Saturday, 5 February 2011
Noordkaap, hier kom ek!
My next post on this blog (not before the evening of 7 Febnuary) will be from the tiny settlement of Middelpos in the Northern Cape, South Africa. My internet connection there is painfully slow (and cannot be upgraded) which makes trawling the internet and the blogosphere difficult. I would therefore be grateful for any references to Lockerbie-related news items that readers care to send to me. But no large attachments, please, which take an eternity to download.
Christine Grahame on the WikiLeaks Megrahi cables
The SNP's Christine Grahame MSP was interviewed on this morning's edition of BBC Radio Scotland's Newsweek Scotland programme about the WikiLeaks cables relating to the UK Labour Government's attitude in the run-up to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation. Richard Baker MSP, the legal affairs spokesman of the Labour Party in Scotland was "not available" to take part and the party declined to provide a substitute. The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer.
Friday, 4 February 2011
Lockerbie’s hidden witness
[I am grateful to Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph for allowing me to reproduce the following extract from their unpublished book Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.]
Not contained in Harry Bell’s diaries, but held on police files, was information concerning a David Wright, a second identification witness to the purchase of clothes in Gauci’s shop.
On 6th November 1989 the BBC Six O’Clock News showed footage which mentioned for the first time that a suitcase containing the bomb was introduced in Malta. Images of Gauci’s shop Mary’s House were displayed. The commentary mentioned fragments of clothes found at the crash site, and that they had been purchased from Mary’s House by an Arab man. Watching the programme was a regular visitor to Malta, Mr David Wright.
A week later Wright contacted Dumfries and Galloway police. One month later, on 18th December 1989 he signed a statement. He claimed that he was a frequent visitor to Malta and a friend of Tony Gauci. He would spend time in Tony’s shop. During one of his visits made between 28th October and the 28th of November 1988 he was in the shop when two men entered saying they were interested in purchasing some clothes. With Gauci offering guidance they proceeded to buy various items of clothing. They were smartly dressed, one wore a dark suit and he had swarthy skin. Both were aged over forty-five years. They spoke English, said they were Libyan, and were staying at the Holiday Inn. During the purchase, Wright recalls Gauci boasting that he could tell the size of people just by looking at them.
Wright gave descriptions of the two men, neither of which matched the accused al-Megrahi. He said that he subsequently recognised the younger of the two men from a TV programme when the man appeared as a spokesman for the Libyan government. Wright claimed that Gauci later described the two as “Libyan Pigs”. Wright told the police that when he spoke to Gauci around the time of the BBC News broadcast, Gauci appeared not to remember the event.
The SCCRC traced the police records of Wright’s contacts and interviews. His statement was initially flagged by the police for action on 18th December 1989, but changed to “filed” on 13th February 1990. Seventeen years later, on 5th December 2007 Wright was interviewed by officers of the SCCRC and signed an affidavit restating all of his previous account.
The key feature of Wright’s statement is the date of the purchase. The Crown made much of al-Megrahi’s presence in Malta on 7th December 1988. And that day was chosen by the judges as the most likely, seemingly on the premise that unproved inferences elsewhere in the Crown case indicated that al-Megrahi was the culprit. Yet if Wright’s statement is correct, the purchase must have been on a different day, possibly but not necessarily the 23rd November. Whatever day it was, al-Megrahi could not have been one of the purchasers, since his passport records showed that he was not in Malta on any of the days when Wright was present.
Wright’s statement was given to the Dumfries and Galloway police at the height of their investigations led by Harry Bell and DCI Gilchrist. “The most intense police investigation in Scottish legal history” was daily news throughout the force. It seems to me inconceivable that the police officer or officers recording Wright’s statement were unaware that it was a critical link in the chain of evidence. I have no doubt that they sought advice from senior officers.
There are, therefore, serious questions that must be put to those who recorded Wright’s statement and filed it. Who did you inform about the David Wright statement? Were they aware of its content? What instructions did they give you as to what to do with the statement? When the decision was taken to file the statement and not include it in the Lockerbie evidence file, who took that decision? Was that person Harry Bell or DCI Gilchrist? Unfortunately, without a second appeal or further inquiry into Lockerbie, these questions will never be addressed. The public and the judges will remain unaware of their significance, and yet another element of Scottish justice will remain corrupted.
Wright’s statement remained undisturbed in police archives for eighteen years. The trial and appeal judges and the defence team were unaware of its existence.* We can though be sure that if the defence had been aware of Wright’s statement they would have invited him to give evidence. And if credible he would have contradicted Gauci’s recollection of events. Stronger cross examination of Gauci would have followed which almost certainly would have changed the direction of the trial. Yet the information was never revealed by the Scottish Crown. It was a clear breach of the Lord Advocate’s duty to disclose the statement to the defence and the court, and raises serious doubts concerning the integrity of the entire investigation.**
*SCCRC disclosures and Grounds of Appeal page 143.
**Ibid pages 142 – 148.
Not contained in Harry Bell’s diaries, but held on police files, was information concerning a David Wright, a second identification witness to the purchase of clothes in Gauci’s shop.
On 6th November 1989 the BBC Six O’Clock News showed footage which mentioned for the first time that a suitcase containing the bomb was introduced in Malta. Images of Gauci’s shop Mary’s House were displayed. The commentary mentioned fragments of clothes found at the crash site, and that they had been purchased from Mary’s House by an Arab man. Watching the programme was a regular visitor to Malta, Mr David Wright.
A week later Wright contacted Dumfries and Galloway police. One month later, on 18th December 1989 he signed a statement. He claimed that he was a frequent visitor to Malta and a friend of Tony Gauci. He would spend time in Tony’s shop. During one of his visits made between 28th October and the 28th of November 1988 he was in the shop when two men entered saying they were interested in purchasing some clothes. With Gauci offering guidance they proceeded to buy various items of clothing. They were smartly dressed, one wore a dark suit and he had swarthy skin. Both were aged over forty-five years. They spoke English, said they were Libyan, and were staying at the Holiday Inn. During the purchase, Wright recalls Gauci boasting that he could tell the size of people just by looking at them.
Wright gave descriptions of the two men, neither of which matched the accused al-Megrahi. He said that he subsequently recognised the younger of the two men from a TV programme when the man appeared as a spokesman for the Libyan government. Wright claimed that Gauci later described the two as “Libyan Pigs”. Wright told the police that when he spoke to Gauci around the time of the BBC News broadcast, Gauci appeared not to remember the event.
The SCCRC traced the police records of Wright’s contacts and interviews. His statement was initially flagged by the police for action on 18th December 1989, but changed to “filed” on 13th February 1990. Seventeen years later, on 5th December 2007 Wright was interviewed by officers of the SCCRC and signed an affidavit restating all of his previous account.
The key feature of Wright’s statement is the date of the purchase. The Crown made much of al-Megrahi’s presence in Malta on 7th December 1988. And that day was chosen by the judges as the most likely, seemingly on the premise that unproved inferences elsewhere in the Crown case indicated that al-Megrahi was the culprit. Yet if Wright’s statement is correct, the purchase must have been on a different day, possibly but not necessarily the 23rd November. Whatever day it was, al-Megrahi could not have been one of the purchasers, since his passport records showed that he was not in Malta on any of the days when Wright was present.
Wright’s statement was given to the Dumfries and Galloway police at the height of their investigations led by Harry Bell and DCI Gilchrist. “The most intense police investigation in Scottish legal history” was daily news throughout the force. It seems to me inconceivable that the police officer or officers recording Wright’s statement were unaware that it was a critical link in the chain of evidence. I have no doubt that they sought advice from senior officers.
There are, therefore, serious questions that must be put to those who recorded Wright’s statement and filed it. Who did you inform about the David Wright statement? Were they aware of its content? What instructions did they give you as to what to do with the statement? When the decision was taken to file the statement and not include it in the Lockerbie evidence file, who took that decision? Was that person Harry Bell or DCI Gilchrist? Unfortunately, without a second appeal or further inquiry into Lockerbie, these questions will never be addressed. The public and the judges will remain unaware of their significance, and yet another element of Scottish justice will remain corrupted.
