrahi's conviction"?
The Scotsman's report on the Holyrood event can be read here; that in The Sun here; and that in the Morning Star here. A good report is also to be found on the website of The Courier and Advertiser, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Dundee and Fife; and a slightly less detailed report on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.]
The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has said the “web of mystery” surrounding the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must be cleared up.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien was speaking as campaigners handed in a 1500-strong petition to the Scottish Parliament yesterday calling for an independent inquiry into the verdict on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Cardinal O’Brien said: “We’re living in the 21st century now and really it shouldn’t be beyond us, it shouldn’t be beyond the Scottish Government, to take this on. Or are we all eventually going to die in a web of mystery about what happened at the time of the horrible Lockerbie bombing?
“What I am concerned with is basic justice, to find out what exactly went on. I want to find out the truth and I think when I say that I am speaking for many, many people, not just religious people, people of no faiths at all are desperate to find out what went on that time.” (...)
Cardinal O’Brien said he wanted to see not only justice for Megrahi but also “justice for all the innocent people who died at that time, and their families and friends who are grieving and wanting to be able to draw a line under that horrible episode in the history of Scotland”.
The Cardinal’s support was welcomed by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the atrocity.
Dr Swire, speaking for the Justice For Megrahi campaign, said if the Scottish Government could not find the “get up and go to find a way to resolve this issue, then it’s a poor day for Scotland”.
He said there was a “need to sort out the uncertainty about this verdict sooner or later”. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said there was no doubt about the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. He added: “The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government.”
[The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission -- an independent, expert, official body -- concluded, after a three-year investigation, that there were six grounds on which Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. How can the Scottish Government have the effrontery to parrot the mantra that there is "no doubt about the safety of Megrahi's conviction"?
The Scotsman's report on the Holyrood event can be read here; that in The Sun here; and that in the Morning Star here. A good report is also to be found on the website of The Courier and Advertiser, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Dundee and Fife; and a slightly less detailed report on the website of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.]
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Megrahi motion before Scottish Parliament
A motion in the following terms has today been submitted to the Scottish Parliament by Christine Grahame MSP:
*S3M-7251♦ Christine Grahame: Megrahi Petition—That the Parliament notes the lodging of a petition by the Justice for Megrahi Committee, led by Dr Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Robert Forrester and Professor Robert Black, urging the establishment of an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988; notes that the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which reported that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the case, have still to be tested in a legal forum; would welcome the establishment of an independent inquiry in Scotland to consider all the circumstances that led to the conviction, and considers that there should be widespread international co-operation with such an inquiry.
*S3M-7251♦ Christine Grahame: Megrahi Petition—That the Parliament notes the lodging of a petition by the Justice for Megrahi Committee, led by Dr Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Robert Forrester and Professor Robert Black, urging the establishment of an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988; notes that the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which reported that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in the case, have still to be tested in a legal forum; would welcome the establishment of an independent inquiry in Scotland to consider all the circumstances that led to the conviction, and considers that there should be widespread international co-operation with such an inquiry.
Copy of Megrahi petition handed to Petitions Committee
At a ceremony held in the Scottish Parliament at lunch time today, attended by a large number of print and broadcast media representatives, a paper copy of the Justice for Megrahi petition was handed over to members of the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. Dr Jim Swire spoke as follows:
"It has been evident since the completion of the original trial of Mr Baset al-Megrahi in the Zeist court in 2001 that there appeared to be flaws in the evidence led, in the sharing of evidence by the Crown Office with the defence, and in some of the decisions made by the court itself , which together call into question the fairness of the trial under Scots law.
"These questions were made public by one of the UN's appointed trial observers at once describing the verdict as 'incomprehensible', and after three years of research, Scotland's SCCRC found that the trial 'may have been a miscarriage of justice'. This finding opened the way for Mr Baset al-Megrahi to launch a new appeal in the Edinburgh High Court.
"Meanwhile many had reviewed the trial for themselves and concluded that the verdict had been subject to political pressure and was not justified. This has led to scathing comments concerning the quality of the Scottish court's proceedings and impartiality, which some would say has made Scots law a laughing stock, particularly outside Britain and America. Only Scotland herself could correct that view now.
