[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Sunday Mail. It reads in part:]
A politician who helped secure the release of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four says he fears the Lockerbie bomber's conviction is unsafe.
Ex-MP Chris Mullin also says he believes Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's sentence could have been quashed if he had appealed.
Mullin revealed in his newly released volume of diaries that he was asked by Labour colleague Tam Dalyell to get involved in a campaign to clear cancerstricken Megrahi's name. (...)
Mullin told the Sunday Mail: "I have no detailed knowledge of the case, although I am aware his conviction hangs by a thread and that much of the evidence points elsewhere.
"Alas, the proposition will never be tested since he abandoned his appeal in favour of early release."
Mullin's critically-acclaimed diaries, which cover his life as a Labour backbench MP between 2005 and 2010, reveal the approach from Dalyell six years ago.
In 2009, as the row over Megrahi's release rumbled on, Mullin wrote: "The latest instalment of a foolish game that's been going on since the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on the grounds that he is dying of cancer.
"The more interesting issue, upon which almost no one has touched, is whether or not Megrahi had anything to do with Lockerbie.
"The case against him was wafer-thin and he had an appeal pending which might have resulted in his conviction being quashed." (...)
[Mullin] was a central figure in the campaign to free the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four following their wrongful convictions in the 70s.
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Government is criticised over delay in reply to Megrahi queries
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Campaigners calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing have criticised the Scottish Government for a delay in responding to a request for information from one of Holyrood’s own committees.
The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee wrote to the Government in November after hearing evidence from the Justice for Megrahi group, which submitted a petition bearing the signatures of 1646 people backing an independent inquiry.
Ministers were asked to respond by December 10, but the committee only received a response to its questions last night, a month after the deadline.
In it, the Government restates its position that any inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and its own remit.
Robert Forrester, secretary of Justice for Megrahi, who stressed that he was speaking personally because the committee had yet to convene to discuss the response, said it was “inadequate.”
He said: “Clearly it has taken an extremely long time for them to put together, so far as I can see, a rather inadequate response. The Government has been saying repeatedly that they don’t have the power to open an inqury by saying it is beyond the power and remit of the Scottish Parliament.
“I personally don’t see why an inquiry cannot be opened.” (...)
The committee, led by convener Rhona Brankin, asked the Government whether it would open an independent inquiry or if it would provide detailed reasons for not doing so, including citing any legislation that prevents the Scottish Government from holding an inquiry.
The Petitions Committee has also received submissions from Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, which suggest there are previous examples of inquiries into judicial decisions. (...)
AL Kennedy, James Robertson, Len Murray and Ian Hamilton QC signed the petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Megrahi, who was found guilty of causing the deaths of 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in December 1988. A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Following the announcement last month that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we are now considering legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions.”
[The Scottish Government does not and cannot contend that it lacks the powers to set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie invesigation and prosecution and Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction. These are all matters within devolved jurisdiction. What it says is this:
"The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."
This is nothing more that a wafer-thin pretext for inaction. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has no jurisdiction and powers outwith Scotland. Yet it managed to conduct an investigation into the Megrahi conviction that enabled it to reach the conclusion that, on six separate grounds, that conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence.]
Campaigners calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing have criticised the Scottish Government for a delay in responding to a request for information from one of Holyrood’s own committees.
The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee wrote to the Government in November after hearing evidence from the Justice for Megrahi group, which submitted a petition bearing the signatures of 1646 people backing an independent inquiry.
Ministers were asked to respond by December 10, but the committee only received a response to its questions last night, a month after the deadline.
In it, the Government restates its position that any inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and its own remit.
Robert Forrester, secretary of Justice for Megrahi, who stressed that he was speaking personally because the committee had yet to convene to discuss the response, said it was “inadequate.”
He said: “Clearly it has taken an extremely long time for them to put together, so far as I can see, a rather inadequate response. The Government has been saying repeatedly that they don’t have the power to open an inqury by saying it is beyond the power and remit of the Scottish Parliament.
“I personally don’t see why an inquiry cannot be opened.” (...)
The committee, led by convener Rhona Brankin, asked the Government whether it would open an independent inquiry or if it would provide detailed reasons for not doing so, including citing any legislation that prevents the Scottish Government from holding an inquiry.