Wright’s statement remained undisturbed in police archives for eighteen years. The trial and appeal judges and the defence team were unaware of its existence.* We can though be sure that if the defence had been aware of Wright’s statement they would have invited him to give evidence. And if credible he would have contradicted Gauci’s recollection of events. Stronger cross examination of Gauci would have followed which almost certainly would have changed the direction of the trial. Yet the information was never revealed by the Scottish Crown. It was a clear breach of the Lord Advocate’s duty to disclose the statement to the defence and the court, and raises serious doubts concerning the integrity of the entire investigation.**
*SCCRC disclosures and Grounds of Appeal page 143.
**Ibid pages 142 – 148.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
We need independent Megrahi inquiry
[This is the heading over a letter from Bob Taylor published in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
The quest for the truth over the background to the Lockerbie bomber's release goes on (your report, 2 February).
But I don't think we should hold out a lot of hope that all relevant documents will be put in the public domain.
Head of the civil service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, recently refused to disclose notes of discussions between Tony Blair and George W Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war on grounds of diplomatic sensitivity.
A similar impasse is likely to occur over the whole question of freeing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The fact that intensive discussions took place at Foreign Office diplomatic level and between the Scottish and United Kingdom governments at civil service level should surprise no-one.
How else could the prisoner be flown back to Libya within an hour of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's formal announcement that he was to be sent back to Libya?
The amount of preparation for this, in terms of security alone, must have been enormous.
But it does not negate this simple point: the geopolitical aspects were a matter for the UK government; the question of the conviction, incarceration and release were a matter for the Scottish Government.
What discussions went on between civil servants and diplomats behind the scenes will be of interest no doubt to students of government. In the end a Holyrood minister had to make a decision following advice. The case for a full inquiry into all aspects of the case remains a strong one.
It is for the United Nations or some other appropriate international body to carry it out. It would not just help dispel much of the lingering anxiety.
It would help lift the debate to a more important level than whether Megrahi should die at home or in Greenock Prison.
[Why not a Scottish inquiry? The investigation of the crime and the prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi were all Scottish. It was the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that after an exhaustive domestic and international investigation concluded, on six grounds, that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. If the Scottish criminal justice system has convicted an innocent man, isn't it for the Scottish Government to take the appropriate action to rectify this? Or do we Scots really need an international nanny to rectify our domestic mistakes?
I have just become aware of a letter from Brian A D Mann in yesterday's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Forget the leaks, we still need to know if Megrahi’s conviction was safe
Once again we must be grateful to Wikileaks for revealing the duplicity of governments and politicians (“UK ‘advised Libya on release of Megrahi’”, The Herald, February 1). The latest leak of inter-government papers confirms what many of us have long suspected – the UK Labour Government was directly and actively involved in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Despite claiming they had played no part in the Libyan’s release and stating that it was entirely the decision of the Scottish Parliament, it is now clear that UK Government ministers and officials were very much involved and actually advised Colonel Muammar Gaddafi how to achieve the release on compassionate grounds, exploiting the Scottish justice system’s position on this and quoting chapter and verse of the relevant (UK) Act. A Foreign Office minister wrote to his opposite number in Tripoli and Foreign Office officials met the US Ambassador to explain the situation.
Don’t tell me that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were unaware of these under-the-counter communications. Remember that the whole problem began with Mr Blair’s original rash action in signing a prisoner transfer agreement with Col Gaddafi, without realising that Megrahi’s release was not in his direct gift.
Yet Labour spokesmen constantly made public statements that their government played no part in the release. Instead they were happy to let Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government take all the flak and scurrilous accusations from the US and around the world. Thanks to Wikileaks we now know the UK Government was actively involved and that the US government itself was fully briefed and well aware of the Foreign Office’s contacts with Libya.
The sad thing is that all this political chicanery has again diverted attention from the real issue of whether Megrahi’s conviction was safe, and in fact if he had anything at all to do with the Lockerbie bombing. No wonder the UK and US governments have refused to reveal the relevant documents, as we now know that these will prove their knowledge and active involvement in the whole affair.
Let’s hope that the next set of leaked documents will prove that the CIA bribed the key witness with $2m, and also disclose information about the fragment of detonator mysteriously found by US agents in a Scottish field six months after the disaster. It’s time Megrahi’s second appeal was re-opened whatever the legal difficulties, or a full public enquiry was set up. Justice must be seen to be done, and that is more important than political reputations.
The quest for the truth over the background to the Lockerbie bomber's release goes on (your report, 2 February).
But I don't think we should hold out a lot of hope that all relevant documents will be put in the public domain.
Head of the civil service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, recently refused to disclose notes of discussions between Tony Blair and George W Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war on grounds of diplomatic sensitivity.
A similar impasse is likely to occur over the whole question of freeing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The fact that intensive discussions took place at Foreign Office diplomatic level and between the Scottish and United Kingdom governments at civil service level should surprise no-one.
How else could the prisoner be flown back to Libya within an hour of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's formal announcement that he was to be sent back to Libya?
The amount of preparation for this, in terms of security alone, must have been enormous.
But it does not negate this simple point: the geopolitical aspects were a matter for the UK government; the question of the conviction, incarceration and release were a matter for the Scottish Government.
What discussions went on between civil servants and diplomats behind the scenes will be of interest no doubt to students of government. In the end a Holyrood minister had to make a decision following advice. The case for a full inquiry into all aspects of the case remains a strong one.
It is for the United Nations or some other appropriate international body to carry it out. It would not just help dispel much of the lingering anxiety.
It would help lift the debate to a more important level than whether Megrahi should die at home or in Greenock Prison.
[Why not a Scottish inquiry? The investigation of the crime and the prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi were all Scottish. It was the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that after an exhaustive domestic and international investigation concluded, on six grounds, that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. If the Scottish criminal justice system has convicted an innocent man, isn't it for the Scottish Government to take the appropriate action to rectify this? Or do we Scots really need an international nanny to rectify our domestic mistakes?
I have just become aware of a letter from Brian A D Mann in yesterday's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
Forget the leaks, we still need to know if Megrahi’s conviction was safe
Once again we must be grateful to Wikileaks for revealing the duplicity of governments and politicians (“UK ‘advised Libya on release of Megrahi’”, The Herald, February 1). The latest leak of inter-government papers confirms what many of us have long suspected – the UK Labour Government was directly and actively involved in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Despite claiming they had played no part in the Libyan’s release and stating that it was entirely the decision of the Scottish Parliament, it is now clear that UK Government ministers and officials were very much involved and actually advised Colonel Muammar Gaddafi how to achieve the release on compassionate grounds, exploiting the Scottish justice system’s position on this and quoting chapter and verse of the relevant (UK) Act. A Foreign Office minister wrote to his opposite number in Tripoli and Foreign Office officials met the US Ambassador to explain the situation.
Don’t tell me that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were unaware of these under-the-counter communications. Remember that the whole problem began with Mr Blair’s original rash action in signing a prisoner transfer agreement with Col Gaddafi, without realising that Megrahi’s release was not in his direct gift.
Yet Labour spokesmen constantly made public statements that their government played no part in the release. Instead they were happy to let Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government take all the flak and scurrilous accusations from the US and around the world. Thanks to Wikileaks we now know the UK Government was actively involved and that the US government itself was fully briefed and well aware of the Foreign Office’s contacts with Libya.
The sad thing is that all this political chicanery has again diverted attention from the real issue of whether Megrahi’s conviction was safe, and in fact if he had anything at all to do with the Lockerbie bombing. No wonder the UK and US governments have refused to reveal the relevant documents, as we now know that these will prove their knowledge and active involvement in the whole affair.
Let’s hope that the next set of leaked documents will prove that the CIA bribed the key witness with $2m, and also disclose information about the fragment of detonator mysteriously found by US agents in a Scottish field six months after the disaster. It’s time Megrahi’s second appeal was re-opened whatever the legal difficulties, or a full public enquiry was set up. Justice must be seen to be done, and that is more important than political reputations.