"It had been hoped that Mr Baset al-Megrahi's appeal would settle these dire issues, both for him and for the reputation of Scots law in the future. However, following a desperately drawn out opening phase of his second appeal, and in the face of his illness, it was withdrawn, leaving Scotland with no obvious means whereby the verdict's validity could be reassessed.
"Aware of the difficulties surrounding use of the material assembled by the SCCRC, and in urgent search of the truth about Mr Megrahi's conviction, JFM, through this petition, now calls upon the Holyrood Parliament to request the Scottish government to find a route for the re-examination of this dreadful case.
"We believe that Mr Megrahi and his family are already long overdue a full review of this verdict and that the reputation of Scotland's judicial system demands it, while the relatives of the Lockerbie dead have an inalienable right to the whole truth, a right which some of them find to be obstructed by the uncertainty surrounding this verdict."
Cardinal Keith O'Brien thereupon signed the petition and it was then handed over. Questions from the press were answered by Dr Swire, by Cardinal O'Brien and by Justice for Megrahi committee members Iain McKie and Robert Black.
Border Television's coverage of the event can be viewed here; an Associated Press news agency report on the Fox News website can be read here.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.
"It has been evident since the completion of the original trial of Mr Baset al-Megrahi in the Zeist court in 2001 that there appeared to be flaws in the evidence led, in the sharing of evidence by the Crown Office with the defence, and in some of the decisions made by the court itself , which together call into question the fairness of the trial under Scots law.
"These questions were made public by one of the UN's appointed trial observers at once describing the verdict as 'incomprehensible', and after three years of research, Scotland's SCCRC found that the trial 'may have been a miscarriage of justice'. This finding opened the way for Mr Baset al-Megrahi to launch a new appeal in the Edinburgh High Court.
"Meanwhile many had reviewed the trial for themselves and concluded that the verdict had been subject to political pressure and was not justified. This has led to scathing comments concerning the quality of the Scottish court's proceedings and impartiality, which some would say has made Scots law a laughing stock, particularly outside Britain and America. Only Scotland herself could correct that view now.
"It had been hoped that Mr Baset al-Megrahi's appeal would settle these dire issues, both for him and for the reputation of Scots law in the future. However, following a desperately drawn out opening phase of his second appeal, and in the face of his illness, it was withdrawn, leaving Scotland with no obvious means whereby the verdict's validity could be reassessed.
"Aware of the difficulties surrounding use of the material assembled by the SCCRC, and in urgent search of the truth about Mr Megrahi's conviction, JFM, through this petition, now calls upon the Holyrood Parliament to request the Scottish government to find a route for the re-examination of this dreadful case.
"We believe that Mr Megrahi and his family are already long overdue a full review of this verdict and that the reputation of Scotland's judicial system demands it, while the relatives of the Lockerbie dead have an inalienable right to the whole truth, a right which some of them find to be obstructed by the uncertainty surrounding this verdict."
Cardinal Keith O'Brien thereupon signed the petition and it was then handed over. Questions from the press were answered by Dr Swire, by Cardinal O'Brien and by Justice for Megrahi committee members Iain McKie and Robert Black.
Border Television's coverage of the event can be viewed here; an Associated Press news agency report on the Fox News website can be read here.
The petition is open for signature until 28 October. It can be signed here.
Scottish Parliament e-petition website operational again
The Scottish Parliament e-petition website has been restored. The Justice for Megrahi petition can once again be signed here.
Scottish Cardinal to sign Lockerbie petition
[This is the headline over a report on the website of Independent Catholic News. It reads as follows:]
Cardinal Keith O’Brien will add his name to an online petition on Tuesday, calling for an independent inquiry to be set up by the Scottish Parliament into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. [RB: The petition calls upon the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish such an inquiry. A copy of the petition will be handed over by representatives of Justice for Megrahi to members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee at Holyrood today at 12.30pm.]