The Petitions Committee has also received submissions from Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, which suggest there are previous examples of inquiries into judicial decisions. (...)
AL Kennedy, James Robertson, Len Murray and Ian Hamilton QC signed the petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Megrahi, who was found guilty of causing the deaths of 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in December 1988. A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Following the announcement last month that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we are now considering legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions.”
[The Scottish Government does not and cannot contend that it lacks the powers to set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie invesigation and prosecution and Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction. These are all matters within devolved jurisdiction. What it says is this:
"The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry. However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."
This is nothing more that a wafer-thin pretext for inaction. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has no jurisdiction and powers outwith Scotland. Yet it managed to conduct an investigation into the Megrahi conviction that enabled it to reach the conclusion that, on six separate grounds, that conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence.]
Friday, 7 January 2011
Government Lockerbie documents to be released a few years early
[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph.]
Secret files on the downfall of Margaret Thatcher will be made public in just five years as the Government cuts the amount of time that records remain confidential.
Sensitive official documents on the Poll Tax riots, the miners’ strike, the Westland helicopter affair and the Lockerbie disaster will also be published far sooner than they would have been under the old 30-year rule. (...)
Under the Public Records Act 1958, government papers are currently declassified 30 years after being written, and made available in an annual batch by the National Archives at Kew. (...)
Starting in January 2013, two years’ worth of classified files will be published each year for a decade so that by 2023, the records will be only 20 years behind the events they describe rather than 30.
This will mean that 2014 – just three years from now – will see the publication of Cabinet discussions on the miners’ strike of the mid-1980s, the Westland helicopter affair that led to Michael Heseltine’s resignation and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
Just months before the planned general election in May 2015, the public could see sensitive information about the Hungerford massacre and the terrorist downing of a passenger jet over Lockerbie. (...)
Under the new plan, certain records could be released before others while details of Government communications with senior members of the Royal family are likely to remain hidden either for 20 years or until five years after the death of the individual concerned.
Secret files on the downfall of Margaret Thatcher will be made public in just five years as the Government cuts the amount of time that records remain confidential.
Sensitive official documents on the Poll Tax riots, the miners’ strike, the Westland helicopter affair and the Lockerbie disaster will also be published far sooner than they would have been under the old 30-year rule. (...)
Under the Public Records Act 1958, government papers are currently declassified 30 years after being written, and made available in an annual batch by the National Archives at Kew. (...)
Starting in January 2013, two years’ worth of classified files will be published each year for a decade so that by 2023, the records will be only 20 years behind the events they describe rather than 30.
This will mean that 2014 – just three years from now – will see the publication of Cabinet discussions on the miners’ strike of the mid-1980s, the Westland helicopter affair that led to Michael Heseltine’s resignation and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
Just months before the planned general election in May 2015, the public could see sensitive information about the Hungerford massacre and the terrorist downing of a passenger jet over Lockerbie. (...)
Under the new plan, certain records could be released before others while details of Government communications with senior members of the Royal family are likely to remain hidden either for 20 years or until five years after the death of the individual concerned.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
"I fear for what is happening to the administration of justice"
[The above is the first sentence of an article posted today on Ian Hamilton QC's blog. The full text reads as follows:]
I fear for what is happening to the administration of justice. I blame the SNP because they are the government. It started under Labour so an election will make no difference. Here are examples of what I fear.
In the Megrahi case it emerged after conviction that a foreign state had given massive bribes to a vital witness or to witnesses.
It emerged that a vital fragment of the fuse relied on for the conviction had never been tested for explosive residue, a vital test in any explosives case.
More recently, and in another case. A journalist heard of the existence of a recording. He bought it from the holder, who later gave evidence. Why were the police not told of the tape so they could get a warrant and seize and investigate it? Why was the journalist not rebuked for interfering with the administration of justice?
In the same case a recording of a police interview was handed by someone to the BBC who used it in a broadcast. Tapes of police interviews are always confidential; yet it appears there is to be no enquiry into how this tape got into BBC hands and why they used it. It was, I think, a production in a case. It is contempt of court to make off with a production and to reset it. Why are the BBC not to be prosecuted?
