[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A Holyrood committee is due to consider responses over a call for an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition seeking the action in October last year.
The petitions committee is to discuss submissions from the Scottish government and the JFM group.
Members of the group, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, are expected to attend.
About 1,500 people signed the petition [RB: actually 1646] seeking an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
They claim it is "imperative" that the case be examined once more.
However, the Scottish government has already indicated that it has no plans to hold an inquiry and "does not doubt the safety of the conviction".
[The Public Petitions Committee meets today at 2pm, though the Megrahi petition may not be reached until about 4pm. Its proceedings can be viewed live on the Committees section of the Scottish Parliament's television service.]
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Sunday, 23 January 2011
10,000 letters over Lockerbie move
[This is the headline over a report issued today by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government has received about 10,000 letters and emails about the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Labour Party revealed the Government has received the equivalent of 190 items of correspondence each week since terminally-ill Megrahi was freed in August 2009.
The Government said it did not have a comprehensive record of all communication received, and it is not known how many of the letters were against or in favour of the decision to release him.
Labour asserted much of the correspondence was in protest against the Government's decision to allow Megrahi to return to his native Libya, and called on ministers to produce a breakdown of the nature of the letters and e-mails.
The party's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "The decision to release Megrahi was flawed and this volume of complaint shows just how much offence has been caused. The medical evidence has been shown to be wanting and the sight of the Lockerbie bomber being hailed as a hero in Tripoli produced outrage across the world." (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said Labour's assertion of 10,000 complaints was "entirely misleading", adding: "Responses received were both supportive and unsupportive - for example a letter from the Nelson Mandela Foundation carried his support for the decision - and other issues have generated far greater levels of response, such as the consultation on the then-proposed smoking ban which attracted tens of thousands of responses."
[This story has now (Monday, 24 January) been picked up by The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.]
The Scottish Government has received about 10,000 letters and emails about the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Labour Party revealed the Government has received the equivalent of 190 items of correspondence each week since terminally-ill Megrahi was freed in August 2009.
The Government said it did not have a comprehensive record of all communication received, and it is not known how many of the letters were against or in favour of the decision to release him.
Labour asserted much of the correspondence was in protest against the Government's decision to allow Megrahi to return to his native Libya, and called on ministers to produce a breakdown of the nature of the letters and e-mails.
The party's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "The decision to release Megrahi was flawed and this volume of complaint shows just how much offence has been caused. The medical evidence has been shown to be wanting and the sight of the Lockerbie bomber being hailed as a hero in Tripoli produced outrage across the world." (...)
A Scottish Government spokesman said Labour's assertion of 10,000 complaints was "entirely misleading", adding: "Responses received were both supportive and unsupportive - for example a letter from the Nelson Mandela Foundation carried his support for the decision - and other issues have generated far greater levels of response, such as the consultation on the then-proposed smoking ban which attracted tens of thousands of responses."
[This story has now (Monday, 24 January) been picked up by The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.]
Lockerbie bomber inquiry rejected
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
The Scottish Government has ruled out an official inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, campaigners have been told.
The Justice for Megrahi Committee last year lodged a petition with MSPs calling for an official probe into the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
But ministers have now written back to the committee ruling this out - even though they admit that the Scottish Government could hold such an inquiry. (...)
In their letter to campaigners on a potential probe into the bomber's conviction, ministers said: "The government has no plans to initiate an inquiry on this issue."
It added: "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."
But the inquiry was ruled out because the government "does not doubt" the safety of Megrahi's conviction. Megrahi has already had one appeal against his 2001 conviction rejected.
A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Megrahi in 2009. Soon afterwards, he was freed on compassionate grounds due to terminal prostate cancer. He remains alive today at home in Libya.
A statement released by the Justice for Megrahi Committee said: "We have a Scottish Government with the power and resources to mount an inquiry that could provide at least some of the answers and it chooses to fall back on well-worn excuses and effectively abrogates responsibility for ascertaining the truth about one of the biggest terrorist outrages ever committed anywhere in the world."
The Scottish Government has ruled out an official inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, campaigners have been told.
The Justice for Megrahi Committee last year lodged a petition with MSPs calling for an official probe into the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
But ministers have now written back to the committee ruling this out - even though they admit that the Scottish Government could hold such an inquiry. (...)
In their letter to campaigners on a potential probe into the bomber's conviction, ministers said: "The government has no plans to initiate an inquiry on this issue."
It added: "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."
But the inquiry was ruled out because the government "does not doubt" the safety of Megrahi's conviction. Megrahi has already had one appeal against his 2001 conviction rejected.