The petition which closes on 28 October 2010 will be submitted to the Parliament for consideration. Commenting on his decision to sign the petition, Cardinal O’Brien said: "Earlier this year, I described the murder of 243 innocent people on board Pan Am flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 as an act of unbelievable horror and gratuitous barbarity. Many legal consequences flowed from that act culminating in the conviction of a Libyan citizen, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing. From the moment that verdict was announced, voices have been raised in protest. Over the years the clamour has grown amongst, lawyers, politicians, academics and growing numbers of ordinary citizens that the verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice.”
Cardinal O’Brien added: “I do not claim to have examined all the evidence in this case, far from it, but I do claim to be increasingly concerned about the reputation of the Scottish Justice system. I have defended publicly the system of justice in this country and have done so because it enjoys my support and confidence. Global accusations of wrongful conviction made against our system must be dealt with. Left unheeded they will weaken the administration of justice in Scotland by casting doubts on its probity and ability. I believe the best way to remedy this is for the Scottish Parliament to launch an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
"Regardless of the outcome I believe Scotland’s Justice System would be strengthened by such a process. Either a conviction will be upheld and the process vindicated or it will be struck down, demonstrating to the world that Scotland has the wisdom and compassion needed to rectify its mistakes. In either event I will willingly accept the outcome.”
[A report on the BBC News website, headed "Cardinal Keith O'Brien calls for Megrahi inquiry" can be read here. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and that on the Telegraph website here.
Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm appeared last night on Newsnight Scotland discussing the petition. The programme can be watched here by people in the UK or people overseas who use a UK proxy server. The Firm's article on the issue, headlined "Ian Hamilton QC says Judges' report into Megrahi conviction should be published" can be read here.
My comments on the Newsnight Scotland segment can be read here.
Five full days after it crashed, the Scottish Parliament e-petitions website is still out of commission.]
Cardinal Keith O’Brien will add his name to an online petition on Tuesday, calling for an independent inquiry to be set up by the Scottish Parliament into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. [RB: The petition calls upon the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish such an inquiry. A copy of the petition will be handed over by representatives of Justice for Megrahi to members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee at Holyrood today at 12.30pm.]
The petition which closes on 28 October 2010 will be submitted to the Parliament for consideration. Commenting on his decision to sign the petition, Cardinal O’Brien said: "Earlier this year, I described the murder of 243 innocent people on board Pan Am flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 as an act of unbelievable horror and gratuitous barbarity. Many legal consequences flowed from that act culminating in the conviction of a Libyan citizen, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing. From the moment that verdict was announced, voices have been raised in protest. Over the years the clamour has grown amongst, lawyers, politicians, academics and growing numbers of ordinary citizens that the verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice.”
Cardinal O’Brien added: “I do not claim to have examined all the evidence in this case, far from it, but I do claim to be increasingly concerned about the reputation of the Scottish Justice system. I have defended publicly the system of justice in this country and have done so because it enjoys my support and confidence. Global accusations of wrongful conviction made against our system must be dealt with. Left unheeded they will weaken the administration of justice in Scotland by casting doubts on its probity and ability. I believe the best way to remedy this is for the Scottish Parliament to launch an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
"Regardless of the outcome I believe Scotland’s Justice System would be strengthened by such a process. Either a conviction will be upheld and the process vindicated or it will be struck down, demonstrating to the world that Scotland has the wisdom and compassion needed to rectify its mistakes. In either event I will willingly accept the outcome.”
[A report on the BBC News website, headed "Cardinal Keith O'Brien calls for Megrahi inquiry" can be read here. The Scotsman's report can be read here; and that on the Telegraph website here.
Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm appeared last night on Newsnight Scotland discussing the petition. The programme can be watched here by people in the UK or people overseas who use a UK proxy server. The Firm's article on the issue, headlined "Ian Hamilton QC says Judges' report into Megrahi conviction should be published" can be read here.
My comments on the Newsnight Scotland segment can be read here.
Five full days after it crashed, the Scottish Parliament e-petitions website is still out of commission.]