Lastly and most sinisterly of all is the crown office’s attitude to the press. We only have two reliable investigative journalists in Scotland. One is Kenneth Roy with his Scottish Review. He is pursuing the matter of the BBC recording into a wall of silence. Good for you Kenneth.
The other is Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm. It is our only legal magazine. It is read by most of Scotland’s lawyers. A free and informed legal press is of vital importance in the preservation of a proper administration of justice. (I air my grievance. At 85 I shouldn’t have to be writing this. The Lord Advocate should have dealt with these matters as they occurred.)
Now here is the really frightening thing. The Crown Office is refusing to answer any questions from Steven Raeburn. They do not like what he writes. They are holding him incommunicado. The legal profession is thus kept in the dark about the things that matter most. The things that matter most in any government department are the things the department don’t want anybody to hear about.
I have been critical of Elish Angiolini’s culture of secrecy in the past. She is the Lord Advocate. She is a member of the government. I now make my accusation wider. I now accuse the Scottish Government of living in a cocoon of fear, a cocoon of its own making; a fear of its own making. Can Alex Salmond not control his Lord Advocate?
Why is the Lord Advocate silent? Why will she not permit her own department to speak to the only journalist who speaks to the whole legal profession?
Secret justice is fascist justice. Secret justice is a danger to us all.
[The influential media magazine The Drum features this story on its website. It can be read here.]
I fear for what is happening to the administration of justice. I blame the SNP because they are the government. It started under Labour so an election will make no difference. Here are examples of what I fear.
In the Megrahi case it emerged after conviction that a foreign state had given massive bribes to a vital witness or to witnesses.
It emerged that a vital fragment of the fuse relied on for the conviction had never been tested for explosive residue, a vital test in any explosives case.
More recently, and in another case. A journalist heard of the existence of a recording. He bought it from the holder, who later gave evidence. Why were the police not told of the tape so they could get a warrant and seize and investigate it? Why was the journalist not rebuked for interfering with the administration of justice?
In the same case a recording of a police interview was handed by someone to the BBC who used it in a broadcast. Tapes of police interviews are always confidential; yet it appears there is to be no enquiry into how this tape got into BBC hands and why they used it. It was, I think, a production in a case. It is contempt of court to make off with a production and to reset it. Why are the BBC not to be prosecuted?
Lastly and most sinisterly of all is the crown office’s attitude to the press. We only have two reliable investigative journalists in Scotland. One is Kenneth Roy with his Scottish Review. He is pursuing the matter of the BBC recording into a wall of silence. Good for you Kenneth.
The other is Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm. It is our only legal magazine. It is read by most of Scotland’s lawyers. A free and informed legal press is of vital importance in the preservation of a proper administration of justice. (I air my grievance. At 85 I shouldn’t have to be writing this. The Lord Advocate should have dealt with these matters as they occurred.)
Now here is the really frightening thing. The Crown Office is refusing to answer any questions from Steven Raeburn. They do not like what he writes. They are holding him incommunicado. The legal profession is thus kept in the dark about the things that matter most. The things that matter most in any government department are the things the department don’t want anybody to hear about.
I have been critical of Elish Angiolini’s culture of secrecy in the past. She is the Lord Advocate. She is a member of the government. I now make my accusation wider. I now accuse the Scottish Government of living in a cocoon of fear, a cocoon of its own making; a fear of its own making. Can Alex Salmond not control his Lord Advocate?
Why is the Lord Advocate silent? Why will she not permit her own department to speak to the only journalist who speaks to the whole legal profession?
Secret justice is fascist justice. Secret justice is a danger to us all.
[The influential media magazine The Drum features this story on its website. It can be read here.]
Attack on Pan Am flight 103
[This is the headline (translated into English) over a letter published today, the feast of Epiphany, on the website of the Spanish newspaper El Correo from Marina de Larracoechea, the sister of one of the flight attendants killed in the Lockerbie disaster. An English translation, with help from Google Translate, reads as follows:]
Dear Kings: In 2010 I was even better than the previous year, impossible though that may seem. I worked hard with dedication and sacrifice, especially for truth and justice in the case of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 where my sister Nieves was murdered, along with 269 other equally precious and irreplaceable lives. This carnage, politically induced, announced and expected, occurred on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Others, mainly government officials, diplomats and big businessmen had precise prior knowledge that had helped them to change their flight and save their lives. Silence reigns over this and other important aspects.