A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Megrahi in 2009. Soon afterwards, he was freed on compassionate grounds due to terminal prostate cancer. He remains alive today at home in Libya.
A statement released by the Justice for Megrahi Committee said: "We have a Scottish Government with the power and resources to mount an inquiry that could provide at least some of the answers and it chooses to fall back on well-worn excuses and effectively abrogates responsibility for ascertaining the truth about one of the biggest terrorist outrages ever committed anywhere in the world."
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Another opportunity to see Lockerbie - Unfinished Business
Actor and Justice for Megrahi supporter David Benson is to give a performance of his Edinburgh Festival Fringe award-winning play Lockerbie - Unfinished Business on 11 February at 7.30pm at Bedford School Theatre. An interview with David Benson about the play can be read here.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Further consideration of Justice for Megrahi petition
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee will consider the Scottish Government's response to the Justice for Megrahi petition and the petitioners' written observations on that response at its next meeting on Tuesday, 25 January. The meeting starts at 2pm, but this agenda item will probably be reached at around 4pm.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Despicable...
[This is the heading over a report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm recording Dr Jim Swire's personal reaction to the Scottish Government's letter to the Public Petitions Committee responding to the petition seeking an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads as follows:]
My first and personal reaction to the Scottish Government's (SG's) reply to the Holyrood Petitions Committee's presentation of JFM's petition to the SG is to feel shame.
Shame that we in Scotland should have been reduced to listening to reasoning which seems not to have any merit other than a blatant desire by deep and powerful groups within our body politic to try to protect themselves against exposure of the monstrous mistakes which seem to have been made in the past, chiefly surrounding the Zeist conviction of Baset Al-Megrahi.
The SG claims to have total faith in the verdict reached at Zeist despite our own SCCRC having no such confidence.
They seek to lay responsibility for the present impasse upon the shoulders of the man who they proclaim unquestioningly to believe to be the most brutal mass murderer ever to inflict his deeds upon our nation.
They even seek to blame the absence of successful appeals thus far, not upon the quality of the evidence and proceedings, but upon the decisions which the alleged mass murderer himself made, namely the decision not to speak for himself in court at Zeist, and later, in the face of a lingering and painful death (as well as subsequent representations by his own dictatorial government and a visit by the SG's own Justice Minister), to withdraw his second appeal.
How could a defendant from an alien culture be expected to ignore the advice of his own expert defence team of the day at Zeist, steeped as they supposedly were in the antecedents of Scottish law, and working as they must be presumed to have been for his advantage? The performance of his then defence team, and thus the advice not to speak in court, must itself be part of any inquiry into how this man came to be convicted, and the verdict reached, on such evidence.
As for the decision to withdraw his second appeal, this was reached following disgraceful and deliberate delaying tactics in the High Court by the Crown Office team, which knew that the appellant's time was running out in the face of an inexorable, painful and terminal medical condition. The Crown Office conduct of the second appeal, far from being a secure tool in justification of the validity of the original verdict is another aspect of the despicable way in which our nation has treated this man's case: it too should be added to any full inquiry into the verdict and its consequences.
Despicable!
The SG's Justice Secretary had responsibility for the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The SG cannot for one moment argue against the desperate situation he and they knew him to be in.
And what have they done to bolster this whole dishonest process? They have sought to isolate the material used by the SCCRC when evaluating the safety of the verdict, by introducing secondary legislation in February 2010, clearly designed to keep that material out of the reach of all who would challenge the propriety of their own position.
Through the SCCRC, the legal arm of government has told the political arm of Government and the rest of us as clearly as its constitution allows, that this verdict is considered unsafe. The SG knows that, yet in its desperation to conceal what looks like the failure of many of the servants of this State, the best it can do is to claim that the actions taken by a frightened and dying human being from a different culture justify it's own actions.
The SG has also now admitted that its original claim that it lacked the powers to mount an inquiry (such as that requested through petition by JFM), was untrue. Multiple 'reasons' seeking to justify avoiding taking an action inevitably become just excuses. When some of those 'reasons' turn out to have been untrue, any claim to integrity is also lost.
Whence then stems the SG's belief that the verdict is safe? Does it stem from Westminster? Or from Washington? It simply cannot stem from our own legal system. So much for Scotland's integrity and independence.
Oh! shame.
If ever there could be further reason to seek review of this case, it lies within this SG document. Any attempt to ascribe motivation for such behaviour points down the very same road as the McKie case and a number of others: the objective of Scotland's Government and some of those who work for it seems to have become to conceal the depths of failure into which we the electorate have, thus far, allowed them to sink.
My first and personal reaction to the Scottish Government's (SG's) reply to the Holyrood Petitions Committee's presentation of JFM's petition to the SG is to feel shame.