Monday, 25 October 2010
Crashing the petition
[This is the heading over a post today by Caustic Logic on his blog The Lockerbie Divide. It reads in part:]
Conspiracy theories naturally arise among many commentators [RB: referring to commentators here, on this blog], naturally I think given the duplicitous handling of this case from the beginning. Others have voiced a more generous interpretation. For example, Robert Forrester (as "Quincey Riddle") said somewhere in there, three days ago, when people were starting to voice suspicions:
JFM deals in verifiable facts only. The facts concerning the current difficulties on the Scottish Parliament Petitions Site are at present:
1 The site crashed in the early hours of 21/10/10.
2 BT is still working on a solution.
[...] Speaking personally, I do not hold with the contention that those whom JFM is confronting on the Lockerbie/Zeist case are attempting to sabotage the petition. There are far more effective methods of dealing with us, also including the tried and tested 'just-ignore-them' tactic. To do something as blatant as this would simply present JFM with yet another weapon to use against them.
That's a darn good point, and considering the known issues with the occoasional ill-managed government site, and how inundated as this one was by signers and viewers, something along these lines should be the obvious default conclusion. But the days dragged on without a fix and, by number, the comments espousing the paranoiac view are predominating. (...)
Forrester continued, helping put this in perspective:
Once the petition comes down on the 28/10/10, we will be able to assess any impact this breakdown may have had. However, given that the JFM petition went online on the 8/10/10 and was around the 1,500 mark at the time of the crash, there are good grounds for concluding that it had already broken existing records for the number of signees over time. [...] the average number of signees per day has been around a steady 100 plus. [...] the phenomenal response to the petition has already made a very significant point, and one which cannot easily be ignored, even if the site remains down right up to the 28/10/10. [...] I believe in sporting circles that could be described as something of 'a result'. (...)
Let's do what we can to keep the word out there for a few more days, encourage e-mail submissions unless/until the petition is restored. And then come Thursday it'll be time to move on to the next things as we wait and see. Any evil plot that may lurk here has already failed (unless it's very clever and will unfurl itself in our midst later on...).
[How to sign by SMS is explained here and how to sign by e-mail here.]
Conspiracy theories naturally arise among many commentators [RB: referring to commentators here, on this blog], naturally I think given the duplicitous handling of this case from the beginning. Others have voiced a more generous interpretation. For example, Robert Forrester (as "Quincey Riddle") said somewhere in there, three days ago, when people were starting to voice suspicions:
JFM deals in verifiable facts only. The facts concerning the current difficulties on the Scottish Parliament Petitions Site are at present:
1 The site crashed in the early hours of 21/10/10.
2 BT is still working on a solution.
[...] Speaking personally, I do not hold with the contention that those whom JFM is confronting on the Lockerbie/Zeist case are attempting to sabotage the petition. There are far more effective methods of dealing with us, also including the tried and tested 'just-ignore-them' tactic. To do something as blatant as this would simply present JFM with yet another weapon to use against them.
That's a darn good point, and considering the known issues with the occoasional ill-managed government site, and how inundated as this one was by signers and viewers, something along these lines should be the obvious default conclusion. But the days dragged on without a fix and, by number, the comments espousing the paranoiac view are predominating. (...)
Forrester continued, helping put this in perspective:
Once the petition comes down on the 28/10/10, we will be able to assess any impact this breakdown may have had. However, given that the JFM petition went online on the 8/10/10 and was around the 1,500 mark at the time of the crash, there are good grounds for concluding that it had already broken existing records for the number of signees over time. [...] the average number of signees per day has been around a steady 100 plus. [...] the phenomenal response to the petition has already made a very significant point, and one which cannot easily be ignored, even if the site remains down right up to the 28/10/10. [...] I believe in sporting circles that could be described as something of 'a result'. (...)
Let's do what we can to keep the word out there for a few more days, encourage e-mail submissions unless/until the petition is restored. And then come Thursday it'll be time to move on to the next things as we wait and see. Any evil plot that may lurk here has already failed (unless it's very clever and will unfurl itself in our midst later on...).