On 21 December we passed the psychological barrier of 22 years, and just as happens with financial indexes, so the forces at work have obscenely closed our case, in a market of political and financial agendas, by a silence of convenience.
I ask the following gifts: Truth and Justice for Pan Am 103 and so an end this ordeal; peace for everyone in the world and for us in particular; a lot of help, solidarity and respect for the victims; health to continue fighting with even more determination; a little good fortune to help us bear with dignity the enormous burden of these 22 years; a load of charcoal for some of the very evil characters who lead this world into war, death, hatred, poverty and suffering, preserve their impunity and obstruct truth and justice in the Pam Am 103 case and deny our rights. I do not give names now because you are Magi and you know everything. This letter is similar to last year's but that is because it has brought almost nothing that I asked for.
Dear Kings: In 2010 I was even better than the previous year, impossible though that may seem. I worked hard with dedication and sacrifice, especially for truth and justice in the case of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 where my sister Nieves was murdered, along with 269 other equally precious and irreplaceable lives. This carnage, politically induced, announced and expected, occurred on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Others, mainly government officials, diplomats and big businessmen had precise prior knowledge that had helped them to change their flight and save their lives. Silence reigns over this and other important aspects.
On 21 December we passed the psychological barrier of 22 years, and just as happens with financial indexes, so the forces at work have obscenely closed our case, in a market of political and financial agendas, by a silence of convenience.
I ask the following gifts: Truth and Justice for Pan Am 103 and so an end this ordeal; peace for everyone in the world and for us in particular; a lot of help, solidarity and respect for the victims; health to continue fighting with even more determination; a little good fortune to help us bear with dignity the enormous burden of these 22 years; a load of charcoal for some of the very evil characters who lead this world into war, death, hatred, poverty and suffering, preserve their impunity and obstruct truth and justice in the Pam Am 103 case and deny our rights. I do not give names now because you are Magi and you know everything. This letter is similar to last year's but that is because it has brought almost nothing that I asked for.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Money has no place in Scots justice
This is the headline over an article by Ian Hamilton QC about payments made to witnesses in the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial which is published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. One paragraph reads as follows:
"Never in the history of Scots law has the crown adduced witnesses who have been paid, or promised payment, by a third party in connection with their evidence. Why were they adduced in this case? The Lord Advocate must explain why."
Of course, it now appears that such witnesses were adduced by the Crown ten years ago in the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist. This formed the subject of paragraph 3.1.7 of Megrahi's Grounds of Appeal in the appeal that was abandoned in August 2009. Ian Hamilton recognises this in his article when he states:
"Purchase of witnesses has no place in Scots law. Indeed payment by the Americans of witnesses in the Megrahi case is one of the things that make many people think the conviction is unsafe."
[My own understanding of the present state of Scottish criminal procedure is that there is no bar on, or necessary impropriety in, the Crown's leading the evidence of a witness who has been paid, or has been promised payment, by a third party. What is grossly improper -- and is alleged to have happened in the Lockerbie case -- is concealing from the defence and the court the fact that such payment has been made or promised, since it is a factor highly relevant to the court's assessment of the witness's credibility.]
"Never in the history of Scots law has the crown adduced witnesses who have been paid, or promised payment, by a third party in connection with their evidence. Why were they adduced in this case? The Lord Advocate must explain why."
Of course, it now appears that such witnesses were adduced by the Crown ten years ago in the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist. This formed the subject of paragraph 3.1.7 of Megrahi's Grounds of Appeal in the appeal that was abandoned in August 2009. Ian Hamilton recognises this in his article when he states:
"Purchase of witnesses has no place in Scots law. Indeed payment by the Americans of witnesses in the Megrahi case is one of the things that make many people think the conviction is unsafe."
[My own understanding of the present state of Scottish criminal procedure is that there is no bar on, or necessary impropriety in, the Crown's leading the evidence of a witness who has been paid, or has been promised payment, by a third party. What is grossly improper -- and is alleged to have happened in the Lockerbie case -- is concealing from the defence and the court the fact that such payment has been made or promised, since it is a factor highly relevant to the court's assessment of the witness's credibility.]