Shame that we in Scotland should have been reduced to listening to reasoning which seems not to have any merit other than a blatant desire by deep and powerful groups within our body politic to try to protect themselves against exposure of the monstrous mistakes which seem to have been made in the past, chiefly surrounding the Zeist conviction of Baset Al-Megrahi.
The SG claims to have total faith in the verdict reached at Zeist despite our own SCCRC having no such confidence.
They seek to lay responsibility for the present impasse upon the shoulders of the man who they proclaim unquestioningly to believe to be the most brutal mass murderer ever to inflict his deeds upon our nation.
They even seek to blame the absence of successful appeals thus far, not upon the quality of the evidence and proceedings, but upon the decisions which the alleged mass murderer himself made, namely the decision not to speak for himself in court at Zeist, and later, in the face of a lingering and painful death (as well as subsequent representations by his own dictatorial government and a visit by the SG's own Justice Minister), to withdraw his second appeal.
How could a defendant from an alien culture be expected to ignore the advice of his own expert defence team of the day at Zeist, steeped as they supposedly were in the antecedents of Scottish law, and working as they must be presumed to have been for his advantage? The performance of his then defence team, and thus the advice not to speak in court, must itself be part of any inquiry into how this man came to be convicted, and the verdict reached, on such evidence.
As for the decision to withdraw his second appeal, this was reached following disgraceful and deliberate delaying tactics in the High Court by the Crown Office team, which knew that the appellant's time was running out in the face of an inexorable, painful and terminal medical condition. The Crown Office conduct of the second appeal, far from being a secure tool in justification of the validity of the original verdict is another aspect of the despicable way in which our nation has treated this man's case: it too should be added to any full inquiry into the verdict and its consequences.
Despicable!
The SG's Justice Secretary had responsibility for the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The SG cannot for one moment argue against the desperate situation he and they knew him to be in.
And what have they done to bolster this whole dishonest process? They have sought to isolate the material used by the SCCRC when evaluating the safety of the verdict, by introducing secondary legislation in February 2010, clearly designed to keep that material out of the reach of all who would challenge the propriety of their own position.
Through the SCCRC, the legal arm of government has told the political arm of Government and the rest of us as clearly as its constitution allows, that this verdict is considered unsafe. The SG knows that, yet in its desperation to conceal what looks like the failure of many of the servants of this State, the best it can do is to claim that the actions taken by a frightened and dying human being from a different culture justify it's own actions.
The SG has also now admitted that its original claim that it lacked the powers to mount an inquiry (such as that requested through petition by JFM), was untrue. Multiple 'reasons' seeking to justify avoiding taking an action inevitably become just excuses. When some of those 'reasons' turn out to have been untrue, any claim to integrity is also lost.
Whence then stems the SG's belief that the verdict is safe? Does it stem from Westminster? Or from Washington? It simply cannot stem from our own legal system. So much for Scotland's integrity and independence.
Oh! shame.
If ever there could be further reason to seek review of this case, it lies within this SG document. Any attempt to ascribe motivation for such behaviour points down the very same road as the McKie case and a number of others: the objective of Scotland's Government and some of those who work for it seems to have become to conceal the depths of failure into which we the electorate have, thus far, allowed them to sink.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
... this is grubby stuff
[The following is an excerpt from an item posted earlier today by bensix (a frequent commentator on this site) on his blog Back Towards The Locus.]
Those of you who’ve followed my pieces on Lockerbie may not be too surprised to hear that there’s been no real progress. In a culture of frenetic, fevered news updates one might imagine that important things can be distinguished by how much airtime and column space they’re given. This is a bit like thinking you can winkle out the deepest insecurities of a person as they’ll always talk about them.
Anyway, the Scottish Government first claimed they didn’t have the power to hold an inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction. Now, as hundreds of people and the Scots [Public] Petitions Committee echo Justice for Megrahi's call they’ve admitted that they do have the power to – just not enough for it to be effective. And besides, they add, perhaps thinking if no one’s called their bluff so far they’ll get away with anything, “the Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi".
Alas ... not only was the verdict based on meagre and largely discredited evidence, it was disputed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. And if the SCCRC could reach that bold conclusion with the power it wields why can’t the Scottish government? It’s akin to a hulking bodybuilder moaning that he can’t possibly lift a weight while his younger brother gaily juggles with it in the background. Even if the verdict was sincere this is grubby stuff.
Those of you who’ve followed my pieces on Lockerbie may not be too surprised to hear that there’s been no real progress. In a culture of frenetic, fevered news updates one might imagine that important things can be distinguished by how much airtime and column space they’re given. This is a bit like thinking you can winkle out the deepest insecurities of a person as they’ll always talk about them.