Letters to The Daily Telegraph editor
[Immediately following the publication in The Daily Telegraph of the WikiLeaks cables about the UK Government's attitude towards Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, letters to the newspaper's editor were written by Benedict Birnberg and by Dr Jim Swire. The Telegraph website does not reveal whether these letters were published. But they read as follows:]
Of course, as you urge, David Cameron should honour his pledge to publish all the official papers relating to Megrahi's release. But realpolitik first came into the case not with his release but with his arraignment for trial and conviction in the first place. It was a scandalous miscarriage of justice involving both the British and the US Governments, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has suggested. What should be published are not only the official papers relating to Megrahi's release but those, UK and American, relating to the trial and conviction. Only then will the "disturbingly murky" affair, as you so aptly describe it, be exposed for all to see, not least for the families of the 270 victims who have waited 22 years for the truth to begin to emerge.
Benedict Birnberg
[Mr Birnberg's letter has been published. It can be read here.]
From the time when Tony Blair's 'deal in the desert' with Gaddafi became known it has seemed clear that it was in fact a swap: Guaranteed work in the Libyan oilfields for BP against the return of Libyan intelligence officer Megrahi in time to be the cherry on the icing of the Colonel's 40th anniversary in power in September 2009.
Reneging would have meant losing not only BP's advantage but loss of much of the rest of the hard won commercial and diplomatic advances made since the dark days of 1980s terrorism. This extensive threat confirmed in Wikileaks explains the extraordinary behaviour of Jack Straw in overriding the request of the HoC joint committee on human rights in order to get the Prisoner Transfer Agreement(PTA) with Libya up and running before the Libyan deadline.
Those with knowledge of Libya's record on human rights will see at once why that committee had legitimate interest in an agreement which allows the UK government to repatriate a Libyan prisoner even against his wishes.
What Prime Minister Blair seemed not to have taken into account (apart from the small matter of the wishes of the relatives) was that the PTA might not be applied to prisoners in Scotland, and was barred to those with ongoing legal processes.
Hurried reference to Scottish 'compassionate release' must have seemed to offer a politically defensible escape route, which did not even require Megrahi to withdraw his then current appeal.
To this sick man in an alien prison came a delegation from the Libyan Government, then the Scottish justice minister. Days later Megrahi withdrew his appeal and was repatriated. Presumably he was told by the Colonel's men to withdraw his appeal, thus hoping to open the PTA as a second route home, in addition to that of compassionate release (for which the appeal was irrelevant).
The ensuing howls from the US may have surprised UK and Scottish politicians but illustrated the remarkable political clout still wielded by the US Lockerbie relatives and their senators.
No matter how the commercial advantages of this solution for the UK/BP may be balanced against the political fallout for the Anglo/US special relationship, there is no doubt that withdrawing the appeal was a grievous blow for those who still seek the truth over Lockerbie.
Many believe that the atrocity was not caused by a bomb from Malta, nor by the hand of Megrahi, but more likely through an initially uninvestigated break-in to the relevant area of Heathrow airport the night before the disaster, the existence of which was concealed from Megrahi's trial court. The failure to identify who had broken in or why, at a time of heightened terrorist risk and specific threats against Pan Am seems prima facie to be astonishingly irresponsible. Yet there has been no objective inquiry.
Alex Salmond's Scottish government is currently still refusing any inquiry into the verdict against Megrahi. Yet they know that Scotland's Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) after three years study believed that his trial might be a miscarriage of justice. Salmond's government has produced no justification for its deviation from the SCCRC's findings. The SCCRC is a uniquely independent body, the only vehicle in Scotland designed to question criminal verdicts. David Cameron has also claimed to be confident that the verdict is correct, routinely referring to Megrahi as 'the Lockerbie bomber'.
What if that is not true: what if he is innocent? Would it not be of greater importance to review that verdict, rather than try to distribute blame among those who decided to free him?
It looks increasingly likely that those who do not accept that the verdict should remain unchallenged may have to take a legal route to gain access to their human rights: requests to every single Prime Minister by UK relatives since 1988 up to and including David Cameron for an independent inquiry have been rejected.
In the winter of 1990/91 a Scottish Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) in Dumfries found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK at all relevant times. The FAI court was told to assume that the bomb had been flown to Heathrow from Frankfurt, the background to this belief being 'out of bounds' as it was the territory of the then active ongoing Scottish criminal investigation.
Of course the FAI court knew nothing of the Heathrow break-in any more than Megrahi's trial court did 10 years later.
We, relatives of the dead, have a right under human-rights legislation, extant in our country, to know why our loved ones were not protected by the responsible UK authorities of the day, and to know as much of the truth as can be found about who killed them. It also appears that the UK's Supreme Court acknowledges that it has a responsibility to ensure that the UK Government operates within its obligation to uphold the human rights of its subjects at all times.
Dr Jim Swire
Of course, as you urge, David Cameron should honour his pledge to publish all the official papers relating to Megrahi's release. But realpolitik first came into the case not with his release but with his arraignment for trial and conviction in the first place. It was a scandalous miscarriage of justice involving both the British and the US Governments, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has suggested. What should be published are not only the official papers relating to Megrahi's release but those, UK and American, relating to the trial and conviction. Only then will the "disturbingly murky" affair, as you so aptly describe it, be exposed for all to see, not least for the families of the 270 victims who have waited 22 years for the truth to begin to emerge.
Benedict Birnberg
[Mr Birnberg's letter has been published. It can be read here.]
From the time when Tony Blair's 'deal in the desert' with Gaddafi became known it has seemed clear that it was in fact a swap: Guaranteed work in the Libyan oilfields for BP against the return of Libyan intelligence officer Megrahi in time to be the cherry on the icing of the Colonel's 40th anniversary in power in September 2009.
Reneging would have meant losing not only BP's advantage but loss of much of the rest of the hard won commercial and diplomatic advances made since the dark days of 1980s terrorism. This extensive threat confirmed in Wikileaks explains the extraordinary behaviour of Jack Straw in overriding the request of the HoC joint committee on human rights in order to get the Prisoner Transfer Agreement(PTA) with Libya up and running before the Libyan deadline.
Those with knowledge of Libya's record on human rights will see at once why that committee had legitimate interest in an agreement which allows the UK government to repatriate a Libyan prisoner even against his wishes.
What Prime Minister Blair seemed not to have taken into account (apart from the small matter of the wishes of the relatives) was that the PTA might not be applied to prisoners in Scotland, and was barred to those with ongoing legal processes.
Hurried reference to Scottish 'compassionate release' must have seemed to offer a politically defensible escape route, which did not even require Megrahi to withdraw his then current appeal.
To this sick man in an alien prison came a delegation from the Libyan Government, then the Scottish justice minister. Days later Megrahi withdrew his appeal and was repatriated. Presumably he was told by the Colonel's men to withdraw his appeal, thus hoping to open the PTA as a second route home, in addition to that of compassionate release (for which the appeal was irrelevant).
The ensuing howls from the US may have surprised UK and Scottish politicians but illustrated the remarkable political clout still wielded by the US Lockerbie relatives and their senators.
No matter how the commercial advantages of this solution for the UK/BP may be balanced against the political fallout for the Anglo/US special relationship, there is no doubt that withdrawing the appeal was a grievous blow for those who still seek the truth over Lockerbie.
Many believe that the atrocity was not caused by a bomb from Malta, nor by the hand of Megrahi, but more likely through an initially uninvestigated break-in to the relevant area of Heathrow airport the night before the disaster, the existence of which was concealed from Megrahi's trial court. The failure to identify who had broken in or why, at a time of heightened terrorist risk and specific threats against Pan Am seems prima facie to be astonishingly irresponsible. Yet there has been no objective inquiry.
Alex Salmond's Scottish government is currently still refusing any inquiry into the verdict against Megrahi. Yet they know that Scotland's Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) after three years study believed that his trial might be a miscarriage of justice. Salmond's government has produced no justification for its deviation from the SCCRC's findings. The SCCRC is a uniquely independent body, the only vehicle in Scotland designed to question criminal verdicts. David Cameron has also claimed to be confident that the verdict is correct, routinely referring to Megrahi as 'the Lockerbie bomber'.