[How to sign by SMS is explained here and how to sign by e-mail here.]
Ninety-six hours on ...
The Scottish Parliament's e-petitions website is still not operational, more than four full days after it crashed. The Justice for Megrahi petition was opened for signature on 8 October 2010. The last date for signing (fixed, amongst other reasons, so that the petition could be dealt with before the Scottish Parliament elections) is 28 October. The website's failure has already deprived the petition of twenty per cent of the time allotted for signature.
Note, however, that you can sign the petition by SMS. Text the number 417 and your name to 07537 400395 (from outside the UK +44 7537 400395).
Note, however, that you can sign the petition by SMS. Text the number 417 and your name to 07537 400395 (from outside the UK +44 7537 400395).
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Seventy-two hours on ...
Well over seventy-two hours have now passed since the Scottish Parliament's e-petition website crashed. It remains out of commission. And still no explanation of what the problem is and when it will be rectified.
Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm once again highlights the issue in a report headlined Holyrood Petitions crash persists into 4th day as Parliament launches "Digital Future".
Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm once again highlights the issue in a report headlined Holyrood Petitions crash persists into 4th day as Parliament launches "Digital Future".
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Forty-eight hours on ...
It is now well over forty-eight hours since the Scottish Parliament's e-petition website crashed. It is still not operational. We should now be told by the Parliament's officials exactly what the problem is and just when it is likely to be rectified.
A report on the saga of the e-petitions website in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
A report on the saga of the e-petitions website in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
Friday, 22 October 2010
Scottish Parliament e-petition website still down
"Unfortunately, the Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions website is currently experiencing technical difficulties and is temporarily unavailable. We are working on a solution to resume the service as quickly as possible. Once the service is back online, users will be able to sign e-petitions as normal. Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience caused."
This statement appears on the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee's webpage. The e-petitions website has now been unavailable for at least thirty hours. The Justice for Megrahi e-petition opened for signatures on 8 October. The closing date is 28 October. Disappointed supporters can sign by following the procedure suggested here.
The coverage of the issue in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
The latest bulletin reads:
"UPDATE 22/10/10: 16:30. Work is still ongoing to resolve the technical difficulties we are experiencing. Those wishing to access the e-petition site may wish to return and try to access the link periodically should the problems be resolved over the weekend."
This statement appears on the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee's webpage. The e-petitions website has now been unavailable for at least thirty hours. The Justice for Megrahi e-petition opened for signatures on 8 October. The closing date is 28 October. Disappointed supporters can sign by following the procedure suggested here.
The coverage of the issue in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
The latest bulletin reads:
"UPDATE 22/10/10: 16:30. Work is still ongoing to resolve the technical difficulties we are experiencing. Those wishing to access the e-petition site may wish to return and try to access the link periodically should the problems be resolved over the weekend."
"Disappointed with Scotland in nabbing the wrong guy to begin with"
[This is the first of the readers' comments on an article headlined Bomber's freedom damaged Scotland in today's Scottish edition of The Sun. The article reads in part:]
Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber has damaged Scotland's standing in the US, a new poll has revealed.
The troubling survey shows almost a third of Americans feel less positive towards this country because of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.
And 17 per cent of those quizzed said they are now less likely to visit Scotland - a potential hammer blow to our tourist industry.
Exporters are also affected, with 15 per cent of Americans saying they're less likely to buy Scottish goods.
The YouGov poll shows 29 per cent of Americans feel less positive towards Scotland because of the release, 61 per cent say it hasn't affected their view, while just three per cent are more positive towards us. (...)
Within Scotland, the Megrahi scandal appears to have split opinion.
His release made 15 per cent more positive about their own country and 15 per cent are more negative, while 68 per cent say it hasn't changed their feelings.
Only one per cent of Scots say they are now less likely to purchase Scottish products as a result of the Megrahi decision, while six per cent are more likely to buy and 90 per cent say it's had no effect.
Last night Labour shadow justice minister Richard Baker said: "It is obviously very disappointing that our standing seems to have been diminished by MacAskill's misguided decision.