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Fame at last!
[The following is what is said by Charon QC in his (her?) blog review of 2010. It almost compensates for my omission from the sixty-third New Year Honours List in a row.]
And if you really want to get to grips with The Lockerbie Case…and it may be a good idea for US Senators to do so… then you can’t do much better than this… blog by Robert Black QC FRSE who became Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh in 1981 having previously been in practice at the Scots Bar.
And if you really want to get to grips with The Lockerbie Case…and it may be a good idea for US Senators to do so… then you can’t do much better than this… blog by Robert Black QC FRSE who became Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh in 1981 having previously been in practice at the Scots Bar.
The justification of abuse
This is the headline over the latest article by Robert Forrester, secretary of Justice for Megrahi, on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The article addresses the concerns that were expressed in the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee about the constitutional propriety (separation of powers and all that) of asking the Scottish Government to set up an inquiry into the circumstances of, and justification for, a conviction handed down by a Scottish court. A similar concern was expressed in a comment on this blog in response to an earlier article by Mr Forrester.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
So what has changed?
[I wish a happy and peaceful 2011 to all readers of this blog.
What follows is a post from the blog from 1 January 2008.]
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”
See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp
What follows is a post from the blog from 1 January 2008.]
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”
See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp
Friday, 31 December 2010
Newsnet Scotland's review of Scottish news in 2010
[The following are excerpts relating to Lockerbie and Megrahi from Newsnet Scotland's "Scottish News in 2010 - A Look Back".]
July – Scottish News Stories:
It emerges that a number of US Senators have written a letter to the UK’s ambassador with concerns over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The ambassador informs the senators that much of what they understand is actually based on inaccurate UK newspaper reports. Only lazy journalists, fools and those with an agenda would run the senator’s claims without properly scrutinising them.
So it proves as the story is picked up by the UK media and BBC Scotland in particular and a long running campaign of misinformation begins.
August – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland reports that ‘US lawmakers’ are unhappy with the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. No the lawmakers aren’t Wyatt and Earl Earp, it is the same poorly informed US Senators from July and the BBC are keen to headline anything and everything they say, regardless of accuracy.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien defends the decision to release Megrahi and questions the appropriateness of US politicians attacking a decision that was based on compassion, something lacking in US penal institutions says the Cardinal.
September – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland continues to treat commentary from poorly informed American Senators over the Megrahi issue as though it had merit. Raymond Buchanan tells us that relations have been ‘harmed’ over what he calls a ‘senate Lockerbie investigation’.
December – Scottish News Stories:
Wikileaks documents exonerate the SNP over its handling of the Megrahi release process. The documents highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party who were secretly trying to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya then publicly denounced the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. BBC Scotland further tarnished its reputation by ignoring the revelations that damaged Labour and instead focussed on comments from Jack Straw they said called into question MacAskill's claim that he alone took the final decision.
July – Scottish News Stories:
It emerges that a number of US Senators have written a letter to the UK’s ambassador with concerns over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The ambassador informs the senators that much of what they understand is actually based on inaccurate UK newspaper reports. Only lazy journalists, fools and those with an agenda would run the senator’s claims without properly scrutinising them.
So it proves as the story is picked up by the UK media and BBC Scotland in particular and a long running campaign of misinformation begins.
August – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland reports that ‘US lawmakers’ are unhappy with the decision to release Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. No the lawmakers aren’t Wyatt and Earl Earp, it is the same poorly informed US Senators from July and the BBC are keen to headline anything and everything they say, regardless of accuracy.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien defends the decision to release Megrahi and questions the appropriateness of US politicians attacking a decision that was based on compassion, something lacking in US penal institutions says the Cardinal.
September – Scottish News Stories:
BBC Scotland continues to treat commentary from poorly informed American Senators over the Megrahi issue as though it had merit. Raymond Buchanan tells us that relations have been ‘harmed’ over what he calls a ‘senate Lockerbie investigation’.