What if that is not true: what if he is innocent? Would it not be of greater importance to review that verdict, rather than try to distribute blame among those who decided to free him?
It looks increasingly likely that those who do not accept that the verdict should remain unchallenged may have to take a legal route to gain access to their human rights: requests to every single Prime Minister by UK relatives since 1988 up to and including David Cameron for an independent inquiry have been rejected.
In the winter of 1990/91 a Scottish Lockerbie Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) in Dumfries found that the disaster had been preventable, and that the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK at all relevant times. The FAI court was told to assume that the bomb had been flown to Heathrow from Frankfurt, the background to this belief being 'out of bounds' as it was the territory of the then active ongoing Scottish criminal investigation.
Of course the FAI court knew nothing of the Heathrow break-in any more than Megrahi's trial court did 10 years later.
We, relatives of the dead, have a right under human-rights legislation, extant in our country, to know why our loved ones were not protected by the responsible UK authorities of the day, and to know as much of the truth as can be found about who killed them. It also appears that the UK's Supreme Court acknowledges that it has a responsibility to ensure that the UK Government operates within its obligation to uphold the human rights of its subjects at all times.
Dr Jim Swire
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
The Megrahi Scandal: part 1
[This is the sub-heading over a leading article by Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review. Part 2 is due to be published tomorrow. The article reads in part:]
During the public discussion between us in the Glasgow Concert Hall last week, Robert Black QC wondered aloud why the SNP, untainted by past association with the Megrahi case, had chosen not to confront this judicial scandal and attempt to correct it.
It is easy to overlook that, when Alex Salmond came to power in May 2007, not quite all his predecessors were removed from office. One unexpectedly clung on. Why the lord advocate, of all people, survived the demise of the former administration is a question for Alex Salmond and his memoirs. It feels in retrospect like one of his few serious political misjudgements: one made when his feet were only just under the table.
It is true that Elish Angiolini's re-appointment was not exactly accompanied by loud rejoicing. Mr Salmond made it clear that she had lost her place at the Scottish cabinet table. That felt like a demotion, for her or her office or both. From that moment, she became an arm's length chief law officer. But, in effect, the retention of her power base was all that mattered: this ultimate insider – lacking any significant experience of the world beyond the Crown Office – was never likely to pursue Lockerbie with the greatest zeal.
Ten years ago this week, a panel of Scottish judges, sitting in the Netherlands without a jury, convicted Megrahi of 270 murders. It says much for the quality of the judgement that, in its first sentence, it got the date of the disaster wrong. This was the first of many wrongs, few of which have ever been righted.
Since December 2010, the position of the Scottish government has become quite impossible. Here are two statements. I invited the lunchtime audience in Glasgow to reconcile them somehow. No one was bold enough even to try.
Statement 1
There are six grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is in the interests of justice (their words, but my italics) to refer the case to the court of appeal.
Statement 2
Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish court, and Scottish ministers do not doubt the safety of his conviction (their words, but again my italics).
Statement 1 – slightly paraphrased in the interests of brevity – was the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an agency of the Scottish government, in 2007. Following this remarkable finding, after a long and painstaking investigation which turned up new evidence not made available to the defence at the trial, there were two years of unexplained delays while the prisoner's second appeal was prepared. For these delays, the Crown Office was largely responsible.
In the end, the appeal was never heard: the declared wish of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was thwarted and the interests of justice, as it saw them, were never satisfied. Megrahi, long frustrated by the impediments put in his way, dropped his appeal – it is generally believed as a pre-condition of his release – and, true to form, Mrs Angiolini and her mates in the Crown Office put up their hands and declared to the world that it had nothing whatever to do with them, guv.
Statement 2 is taken verbatim from a Scottish government briefing just before Christmas. The chief law officer may have had some hand in its wording; otherwise, why have a chief law officer?
Since Statement 2 flatly contradicts Statement 1, we must look for an explanation.
Has the Scottish government in general, Mrs Angiolini in particular, simply forgotten about the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? It got quite a lot of attention at the time and has resurfaced periodically since, usually when people like Robert Black QC demand to know why the commission's report has never been published. (...)
It is, however, unlikely that the Scottish government has forgotten about the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's potentially damning conclusion. It is much more likely, given the uncompromising terms of Statement 2, that the Scottish ministers with or without the assistance of the lord advocate have managed to convince themselves that the most expedient way of marking 10 years of the Lockerbie scandal is simply to affirm the infallibility of Scottish justice.
Mrs Angiolini retires as lord advocate in May, perhaps to become a senator of the college of justice. Before she goes, she should tell us to which statement she subscribes. Does she subscribe to Statement 1 with its frank acknowledgement that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice, or does she subscribe to Statement 2, which denies any such possibility?
The chief law officer cannot logically subscribe to both. Nor can the Scottish government as a whole.
[From the Scottish Review today (Thursday, 3 February):]
Part 2 of The Megrahi Scandal has been postponed until next week to allow us to check out new information
During the public discussion between us in the Glasgow Concert Hall last week, Robert Black QC wondered aloud why the SNP, untainted by past association with the Megrahi case, had chosen not to confront this judicial scandal and attempt to correct it.
It is easy to overlook that, when Alex Salmond came to power in May 2007, not quite all his predecessors were removed from office. One unexpectedly clung on. Why the lord advocate, of all people, survived the demise of the former administration is a question for Alex Salmond and his memoirs. It feels in retrospect like one of his few serious political misjudgements: one made when his feet were only just under the table.
It is true that Elish Angiolini's re-appointment was not exactly accompanied by loud rejoicing. Mr Salmond made it clear that she had lost her place at the Scottish cabinet table. That felt like a demotion, for her or her office or both. From that moment, she became an arm's length chief law officer. But, in effect, the retention of her power base was all that mattered: this ultimate insider – lacking any significant experience of the world beyond the Crown Office – was never likely to pursue Lockerbie with the greatest zeal.
Ten years ago this week, a panel of Scottish judges, sitting in the Netherlands without a jury, convicted Megrahi of 270 murders. It says much for the quality of the judgement that, in its first sentence, it got the date of the disaster wrong. This was the first of many wrongs, few of which have ever been righted.
Since December 2010, the position of the Scottish government has become quite impossible. Here are two statements. I invited the lunchtime audience in Glasgow to reconcile them somehow. No one was bold enough even to try.
Statement 1
There are six grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is in the interests of justice (their words, but my italics) to refer the case to the court of appeal.
Statement 2
Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish court, and Scottish ministers do not doubt the safety of his conviction (their words, but again my italics).
Statement 1 – slightly paraphrased in the interests of brevity – was the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an agency of the Scottish government, in 2007. Following this remarkable finding, after a long and painstaking investigation which turned up new evidence not made available to the defence at the trial, there were two years of unexplained delays while the prisoner's second appeal was prepared. For these delays, the Crown Office was largely responsible.
In the end, the appeal was never heard: the declared wish of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was thwarted and the interests of justice, as it saw them, were never satisfied. Megrahi, long frustrated by the impediments put in his way, dropped his appeal – it is generally believed as a pre-condition of his release – and, true to form, Mrs Angiolini and her mates in the Crown Office put up their hands and declared to the world that it had nothing whatever to do with them, guv.
Statement 2 is taken verbatim from a Scottish government briefing just before Christmas. The chief law officer may have had some hand in its wording; otherwise, why have a chief law officer?
Since Statement 2 flatly contradicts Statement 1, we must look for an explanation.
Has the Scottish government in general, Mrs Angiolini in particular, simply forgotten about the conclusion of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? It got quite a lot of attention at the time and has resurfaced periodically since, usually when people like Robert Black QC demand to know why the commission's report has never been published. (...)