"It's time for him to apologise to all the families - particularly those in America - who have been traumatised by it."
Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber has damaged Scotland's standing in the US, a new poll has revealed.
The troubling survey shows almost a third of Americans feel less positive towards this country because of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.
And 17 per cent of those quizzed said they are now less likely to visit Scotland - a potential hammer blow to our tourist industry.
Exporters are also affected, with 15 per cent of Americans saying they're less likely to buy Scottish goods.
The YouGov poll shows 29 per cent of Americans feel less positive towards Scotland because of the release, 61 per cent say it hasn't affected their view, while just three per cent are more positive towards us. (...)
Within Scotland, the Megrahi scandal appears to have split opinion.
His release made 15 per cent more positive about their own country and 15 per cent are more negative, while 68 per cent say it hasn't changed their feelings.
Only one per cent of Scots say they are now less likely to purchase Scottish products as a result of the Megrahi decision, while six per cent are more likely to buy and 90 per cent say it's had no effect.
Last night Labour shadow justice minister Richard Baker said: "It is obviously very disappointing that our standing seems to have been diminished by MacAskill's misguided decision.
"It's time for him to apologise to all the families - particularly those in America - who have been traumatised by it."
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Lockerbie petition hit by technical glitch
[This is the headline over a long article just published on the Newsnet Scotland website. The first two paragraphs read as follows:]
Having been online accepting signatures for only thirteen complete days at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Site, the Justice for Megrahi petition has suffered a technical glitch. Just as the petition was about to break through the 1,500 mark, possibly a record for the parliamentary site, the system crashed today.
As yet no explanation has been forthcoming from BT, however, it may simply be down to a system overload or suchlike. In the meantime a solution to the problem is available via e-mail (see details at the end of this piece). The petition has attracted huge support in the short period that it has been up and running despite the almost non-existent press coverage, particularly over the border.
Having been online accepting signatures for only thirteen complete days at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Site, the Justice for Megrahi petition has suffered a technical glitch. Just as the petition was about to break through the 1,500 mark, possibly a record for the parliamentary site, the system crashed today.
As yet no explanation has been forthcoming from BT, however, it may simply be down to a system overload or suchlike. In the meantime a solution to the problem is available via e-mail (see details at the end of this piece). The petition has attracted huge support in the short period that it has been up and running despite the almost non-existent press coverage, particularly over the border.
Scottish Parliament e-petitions website crashed
The Scottish Parliament's e-petitions website has been down all day. If you wish to sign, e-mail the Public Petitions Committee, mentioning e-petition 417, Justice for Megrahi. The e-mail address can be found here.
The Megrahi scandal
[This is the headline over an article by me just published on the website of the Scottish Review. It was written in response to a letter that appeared on the site yesterday from retired solicitor Alistair R Brownlie OBE, criticising the Megrahi petition. Other SR readers have written in supporting the petition and their contributions can be accessed on the same web page. My article reads as follows:]
At the end of June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's conviction of the Lockerbie bombing back to the High Court of Justiciary for a further appeal. The case had been under consideration by the SCCRC since September 2003 and its statement of reasons (available only to Megrahi, the Crown and the High Court) extends to more than 800 pages, accompanied by 13 volumes of appendices.
The commission, in the published summary of its findings, indicated there were six grounds on which it had concluded a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Strangely, only four of these grounds are enumerated in the summary. They are:
• That there was no reasonable basis for the trial court's conclusion that the date of purchase of the clothes which surrounded the bomb was 7 December 1988, the only date on which Megrahi was proved to have been on Malta and so could have purchased them. The finding that he was the purchaser was 'important to the verdict against him'.
• That evidence not heard at the trial about the date on which Christmas lights were switched on in Malta further undermined the trial court's conclusion that the date of purchase was as late as 7 December.
• That evidence was not made available to the defence that four days before the shopkeeper made a tentative identification of Megrahi at an ID parade he had seen a magazine article containing a photograph of Megrahi, linking him to the bombing.
• That other evidence which undermined the shopkeeper's identification of Megrahi and the finding as to the date of purchase was not made available to the defence.