December – Scottish News Stories:
Wikileaks documents exonerate the SNP over its handling of the Megrahi release process. The documents highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party who were secretly trying to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya then publicly denounced the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. BBC Scotland further tarnished its reputation by ignoring the revelations that damaged Labour and instead focussed on comments from Jack Straw they said called into question MacAskill's claim that he alone took the final decision.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
We must strive to restore the integrity of criminal justice process
[This is the heading over a letter from Glasgow Liberal Democrat councillor Christopher Mason in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
There is a worrying contradiction between the standards being applied in the cases of Tommy Sheridan and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Sheridan was prosecuted because perjury threatens the whole justice system; but the British and Scottish establishments are apparently indifferent to the doubts expressed about the integrity of Megrahi’s trial and, indeed, the second appeal process.
The crux of the criticisms is that neither the forensic evidence about the timer nor the identification evidence provided by the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci should have been accepted as sound. These criticisms are contained, we are led to believe, in the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which recommended in June 2007 that a second appeal should be heard. The second appeal process was stymied by the refusal of British and American authorities to allow some of the documents to be dealt with by the court in the normal manner; if it had been heard promptly it would have been disposed of one way or the other before Megrahi’s release on health grounds ever became an issue.
Without the forensic evidence and Gauci’s evidence, Megrahi and Fahima could not have been prosecuted. There are allegations that this evidence was tainted. I do not understand why those who thought the Scottish justice system was seriously threatened by perjured evidence in Sheridan’s civil case against a newspaper, cannot find a way of looking into our criminal justice system in relation to the allegation that the most important criminal trial of the 20th century proceeded on the basis of false evidence.
Although 22 years have passed since 270 innocent people were murdered by whomever planted the Lockerbie bomb, this is not just a matter of historical interest or even of justice for the families of the victims. In the continuing campaign to deal with terrorism, the known integrity of our justice system will be essential to success. That is one of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from Northern Ireland: false convictions do more harm than good.
One of the best defences against the crime of terrorism is the known integrity of the normal criminal justice process. To restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system when dealing with terrorism, the Scottish Parliament should find some way of allowing the court to hear and dispose of the matters raised in the SCCRC 2007 report.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Befuddlement and anger at Scottish Government’s stance
[A long article by Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, appears today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It raises many interesting issues about the recent report by Senator Robert Menendez et al into the repatriation of Abdebaset Megrahi and about official reaction to JFM's call for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into his conviction. On the Scottish Government's stonewalling on the establishment of such an inquiry, Mr Forrester has this to say:]
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
SNP activists quite openly express their befuddlement and even anger at the government’s stance. JFM has no allegiances to any political parties but does empathise with those members of the SNP who can’t comprehend the government’s reaction to what, on the face of it, seems to be an electoral gift to a party that professes its very raison d'être is Scotland’s independence from the UK.
On the 9th of November, armed with its public e-petition, JFM persuaded the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to cite the legislation it is relying on to support its somewhat disingenuous contention that it lacks the power to sanction an inquiry into matters which fall squarely and exclusively under Scottish jurisdiction. The SPPPC graciously gave the government until the 10th of December, an entire month no less, to locate just such legislation. Three weeks after the deadline, the government has still failed to reply. Surely it can’t be, given the legions of legal advisers at its disposal, that the government’s claim is fallacious after all. It’s all a bit embarrassing really. On the one hand, the SNP seems to want to break Scotland’s ties with the Union, whilst on the other, the behaviour of the government in abrogating its responsibilities on this matter leaves one with the image of the First Minister clinging on to the apron strings of mother Britannia.
It won’t be much of a vote winner amongst the electorate who are concerned about the direction the criminal justice system is currently moving in if the government finally has nothing left to resort to other than mimicking UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent remarks by saying that an inquiry wouldn’t be in the public interest. Nor will it enhance the SNP’s democratic credentials if the government is seen to give the SPPPC the brush off.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
We should stop distracting ourselves from finding out the real truth about Lockerbie
[This is the heading over three letters in today's edition of The Herald. They read as follows:]
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
How well Jim Swire’s dignified search for truth contrasts with the bloodthirsty baying of some American politicians (Letters, December 24). Make no mistake, the central objection to the Megrahi affair in the United States is that he was tried in a justice system where the end result was not a lethal injection; everything else is just an attempt to build on that.