It is, however, unlikely that the Scottish government has forgotten about the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's potentially damning conclusion. It is much more likely, given the uncompromising terms of Statement 2, that the Scottish ministers with or without the assistance of the lord advocate have managed to convince themselves that the most expedient way of marking 10 years of the Lockerbie scandal is simply to affirm the infallibility of Scottish justice.
Mrs Angiolini retires as lord advocate in May, perhaps to become a senator of the college of justice. Before she goes, she should tell us to which statement she subscribes. Does she subscribe to Statement 1 with its frank acknowledgement that there may have been a serious miscarriage of justice, or does she subscribe to Statement 2, which denies any such possibility?
The chief law officer cannot logically subscribe to both. Nor can the Scottish government as a whole.
[From the Scottish Review today (Thursday, 3 February):]
Part 2 of The Megrahi Scandal has been postponed until next week to allow us to check out new information
So many questions still unanswered on Megrahi
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Herald by Ian Bell, probably the most consistently interesting columnist writing in the print media in Scotland today. The article reads in part:]
Monday morning was enlivened by the sight of Tony Blair on the BBC advising Egyptians as to the proper handling of the democracy thing.
He has a certain panache, our former prime minister, and a certain – what shall we say? – psychological resilience where truth and reputation are concerned.
Tuesday sparked up with another WikiLeak. Once more, it fell into the broad category of things-you-guessed. It slotted into the existing record, however. It also filled the gaps left open by the persistent refusal of innumerable freedom of information requests, north and south of the border. It left Mr Blair – deja vu has a familiar ring, doesn’t it? – with questions to answer.
So: he cuts a prisoner transfer deal, ignoring the Scottish jurisdiction, with Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. There is only one relevant prisoner, and a single atrocity at issue.
So: a big energy deal follows. Atrocities are negotiable.
So: American diplomats record that a junior Foreign Office minister, Bill Rammell, has tutored the Libyans in Scots law, with particular reference to section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act (1993), and the notion of compassionate release. A civil servant, Rob Dixon, has meanwhile joined the dots for the American friends.
The Libyans catch on quick. They follow this FO advice – denied and deniable – to the letter. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, “the Lockerbie Bomber”, certainly has cancer, and will certainly die because of it, sooner or later. Mr Gaddafi’s tame patriots also issue the usual threats to British interests. Ergo: “compassion” suits everyone. But it also suits Whitehall to have a Scottish patsy when – says the WikiLeak – (Alex) “Salmond told” (Jack, then Justice Secretary) “Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds”. That’s not how the story was spun. American ire, Hillary Clinton’s ire, was directed at Edinburgh when Washington and London certainly knew better. Much better.
Still, a Union is a reassuring thing, isn’t it?
Despite anything US senators might say, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill played it straight. Despite anything the American bereaved have been told, Edinburgh did not spring Megrahi to placate Libya, facilitate oil deals, “pick a fight with Westminster” or obscure the truth of Lockerbie. That, like all the back-channel work, was London’s doing. Mr MacAskill allowed a dying man to go home.
In some quarters, even that is nefarious. Al-Megrahi has had the impertinence to go on living. That mass murderer, feted yet gasping, has escaped the horrors he visited upon his victims. This is, for many, intolerable. How so?
First up, the idea that our dull devolution settlement is, in American eyes, just a perfidious British thing. Edinburgh did London’s dirty work to hide a dirtier deal, they think. But how does that fit with the second charge? Namely: why didn’t Gordon Brown “order” Mr Salmond to pursue justice, when foreign policy is Westminster’s preserve?
One possibility: because the US Consulate in leafy Edinburgh did its job, and explained the Alex and Gordon relationship?
So why was Megrahi given his liberty when other terminally ill prisoners of the Crown in Scotland have enjoyed far fewer courtesies? “Compassion” is not a notable feature of Scottish justice. And Al-Megrahi wasn’t just any prisoner. The fact that he was obliged to abandon his appeal against conviction in order to – a legalism – get free, wasn’t trivial. How come? (...)
Why was it so important, for so long, to so many people, that Megrahi should be dead, or at least out of the way?
He didn’t do it. That statement suits no-one. The important thing to remember, in Scotland, is that Megrahi abandoned his appeal. Such was the price of his liberty.
No-one has dealt with the fact that the US Department of Justice sanctioned payments of $3 million to a pair of Maltese “witnesses” – Tony and Paul Gauci, for their “crucial evidence” over clothes and a suitcase – or whether a Scottish court, even one in a foreign country, allows bribery.
No-one has dealt, for that matter, with the evidentiary status of a bit of plastic, a fragment of the alleged timer on the bomb that killed so many people. There is not a forensic expert in the world, given freedom of contract, who buys it.
Yet the Scottish Government, otherwise defamed, will not entertain the idea that Megrahi’s conviction was unsound. I find that fact more interesting than all the predictable WikiStuff about Mr Blair’s ministers and their devious memos. When did that fix go in? If we insist, as we must, that Scotland’s justice system is inviolable, and fundamental to the Union, we had better ensure that our system is as good as it gets. Refusing to carry the can for Mr Blair’s games is one thing. How – dispassionately – did a Scottish court convict Megrahi, and why does Scotland juridico-political establishment go on calling the conviction safe?
WikiLeaks reminds journalists that paper is rationed, when it matters. Where Megrahi is concerned, numerous questions are literally, actually, rigorously, unanswered. I do know, however, that the government of Scotland entertains no doubts as to the Libyan’s conviction for the worst terrorist massacre ever perpetrated on these islands. I’m also aware of distinguished Scots lawyers who don’t give that idea the time of day.
It’s a thought. There should be a means to examine such a thought. Instead, we insinuate and speculate endlessly. We can say that noble Scottish judges and a Scottish Government have been cleared of double-dealing, thanks to indefatigable WikiLeaks. What’s the score on single dealing, then?
What’s the score on a Union that defers each choice, almost sublimely, to a higher power, in another country? Asymmetric is only the first of the ugly words. Scottish justice, Scottish traditions of jurisprudence, were supposed to be guaranteed under the old deal, and in writing.
Perhaps some forensic examination is in order.
[A version of this article also appears on Ian Bell's blog.]
Monday morning was enlivened by the sight of Tony Blair on the BBC advising Egyptians as to the proper handling of the democracy thing.
He has a certain panache, our former prime minister, and a certain – what shall we say? – psychological resilience where truth and reputation are concerned.
Tuesday sparked up with another WikiLeak. Once more, it fell into the broad category of things-you-guessed. It slotted into the existing record, however. It also filled the gaps left open by the persistent refusal of innumerable freedom of information requests, north and south of the border. It left Mr Blair – deja vu has a familiar ring, doesn’t it? – with questions to answer.
So: he cuts a prisoner transfer deal, ignoring the Scottish jurisdiction, with Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. There is only one relevant prisoner, and a single atrocity at issue.
So: a big energy deal follows. Atrocities are negotiable.
So: American diplomats record that a junior Foreign Office minister, Bill Rammell, has tutored the Libyans in Scots law, with particular reference to section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act (1993), and the notion of compassionate release. A civil servant, Rob Dixon, has meanwhile joined the dots for the American friends.
The Libyans catch on quick. They follow this FO advice – denied and deniable – to the letter. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, “the Lockerbie Bomber”, certainly has cancer, and will certainly die because of it, sooner or later. Mr Gaddafi’s tame patriots also issue the usual threats to British interests. Ergo: “compassion” suits everyone. But it also suits Whitehall to have a Scottish patsy when – says the WikiLeak – (Alex) “Salmond told” (Jack, then Justice Secretary) “Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds”. That’s not how the story was spun. American ire, Hillary Clinton’s ire, was directed at Edinburgh when Washington and London certainly knew better. Much better.
Still, a Union is a reassuring thing, isn’t it?
Despite anything US senators might say, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill played it straight. Despite anything the American bereaved have been told, Edinburgh did not spring Megrahi to placate Libya, facilitate oil deals, “pick a fight with Westminster” or obscure the truth of Lockerbie. That, like all the back-channel work, was London’s doing. Mr MacAskill allowed a dying man to go home.