Anyway, the Scottish Government first claimed they didn’t have the power to hold an inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction. Now, as hundreds of people and the Scots [Public] Petitions Committee echo Justice for Megrahi's call they’ve admitted that they do have the power to – just not enough for it to be effective. And besides, they add, perhaps thinking if no one’s called their bluff so far they’ll get away with anything, “the Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi".
Alas ... not only was the verdict based on meagre and largely discredited evidence, it was disputed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. And if the SCCRC could reach that bold conclusion with the power it wields why can’t the Scottish government? It’s akin to a hulking bodybuilder moaning that he can’t possibly lift a weight while his younger brother gaily juggles with it in the background. Even if the verdict was sincere this is grubby stuff.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Justice for Megrahi's reaction to Scottish Government's response to petition
The text of Justice for Megrahi's written response to the Scottish Government's letter to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee about the petition calling for an independent inquiry into Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction, is to be found here on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The accompanying news item can be read here.
Christine Grahame MSP returns to the charge
Following the uninformative answer to her earlier Parliamentary Question regarding the Scottish Government's intention to remove the SCCRC consent requirement by primary legislation rather than simply by Statutory Instrument, Christine Grahame MSP (SNP) seeks clarification with the following written questions:
S3W-38797 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities would have to be taken into account whether the order were amended by primary legislation or by statutory instrument.
S3W-38798 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it can confirm that considerations in relation to data protection legislation are not relevant in this case given that section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ensures that, where Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission disclosure is permitted by means of a statutory order, "the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section."
S3W-38799 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it intends to bring forward primary legislation and, if so, whether it will specify the reasons for so doing rather than amending the order by means of a new statutory instrument.
S3W-38797 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities would have to be taken into account whether the order were amended by primary legislation or by statutory instrument.
S3W-38798 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it can confirm that considerations in relation to data protection legislation are not relevant in this case given that section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ensures that, where Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission disclosure is permitted by means of a statutory order, "the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section."
S3W-38799 Christine Grahame: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it intends to bring forward primary legislation and, if so, whether it will specify the reasons for so doing rather than amending the order by means of a new statutory instrument.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Responses to Debra J Saunders
On 28 December 2010 the San Francisco Chronicle published an article by conservative columnist Debra J Saunders headlined "Libya, Lockerbie and commercial warfare" which I referred to at the time in this post. Today on his blog The Lockerbie Divide Caustic Logic publishes two responses to Ms Saunders's article, one from Michael Follon and one from Caustic Logic himself. They can be read here.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Scottish Government obfuscation over removal of SCCRC consent requirement
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a further statutory instrument amending the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009 to delete Article 2(b). (S3W-38294)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to publish a statement of reasons in cases where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the Commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. (11 January 2011)
[What Christine Grahame was seeking to discover was why the Scottish Government was proposing primary legislation (ie an Act of the Scottish Parliament) to remove the requirement in the 2009 Disclosure Order that the suppliers of information to the SCCRC had to consent to its release, when the requirement itself had been imposed by secondary legislation (ie a Statutory Instrument) and could be removed in precisely the same way. Kenny MacAskill signally fails to answer that question.
The reference in the written answer to convention rights and international obligations is entirely superfluous: such rights would continue to apply whether the consent requirement were removed by primary or secondary legislation. The reference to data protection is a complete red herring. Section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (an Act of the UK Parliament) specifically provides that where SCCRC disclosure is permitted by a Statutory Instrument (inter alia) "the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) ..." This means that UK data protection legislation, or any other legislative or common law obligation of secrecy, is no bar to disclosure. (The references in the 1995 Act to the Secretary of State and to the UK Parliament must now, by virtue of the general transfer of powers provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, be read as references to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament respectively.)]
Mr Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Government intends to bring forward legislation to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to publish a statement of reasons in cases where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the Commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. (11 January 2011)
[What Christine Grahame was seeking to discover was why the Scottish Government was proposing primary legislation (ie an Act of the Scottish Parliament) to remove the requirement in the 2009 Disclosure Order that the suppliers of information to the SCCRC had to consent to its release, when the requirement itself had been imposed by secondary legislation (ie a Statutory Instrument) and could be removed in precisely the same way. Kenny MacAskill signally fails to answer that question.