The reasons given by the commission for finding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case are not limited to the effect of new evidence (such as the payment to a key prosecution witness of $2m) which has become available since the date of the original trial and the non-disclosure by the police and prosecution of evidence helpful to the defence.
The prima facie miscarriage of justice identified by the commission includes the trial court's finding in fact on the evidence heard at the trial that the clothes which surrounded the bomb were purchased in Malta on 7 December 1988 and that Megrahi was the purchaser. This was the cornerstone of the Crown's case against him. If, as suggested, that finding had no reasonable basis in the evidence, then there is no legal justification for his conviction.
I have always contended that no reasonable tribunal could have convicted Megrahi on the evidence led. Here is one example of the trial court's idiosyncratic approach to the evidence. Many more could be provided.
A vitally important issue was the date on which the goods that surrounded the bomb were purchased in Malta. There were only two live possibilities: 7 December 1988, a date when Megrahi was proved to be on Malta, and 23 November 1988, when he was not. In an attempt to establish just which of these dates was correct, the weather conditions in Sliema on those two days were explored.
Shopkeeper Tony Gauci's evidence was that when the purchaser left his shop it was beginning to rain heavily enough for his customer to think it advisable to buy an umbrella to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence led by the defence established that, while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely to have rained at all on 7 December and, if there had been any rain, it would have been at most a few drops, insufficient to wet the ground. On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.
On evidence as weak as this, how was it possible for the trial court to find him guilty? And how was it possible for the appeal court in 2002 to fail to overturn the conviction? The Criminal Appeal Court dismissed Megrahi's first appeal on the most technical of technical legal grounds: it did not consider the justifiability of the trial court's factual findings at all. Indeed, it is clear from their interventions during the Crown submissions in the appeal that at least some of the judges were only too well aware of how shaky certain crucial findings were and how contrary to the weight of the evidence.
I contend that at least part of the answer lies in the history of the Scottish legal and judicial system. For centuries courts have accorded a specially privileged status to the Lord Advocate. It has been unquestioningly accepted that, though a political appointee and the UK government's (now the Scottish Executive's) chief Scots law adviser, he (now she) would at all times, in his capacity as head of the prosecution system, act independently, without concern for political considerations, and would always place the public interest in a fair trial above the narrow interest of the prosecution in gaining a conviction.
This vision of the role of the Lord Advocate was reinforced by the fact that, until the Scottish Judicial Appointments Board commenced operations in 2002, all Scottish High Court judges (and lower court judges) were nominated for appointment to the Bench by the Lord Advocate of the day. This meant that, in all criminal proceedings, the presiding judge owed his position to the person (or one of his predecessors in office) who was ultimately responsible for bringing the case before him, and for its conduct while in his court.
I believe that, subconsciously at least, the judges were reluctant to reach a verdict acquitting both accused because of the humiliation that this would entail for the office of Lord Advocate in the most high profile prosecution ever brought in the Scottish courts.
Megrahi launched an appeal based on the SCCRC findings, but abandoned it in 2009 in order to maximise his prospects of repatriation to Libya when terminal metastatic prostate cancer was diagnosed. But the concerns regarding the propriety of his conviction raised by the SCCRC and others have not disappeared.
Lord Denning tarnished his reputation by expressing the view that an alleged miscarriage of justice should not be investigated because it might undermine confidence in the English criminal justice and judicial systems. It is sad to see Alistair Brownlie appearing to take the same stance in Scotland.
At the end of June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's conviction of the Lockerbie bombing back to the High Court of Justiciary for a further appeal. The case had been under consideration by the SCCRC since September 2003 and its statement of reasons (available only to Megrahi, the Crown and the High Court) extends to more than 800 pages, accompanied by 13 volumes of appendices.
The commission, in the published summary of its findings, indicated there were six grounds on which it had concluded a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Strangely, only four of these grounds are enumerated in the summary. They are:
• That there was no reasonable basis for the trial court's conclusion that the date of purchase of the clothes which surrounded the bomb was 7 December 1988, the only date on which Megrahi was proved to have been on Malta and so could have purchased them. The finding that he was the purchaser was 'important to the verdict against him'.