In some quarters, even that is nefarious. Al-Megrahi has had the impertinence to go on living. That mass murderer, feted yet gasping, has escaped the horrors he visited upon his victims. This is, for many, intolerable. How so?
First up, the idea that our dull devolution settlement is, in American eyes, just a perfidious British thing. Edinburgh did London’s dirty work to hide a dirtier deal, they think. But how does that fit with the second charge? Namely: why didn’t Gordon Brown “order” Mr Salmond to pursue justice, when foreign policy is Westminster’s preserve?
One possibility: because the US Consulate in leafy Edinburgh did its job, and explained the Alex and Gordon relationship?
So why was Megrahi given his liberty when other terminally ill prisoners of the Crown in Scotland have enjoyed far fewer courtesies? “Compassion” is not a notable feature of Scottish justice. And Al-Megrahi wasn’t just any prisoner. The fact that he was obliged to abandon his appeal against conviction in order to – a legalism – get free, wasn’t trivial. How come? (...)
Why was it so important, for so long, to so many people, that Megrahi should be dead, or at least out of the way?
He didn’t do it. That statement suits no-one. The important thing to remember, in Scotland, is that Megrahi abandoned his appeal. Such was the price of his liberty.
No-one has dealt with the fact that the US Department of Justice sanctioned payments of $3 million to a pair of Maltese “witnesses” – Tony and Paul Gauci, for their “crucial evidence” over clothes and a suitcase – or whether a Scottish court, even one in a foreign country, allows bribery.
No-one has dealt, for that matter, with the evidentiary status of a bit of plastic, a fragment of the alleged timer on the bomb that killed so many people. There is not a forensic expert in the world, given freedom of contract, who buys it.
Yet the Scottish Government, otherwise defamed, will not entertain the idea that Megrahi’s conviction was unsound. I find that fact more interesting than all the predictable WikiStuff about Mr Blair’s ministers and their devious memos. When did that fix go in? If we insist, as we must, that Scotland’s justice system is inviolable, and fundamental to the Union, we had better ensure that our system is as good as it gets. Refusing to carry the can for Mr Blair’s games is one thing. How – dispassionately – did a Scottish court convict Megrahi, and why does Scotland juridico-political establishment go on calling the conviction safe?
WikiLeaks reminds journalists that paper is rationed, when it matters. Where Megrahi is concerned, numerous questions are literally, actually, rigorously, unanswered. I do know, however, that the government of Scotland entertains no doubts as to the Libyan’s conviction for the worst terrorist massacre ever perpetrated on these islands. I’m also aware of distinguished Scots lawyers who don’t give that idea the time of day.
It’s a thought. There should be a means to examine such a thought. Instead, we insinuate and speculate endlessly. We can say that noble Scottish judges and a Scottish Government have been cleared of double-dealing, thanks to indefatigable WikiLeaks. What’s the score on single dealing, then?
What’s the score on a Union that defers each choice, almost sublimely, to a higher power, in another country? Asymmetric is only the first of the ugly words. Scottish justice, Scottish traditions of jurisprudence, were supposed to be guaranteed under the old deal, and in writing.
Perhaps some forensic examination is in order.
[A version of this article also appears on Ian Bell's blog.]
Secret papers on Lockerbie bomber to be made public
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Scotsman. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly, the papers in question are not those in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary asserted public interest immunity in the course of Abdelbaset Megrahi's recent appeal although their non-disclosed existence and contents formed one of the grounds on which the SCCRC decided that his conviction at the Zeist trial might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. No, the documents being referred to relate to the side-issue of the UK Government's role in the run-up to Mr Megrahi's repatriation. The article reads in part:]
The UK government is set to publish more official documents on the Lockerbie bomber, after American families reacted with fury to revelations that ministers had advised Libya on his release.
Prime Minister David Cameron has asked Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to review government papers on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's case, with a view to publishing them "shortly".
The UK government signalled it would act after the publication of WikiLeaks' documents that suggested Labour's then foreign minister Bill Rammell wrote to his counterpart in Libya in October 2008 to advise on how Megrahi could be freed from a Scottish prison.
Mr Rammell's letter was sent about a week after Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and it advised the Libyans that this could lead to his release on compassionate grounds. The disclosure of the letter has led to claims that its existence undermines the previous Labour government's insistence that it was not complicit in the release of Megrahi. (...)
In the House of Commons yesterday, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sir Gus would look at past papers on the issue and his report would be published soon. He also emphasised that Mr Cameron had opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. (...)
Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer who is representing US families, said the politicians' behaviour had been "disgusting". Mr Duggan renewed his attack on Mr MacAskill for releasing Megrahi but said his conduct had not been as bad as the UK government representatives.
"It was some but not all of the Scottish politicians who let everyone down," Mr Duggan said.
"As devious and manipulative as they were, however, they were not as bad as the British diplomats and officials who claimed to have no part in this decision but are now shown to be advisers to the Libyans one year before the actual release of the murderer. It is disgusting but not unanticipated." (...)
Details of Mr Rammell's letter came to light in an official US memo recording a meeting that saw Rob Dixon, a Foreign Office official, brief the US ambassador on the document.
The memo said the letter gave details of the 1993 act, which, under Scots law, enables terminally ill prisoners to apply for compassionate release.
The memo claimed Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, had spoken to First Minister Alex Salmond. According to the memo's account of the conversation, the exchange had been interpreted as a signal that Mr Salmond would release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The minute of the meeting said Mr Salmond would take the "final decision" and added: "Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds."
The note added: "Dixon told us HMG [Her Majesty's Government] has interpreted this to mean that Salmond is inclined to grant the request."
But this version of events was disputed vigorously by Mr Salmond, who maintains the decision was taken solely by Mr MacAskill. His spokesman released a letter sent by Mr Salmond to Libyan representatives on 5 November, 2008 – about three weeks after Mr Rammell's letter. The contents indicate that Scottish ministers had not yet considered compassionate grounds.
Mr Salmond's letter confirms that Scottish Prison Service guidance was that a life expectancy of less than three months was an appropriate period for compassionate release. But it added: "No formal consideration has been given to this matter as yet, but clearly the best advice on Mr al-Megrahi's health does not conform to the guidance on life expectancy for release on compassionate grounds."
The First Minister's spokesman said the letter showed "beyond doubt" the Scottish Government had not been considering compassionate release at that time and it was only when the disease later became "hormone resistant" that he was freed.
[A letter in The Scotsman from Ray Newton reads as follows:
"The WikiLeaks exposure of the collusion of the UK and the US in connection with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release is no surprise. The cancer diagnosis was a golden opportunity to have the appeal stopped with its new evidence of planted material used to convict Megrahi and Libya instead of Iran via Syria. Ironically, the political situation changed. Hence the green light for Scottish law to take its course."
A similar, but less detailed, report in The Herald can be read here.]
The UK government is set to publish more official documents on the Lockerbie bomber, after American families reacted with fury to revelations that ministers had advised Libya on his release.
Prime Minister David Cameron has asked Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to review government papers on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's case, with a view to publishing them "shortly".
The UK government signalled it would act after the publication of WikiLeaks' documents that suggested Labour's then foreign minister Bill Rammell wrote to his counterpart in Libya in October 2008 to advise on how Megrahi could be freed from a Scottish prison.
Mr Rammell's letter was sent about a week after Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and it advised the Libyans that this could lead to his release on compassionate grounds. The disclosure of the letter has led to claims that its existence undermines the previous Labour government's insistence that it was not complicit in the release of Megrahi. (...)
In the House of Commons yesterday, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sir Gus would look at past papers on the issue and his report would be published soon. He also emphasised that Mr Cameron had opposed Mr MacAskill's decision. (...)
Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer who is representing US families, said the politicians' behaviour had been "disgusting". Mr Duggan renewed his attack on Mr MacAskill for releasing Megrahi but said his conduct had not been as bad as the UK government representatives.
"It was some but not all of the Scottish politicians who let everyone down," Mr Duggan said.