The reference in the written answer to convention rights and international obligations is entirely superfluous: such rights would continue to apply whether the consent requirement were removed by primary or secondary legislation. The reference to data protection is a complete red herring. Section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (an Act of the UK Parliament) specifically provides that where SCCRC disclosure is permitted by a Statutory Instrument (inter alia) "the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) ..." This means that UK data protection legislation, or any other legislative or common law obligation of secrecy, is no bar to disclosure. (The references in the 1995 Act to the Secretary of State and to the UK Parliament must now, by virtue of the general transfer of powers provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, be read as references to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament respectively.)]
Negotiation of the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement
Monday, 10 January 2011
Wafer-thin pretext for inaction
The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm runs on its website today an article containing the full text of the Scottish Government's belated response to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on the Justice for Megrahi petition, along with a reaction from me.
Massacre of the innocents? Flaws in US justice
[This is the heading over a recent article on the AskWhy! Blogger website, principally about the Innocence Project which campaigns to overturn miscarriages of justice in the United States (the UK equivalent is the Innocence Network). The article reads in part:]
Much US justice, especially in emotion loaded cases, is concerned with having a victim, not catching the real criminal. People want to feel exonerated that someone, anyone, has been punished for what they think is a heinous crime. A conviction will convince them the punishment is just, though they have no idea of the strength of the evidence presented.
That is so in the Lockerbie case, the destruction of an airliner for which Abdul Baset Al Megrahi was convicted. The case against him is extremely thin, and looks to have been brought because it suited the US authorities to pin the outrage on to Libya. The conviction does not look just, and unless justice is seen to be done, no one should pretend it is just.
Much US justice, especially in emotion loaded cases, is concerned with having a victim, not catching the real criminal. People want to feel exonerated that someone, anyone, has been punished for what they think is a heinous crime. A conviction will convince them the punishment is just, though they have no idea of the strength of the evidence presented.
That is so in the Lockerbie case, the destruction of an airliner for which Abdul Baset Al Megrahi was convicted. The case against him is extremely thin, and looks to have been brought because it suited the US authorities to pin the outrage on to Libya. The conviction does not look just, and unless justice is seen to be done, no one should pretend it is just.
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Megrahi inquiry delay sparks anger
[This is the headline over an article by Bob Smyth in today's edition of The Sunday Post. It does not appear on the newspaper's vestigial website. The article reads as follows:]
The Scottish Government has been criticised over its dealings with an influential parliamentary committee.
Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee finally received answers over ministers' refusal to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie case on Friday -- a month after the deadline.
The response came after The Sunday Post quizzed the Scottish Government on the delay.
Before the late reply arrived, the campaigners behind the petition slammed the hold-up and a member of the committee also hit out.
Justice for Megrahi, who believe bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, have demanded the inquiry.
The campaigners met the committee on November 9 to highlight their petition calling for a probe into the bombing and the conviction of Megrahi. The group includes Lockerbie relatives, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, TV journalist Kate Adie, retired politician Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black, who was central to the setting up of the Lockerbie trial.
The Scottish Government has always refused an inquiry, saying it's beyond their jurisdiction.
Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester said, "We want them to have an inquiry about the matters that come under Scotiish jurisdiction, such as the police investigation, Megrahi's trial and appeal and his release. (...)
"They were supposed to respond to the committee by December 10 but didn't."
Committee member Cathie Craigie [MSP, Labour] said, "It's very concerning if the Scottish Government is not engaging with the proper process and responding within the timescale. They have an army of civil servants."
The Scottish Government reply said, "The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system -- inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place.
"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."
Legal expert Professor Robert Black said, "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 the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
"There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence."
The Scottish Government has been criticised over its dealings with an influential parliamentary committee.
Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee finally received answers over ministers' refusal to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie case on Friday -- a month after the deadline.
The response came after The Sunday Post quizzed the Scottish Government on the delay.
Before the late reply arrived, the campaigners behind the petition slammed the hold-up and a member of the committee also hit out.
Justice for Megrahi, who believe bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, have demanded the inquiry.
The campaigners met the committee on November 9 to highlight their petition calling for a probe into the bombing and the conviction of Megrahi. The group includes Lockerbie relatives, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, TV journalist Kate Adie, retired politician Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black, who was central to the setting up of the Lockerbie trial.
The Scottish Government has always refused an inquiry, saying it's beyond their jurisdiction.
Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester said, "We want them to have an inquiry about the matters that come under Scotiish jurisdiction, such as the police investigation, Megrahi's trial and appeal and his release. (...)
"They were supposed to respond to the committee by December 10 but didn't."
Committee member Cathie Craigie [MSP, Labour] said, "It's very concerning if the Scottish Government is not engaging with the proper process and responding within the timescale. They have an army of civil servants."
The Scottish Government reply said, "The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system -- inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place.
"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."
Legal expert Professor Robert Black said, "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 the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
"There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)