• That evidence not heard at the trial about the date on which Christmas lights were switched on in Malta further undermined the trial court's conclusion that the date of purchase was as late as 7 December.
• That evidence was not made available to the defence that four days before the shopkeeper made a tentative identification of Megrahi at an ID parade he had seen a magazine article containing a photograph of Megrahi, linking him to the bombing.
• That other evidence which undermined the shopkeeper's identification of Megrahi and the finding as to the date of purchase was not made available to the defence.
The reasons given by the commission for finding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case are not limited to the effect of new evidence (such as the payment to a key prosecution witness of $2m) which has become available since the date of the original trial and the non-disclosure by the police and prosecution of evidence helpful to the defence.
The prima facie miscarriage of justice identified by the commission includes the trial court's finding in fact on the evidence heard at the trial that the clothes which surrounded the bomb were purchased in Malta on 7 December 1988 and that Megrahi was the purchaser. This was the cornerstone of the Crown's case against him. If, as suggested, that finding had no reasonable basis in the evidence, then there is no legal justification for his conviction.
I have always contended that no reasonable tribunal could have convicted Megrahi on the evidence led. Here is one example of the trial court's idiosyncratic approach to the evidence. Many more could be provided.
A vitally important issue was the date on which the goods that surrounded the bomb were purchased in Malta. There were only two live possibilities: 7 December 1988, a date when Megrahi was proved to be on Malta, and 23 November 1988, when he was not. In an attempt to establish just which of these dates was correct, the weather conditions in Sliema on those two days were explored.
Shopkeeper Tony Gauci's evidence was that when the purchaser left his shop it was beginning to rain heavily enough for his customer to think it advisable to buy an umbrella to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence led by the defence established that, while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely to have rained at all on 7 December and, if there had been any rain, it would have been at most a few drops, insufficient to wet the ground. On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.
On evidence as weak as this, how was it possible for the trial court to find him guilty? And how was it possible for the appeal court in 2002 to fail to overturn the conviction? The Criminal Appeal Court dismissed Megrahi's first appeal on the most technical of technical legal grounds: it did not consider the justifiability of the trial court's factual findings at all. Indeed, it is clear from their interventions during the Crown submissions in the appeal that at least some of the judges were only too well aware of how shaky certain crucial findings were and how contrary to the weight of the evidence.
I contend that at least part of the answer lies in the history of the Scottish legal and judicial system. For centuries courts have accorded a specially privileged status to the Lord Advocate. It has been unquestioningly accepted that, though a political appointee and the UK government's (now the Scottish Executive's) chief Scots law adviser, he (now she) would at all times, in his capacity as head of the prosecution system, act independently, without concern for political considerations, and would always place the public interest in a fair trial above the narrow interest of the prosecution in gaining a conviction.
This vision of the role of the Lord Advocate was reinforced by the fact that, until the Scottish Judicial Appointments Board commenced operations in 2002, all Scottish High Court judges (and lower court judges) were nominated for appointment to the Bench by the Lord Advocate of the day. This meant that, in all criminal proceedings, the presiding judge owed his position to the person (or one of his predecessors in office) who was ultimately responsible for bringing the case before him, and for its conduct while in his court.
I believe that, subconsciously at least, the judges were reluctant to reach a verdict acquitting both accused because of the humiliation that this would entail for the office of Lord Advocate in the most high profile prosecution ever brought in the Scottish courts.
Megrahi launched an appeal based on the SCCRC findings, but abandoned it in 2009 in order to maximise his prospects of repatriation to Libya when terminal metastatic prostate cancer was diagnosed. But the concerns regarding the propriety of his conviction raised by the SCCRC and others have not disappeared.
Lord Denning tarnished his reputation by expressing the view that an alleged miscarriage of justice should not be investigated because it might undermine confidence in the English criminal justice and judicial systems. It is sad to see Alistair Brownlie appearing to take the same stance in Scotland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)