The modus operandi of the Senate inquiry was to reach a conclusion and then look for evidence that might support it, exactly what an American trial of Megrahi would likely have been. For some Scottish politicians to attempt to lend credibility to this circus for some short-term political gain is extremely unedifying and something that they should be ashamed of.
The question should not be whether Megrahi’s family should be able to be with him for his last days but whether he was guilty at all and if so who his accomplices were. To simply accept what now seems to be a rather shaky conviction is one thing, to not bother to ask whether one man could do all of this on his own is quite another. It is no conspiracy theory to point out that atrocities like Lockerbie are carefully planned and executed and not just the work of one rogue security agent. We should stop distracting ourselves from this central question.
Iain Paterson
Jim Swire has written a moving and passionate letter in which he continues to plead eloquently for some way to be found to re-examine the evidence and the decision of the Camp Zeist trial. After more than 20 years, the tragedy of the PanAm 103 bombing has still not been resolved satisfactorily, and the latest pathetic attempt by a group of ill-informed and prejudiced US senators, with little knowledge or appreciation of the points at issue, will not help.
We in Scotland should be much more concerned about the quality, reliability and fairness of the Scottish justice system. As pointed out by Nigel Dewar Gibb, comments such as those from John Lamont, the Tory MSP shadow spokesman, are unhelpful, as are the constant refusals of the UK government and the Scottish legal authorities to allow further investigation.
I learned my Scots Law, and my pride and confidence in the Scottish justice system, at the feet of Andrew Dewar Gibb, Professor of Scots Law at Glasgow University (coincidentally the father of Nigel Dewar Gibb). If he were alive today I am sure Professor Dewar Gibb would be adding his voice to those demanding a full public inquiry or a re-opening of the second appeal abandoned by Mr Megrahi so abruptly. Nothing less will satisfy those of us who wish justice to be done and seen to be done.
Iain A D Mann
Once again the consistently impressive and humbling Jim Swire hits on the salient point about the Lockerbie atrocity. It is a disgrace that we do not know for certain who carried out this crime, or why. We have been given serious doubts by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to question the truth surrounding the conviction of Mr Megrahi. The vacuous critical noises from politicians in this country and the US regarding the release of Megrahi are opportunistic political point scoring or, worse, an attempt to create a smoke screen around the real issues of guilt and responsibility.
Iain Carmichael
Two contrasting perspectives
In today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle there is an article by conservative columnist Debra J Saunders headlined "Libya, Lockerbie and commercial warfare". It swallows hook, line and sinker the fantasies peddled by Senator Menendez et al in their report on the release of Megrahi.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Libya's English-language newspaper The Tripoli Post, on the other hand, today runs a story headlined 'Scotland rejects US Senators "incorrect and inaccurate re-hash" report on Megrahi release' which concentrates on the Scottish Government's rebuttal of the senators' claims.
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Waiting for answers two decades later
[This is the headline over an opinion piece by columnist Mike Kelly on the website of The Record, a newspaper covering Bergen County, New Jersey. The first three and the last five paragraphs read as follows:]
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Almost a quarter century ago, a terrorist bomb blew apart Pam Am Flight 103 in the icy December sky over Scotland, killing all 259 passengers, including 38 from New Jersey. Sadly, we’re still searching for the complete truth.
The latest effort to pin down the facts comes from the four US senators from New Jersey and New York. But their report, released last week, while laudable in some ways nevertheless still leaves open too many questions.
Maybe it’s politics or maybe it’s just the weird and frustrating jinx that has hampered almost every attempt to examine the Pan Am 103 bombing, but this kind of incomplete investigative work is getting tiresome. The Pan Am 103 bombing took place Dec 21, 1988 – with many of the college-age passengers flying home for the Christmas holidays from studying overseas. It’s time for some hard answers. (...)
From almost the moment that Pan Am 103 fell from the sky 22 years ago, the attempt by the US government to find answers has been a series of political brick walls. Families of some New Jersey victims were so angry with responses from President George H Bush in 1989 that they marched to the White House and placed letters in the fence.
I was there that day. Watching decent Americans try to persuade their government to provide answers about why their kids were murdered was a sad sight.
But that sad journey for answers continued through the Clinton administration and into the second Bush administration – and now, apparently, with Obama.
This latest report does not alter that journey.
In some ways, it makes the pain worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)