"As devious and manipulative as they were, however, they were not as bad as the British diplomats and officials who claimed to have no part in this decision but are now shown to be advisers to the Libyans one year before the actual release of the murderer. It is disgusting but not unanticipated." (...)
Details of Mr Rammell's letter came to light in an official US memo recording a meeting that saw Rob Dixon, a Foreign Office official, brief the US ambassador on the document.
The memo said the letter gave details of the 1993 act, which, under Scots law, enables terminally ill prisoners to apply for compassionate release.
The memo claimed Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, had spoken to First Minister Alex Salmond. According to the memo's account of the conversation, the exchange had been interpreted as a signal that Mr Salmond would release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The minute of the meeting said Mr Salmond would take the "final decision" and added: "Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds."
The note added: "Dixon told us HMG [Her Majesty's Government] has interpreted this to mean that Salmond is inclined to grant the request."
But this version of events was disputed vigorously by Mr Salmond, who maintains the decision was taken solely by Mr MacAskill. His spokesman released a letter sent by Mr Salmond to Libyan representatives on 5 November, 2008 – about three weeks after Mr Rammell's letter. The contents indicate that Scottish ministers had not yet considered compassionate grounds.
Mr Salmond's letter confirms that Scottish Prison Service guidance was that a life expectancy of less than three months was an appropriate period for compassionate release. But it added: "No formal consideration has been given to this matter as yet, but clearly the best advice on Mr al-Megrahi's health does not conform to the guidance on life expectancy for release on compassionate grounds."
The First Minister's spokesman said the letter showed "beyond doubt" the Scottish Government had not been considering compassionate release at that time and it was only when the disease later became "hormone resistant" that he was freed.
[A letter in The Scotsman from Ray Newton reads as follows:
"The WikiLeaks exposure of the collusion of the UK and the US in connection with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release is no surprise. The cancer diagnosis was a golden opportunity to have the appeal stopped with its new evidence of planted material used to convict Megrahi and Libya instead of Iran via Syria. Ironically, the political situation changed. Hence the green light for Scottish law to take its course."
A similar, but less detailed, report in The Herald can be read here.]
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
MacAskill's answers to Christine Grahame's questions
[On 14 January 2011 Christine Grahame MSP submitted three written questions relating to the Statutory Instrument permitting (subject to a consent requirement) the release of the full SCCRC report on the Megrahi conviction. Answers have now been received from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38797)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Yes, the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations would apply.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38798)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: No, considerations in relation to data protection legislation are relevant in this case. [RB: In the light of the statutory provision quoted by Christine Grahame in her question, it would be interesting to find out on what legal basis Mr MacAskill contends that data protection considerations are relevant in this case.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38799)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Primary legislation is needed for full flexibility to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is put in place. The proposed legislation will facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned. In doing so, it will also maintain appropriate provision for such matters as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. [RB: It would be interesting to discover Mr MacAskill's reasons for believing that the objectives specified by him could not equally well be achieved in an appropriately drafted statutory instrument.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38797)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Yes, the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations would apply.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38798)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: No, considerations in relation to data protection legislation are relevant in this case. [RB: In the light of the statutory provision quoted by Christine Grahame in her question, it would be interesting to find out on what legal basis Mr MacAskill contends that data protection considerations are relevant in this case.]
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): 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-38799)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Primary legislation is needed for full flexibility to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is put in place. The proposed legislation will facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned. In doing so, it will also maintain appropriate provision for such matters as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. [RB: It would be interesting to discover Mr MacAskill's reasons for believing that the objectives specified by him could not equally well be achieved in an appropriately drafted statutory instrument.]
WikiLeaks: Britain secretly advised Libya how to secure release of Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Ministers secretly advised Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime how to secure the successful early release of the Lockerbie bomber, documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph have disclosed.
A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered. (...)
The documents disclose in detail how British ministers and officials were desperate not to allow Libyan anger over the ongoing imprisonment of Megrahi to derail the growing commercial relationship between the two countries. (...)
In October 2008 – as negotiations on the prisoner transfer agreement were ongoing –Megrahi was diagnosed as suffering from cancer.
It can now be disclosed that within a week of the diagnosis, Bill Rammell, a junior Foreign Office minister, had written to his Libyan counterpart advising him on how this could be used as the grounds of securing al-Megrahi’s compassionate release from prison.
Rob Dixon, a senior Foreign Office official, met with the American Ambassador to brief him on the letter. An official American memo on the meeting states: “FCO Minister for the Middle East Bill Rammell sent Libyan Deputy FM Abdulati al-Obeidi a letter, which was cleared both by HMG and by the Scottish Executive, on October 17 outlining the procedure for obtaining compassionate release.
“It cites Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 as the basis for release of prisoners, on license, on compassionate grounds. Although the Scottish Crown informed the families of the Pan Am 103 victims in an email October 21 that the time frame for compassionate release is normally three months from time of death, Dixon stressed to us that the three month time frame is not codified in the law.” (...)
When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.
The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.
In September 2009, it emerged that Mr Rammell had told the Libyans that neither the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister wanted to see al-Megrahi die in prison. However, government ministers strenuously denied that they had become involved in the release.
David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, said that there had been “no double dealing”.
[That the United Kingdom Government was being economical with the truth in its public statements on the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi is well known to those who have followed the saga -- and was made very clear to me by senior Libyan Government officials personally involved in seeking to achieve that objective. But this is all entirely peripheral to the real issue: was Abdelbaset Megrahi properly convicted or is there substance in the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? Until that issue is properly addressed and resolved, the Scottish criminal justice system will remain an object of scorn both domestically and internationally.
The 480 just-released WikiLeaks cables relating to Libya can be accessed here.]
Ministers secretly advised Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime how to secure the successful early release of the Lockerbie bomber, documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph have disclosed.
A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.
The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered. (...)
The documents disclose in detail how British ministers and officials were desperate not to allow Libyan anger over the ongoing imprisonment of Megrahi to derail the growing commercial relationship between the two countries. (...)
In October 2008 – as negotiations on the prisoner transfer agreement were ongoing –Megrahi was diagnosed as suffering from cancer.
It can now be disclosed that within a week of the diagnosis, Bill Rammell, a junior Foreign Office minister, had written to his Libyan counterpart advising him on how this could be used as the grounds of securing al-Megrahi’s compassionate release from prison.
Rob Dixon, a senior Foreign Office official, met with the American Ambassador to brief him on the letter. An official American memo on the meeting states: “FCO Minister for the Middle East Bill Rammell sent Libyan Deputy FM Abdulati al-Obeidi a letter, which was cleared both by HMG and by the Scottish Executive, on October 17 outlining the procedure for obtaining compassionate release.
“It cites Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 as the basis for release of prisoners, on license, on compassionate grounds. Although the Scottish Crown informed the families of the Pan Am 103 victims in an email October 21 that the time frame for compassionate release is normally three months from time of death, Dixon stressed to us that the three month time frame is not codified in the law.” (...)
When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.
The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.
In September 2009, it emerged that Mr Rammell had told the Libyans that neither the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister wanted to see al-Megrahi die in prison. However, government ministers strenuously denied that they had become involved in the release.
David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, said that there had been “no double dealing”.
[That the United Kingdom Government was being economical with the truth in its public statements on the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi is well known to those who have followed the saga -- and was made very clear to me by senior Libyan Government officials personally involved in seeking to achieve that objective. But this is all entirely peripheral to the real issue: was Abdelbaset Megrahi properly convicted or is there substance in the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission? Until that issue is properly addressed and resolved, the Scottish criminal justice system will remain an object of scorn both domestically and internationally.
The 480 just-released WikiLeaks cables relating to Libya can be accessed here.]
Monday, 31 January 2011
Public Petitions Committee minute
The minute of the meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on 25 January, at which the Justice for Megrahi petition was considered, can be read here. The relevant section is to be found at columns 3367 to 3372.
Ten years of injustice
It was ten years ago today that the judges of the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist delivered their verdict of Guilty against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (and Not Guilty against Lamin Fhima) for the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. The Opinion of the Court justifying the verdicts can be read here. In the version originally issued on 31 January 2001, in the very first sentence, their Lordships mis-stated the date of the disaster. This is symptomatic of the quality of the Opinion as a whole.
An article marking the anniversary appeared on page 8 of yesterday's edition of The Sunday Post but does not feature on the newspaper's vestigial website. Justice for Megrahi's secretary is quoted as follows:
"Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester admits their petition, still being considered by Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee, could run out of steam after the election.
"He said, 'This is far from the end of the story, though, as we have at least two contingency plans to take the matter further.'
"He said they were ready to go outwith Scotland to achieve their aim but he wouldn't give details.
"'If we have to, we will go to the next resort which will be very public and not Scottish.' he warned.
"'If it's successful, the Scottish authorities won't be able to say no -- they'll have to do what they're told.'
"He said the group was waiting to see what answers the Petitions Committee gets to questions it's preparing to ask after a second meeting with the campaigners last week."
An article marking the anniversary appeared on page 8 of yesterday's edition of The Sunday Post but does not feature on the newspaper's vestigial website. Justice for Megrahi's secretary is quoted as follows:
"Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester admits their petition, still being considered by Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee, could run out of steam after the election.
"He said, 'This is far from the end of the story, though, as we have at least two contingency plans to take the matter further.'
"He said they were ready to go outwith Scotland to achieve their aim but he wouldn't give details.
"'If we have to, we will go to the next resort which will be very public and not Scottish.' he warned.
"'If it's successful, the Scottish authorities won't be able to say no -- they'll have to do what they're told.'
"He said the group was waiting to see what answers the Petitions Committee gets to questions it's preparing to ask after a second meeting with the campaigners last week."
Friday, 28 January 2011
Public Petitions Committee minute on Megrahi petition
[The minute of the meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on 25 January contains the following item on the Justice for Megrahi petition:]
PE1370 Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.
[The Hansard report of the committee's deliberations is not due to be published until 31 January.]
PE1370 Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.
[The Hansard report of the committee's deliberations is not due to be published until 31 January.]
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
New claim on Megrahi 'balderdash' says First Minister
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has described as "balderdash" claims published today that he placed the release of the Lockerbie bomber on the negotiating table with UK ministers.
The American magazine Vanity Fair alleges in its latest edition that the First Minister held private discussions with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw in which he offered to water down his opposition to release under the UK's Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
Quoting a UK official, the magazine says the "quid pro quo" was that Mr Straw would push through a change in the law to stem the glut of human rights cases being brought by prisoners against Scottish ministers over the practice of "slopping out".
That change, which puts a one-year time bar on cases, was agreed by the UK and Scottish governments in 2009 and is estimated to have saved the public purse as much as £50 million.
Mr Salmond yesterday hit back at the allegations, with a Scottish Government spokesperson describing the report as "complete and utter nonsense".
Scottish Government officials insist the decision to allow the bomber to go home was taken entirely in good faith.
It is now 17 months since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was allowed to return home to a hero's reception.
Yesterday, Mr Straw's office declined to comment on the claims. He is quoted by Vanity Fair saying his conversations with Mr Salmond were "private". (...)
Mr Straw's communications with Mr Salmond over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement took place in late 2007 and early 2008. He first agreed to exclude Megrahi from a PTA deal with Libya, only to reinstate him following pressure from the Libyans.
The agreement between the Scottish and UK governments on a one-year bar on slopping-out claims was announced in March 2009. Under the arrangement, the UK government agreed to push through legislation at Westminster.
Asked about the claims yesterday, Mr Salmond described it as a "daft suggestion", noting that the Scottish Government had consistently shown "trenchant opposition" to the prisoner transfer agreement.
[The report in The Press and Journal can be read here. The report in The Times contains the following paragraph:
'Last night, Mr Salmond’s spokesman angrily rejected any allegation of a quid pro quo, between the First Minister and Mr Straw. “The unsubstantiated assertion about the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about this issue will regard such a claim as farcical,” he said.'
The Vanity Fair article by David Rose can be read here.]
Alex Salmond has described as "balderdash" claims published today that he placed the release of the Lockerbie bomber on the negotiating table with UK ministers.
The American magazine Vanity Fair alleges in its latest edition that the First Minister held private discussions with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw in which he offered to water down his opposition to release under the UK's Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya.
Quoting a UK official, the magazine says the "quid pro quo" was that Mr Straw would push through a change in the law to stem the glut of human rights cases being brought by prisoners against Scottish ministers over the practice of "slopping out".
That change, which puts a one-year time bar on cases, was agreed by the UK and Scottish governments in 2009 and is estimated to have saved the public purse as much as £50 million.
Mr Salmond yesterday hit back at the allegations, with a Scottish Government spokesperson describing the report as "complete and utter nonsense".
Scottish Government officials insist the decision to allow the bomber to go home was taken entirely in good faith.
It is now 17 months since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was allowed to return home to a hero's reception.
Yesterday, Mr Straw's office declined to comment on the claims. He is quoted by Vanity Fair saying his conversations with Mr Salmond were "private". (...)
Mr Straw's communications with Mr Salmond over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement took place in late 2007 and early 2008. He first agreed to exclude Megrahi from a PTA deal with Libya, only to reinstate him following pressure from the Libyans.
The agreement between the Scottish and UK governments on a one-year bar on slopping-out claims was announced in March 2009. Under the arrangement, the UK government agreed to push through legislation at Westminster.
Asked about the claims yesterday, Mr Salmond described it as a "daft suggestion", noting that the Scottish Government had consistently shown "trenchant opposition" to the prisoner transfer agreement.
[The report in The Press and Journal can be read here. The report in The Times contains the following paragraph:
'Last night, Mr Salmond’s spokesman angrily rejected any allegation of a quid pro quo, between the First Minister and Mr Straw. “The unsubstantiated assertion about the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about this issue will regard such a claim as farcical,” he said.'
The Vanity Fair article by David Rose can be read here.]
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Lockerbie inquiry petition 'remains open'
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.
It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.
The JFM group claimed it was "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". (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.
He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.
Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.
"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."
[A report on the Public Petitions Committee's proceedings from The Press Association news agency reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.
MSPs on Holyrood's Petitions Committee made the decision after discussing the request by pressure group Justice For Megrahi (JFM).
SNP MSP Christine Grahame backed the group's position, appealing to the committee that the petition should be kept alive.
She argued that recent changes to legislation had raised questions over the remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice.
She said: "I think the SCCRC has been neutered, in many respects. If I may say to the committee, I wish you to continue to pursue the inquiry route, not close this down."
[Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester was interviewed about the petition and the campaign on BBC Two's Newsnight Scotland. The interview can be seen here.]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish government.
The Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group handed over a petition to the Scottish Parliament in October last year.
It sought an independent probe into the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the bombing which killed 270 people in 1988.
The petitions committee agreed to write to the government and Lord Advocate.
The JFM group claimed it was "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". (...)
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, sat through the proceedings during the parliamentary session.
He later said the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had already decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice and urged the government to open an inquiry.
Dr Swire added: "I think this will be unwelcome in the dying days of the Scottish government to have had this decision by the committee.
"The issue here is so much greater than Scottish party politics. This is not about the SNP. This is about the integrity and, above all, the credibility of Scottish justice."
[A report on the Public Petitions Committee's proceedings from The Press Association news agency reads in part:]
A petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been kept open despite an earlier refusal from the Scottish Government.
MSPs on Holyrood's Petitions Committee made the decision after discussing the request by pressure group Justice For Megrahi (JFM).
SNP MSP Christine Grahame backed the group's position, appealing to the committee that the petition should be kept alive.
She argued that recent changes to legislation had raised questions over the remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which deals with alleged miscarriages of justice.
She said: "I think the SCCRC has been neutered, in many respects. If I may say to the committee, I wish you to continue to pursue the inquiry route, not close this down."
[Justice for Megrahi's Robert Forrester was interviewed about the petition and the campaign on BBC Two's Newsnight Scotland. The interview can be seen here.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)