The investigation and prosecution that yesterday culminated in the conviction of Malcolm Webster are compared with those in the Lockerbie case in today's editions of both The Herald (1200 witness statements in biggest investigation since Lockerbie bombing) and The Scotsman (Malcolm Webster: Thousand-piece jigsaw on a par with Lockerbie). This suggests to me that the Crown Office publicity machine has been hard at work. It is devoutly to be hoped that appalling deficiencies such as those that have been uncovered in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution (by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others) did not apply in the Webster case.
Because of events at Gannaga Lodge, there are unlikely to be further posts on this blog before Sunday 22 May.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Thursday, 19 May 2011
New Solicitor General another from the same mould
After the promotion of Frank Mulholland to Lord Advocate, Lesley Thomson, another long-standing Crown Office civil servant has been appointed Solicitor General. Ms Thomson has worked in the Crown Office in various posts since 1985, latterly as area procurator fiscal for Glasgow.
I have no reason to doubt that Ms Thomson, throughout her career, has, like Frank Mulholland, demonstrated the best qualities of a conscientious and dedicated legal civil servant and prosecutor. But these are not the qualities that are required in those whose role is, inter alia, to provide the department with policy oversight and independent scrutiny and to ensure that bureaucratic imperatives do not trump the interests of the people of Scotland in the efficient, transparent and disinterested administration of criminal justice.
These are bad appointments.
I have no reason to doubt that Ms Thomson, throughout her career, has, like Frank Mulholland, demonstrated the best qualities of a conscientious and dedicated legal civil servant and prosecutor. But these are not the qualities that are required in those whose role is, inter alia, to provide the department with policy oversight and independent scrutiny and to ensure that bureaucratic imperatives do not trump the interests of the people of Scotland in the efficient, transparent and disinterested administration of criminal justice.
These are bad appointments.
Regime unchanged
[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
In a damning indictment of the failure of the criminal justice system, Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee lays bare the intent of a "rampant" Crown Office and a Government that is determined to prevent the most serious miscarriage of justice in Scots history being heard.
Whereas the former Labour administrations at Holyrood could be said to have been tainted by their links to HMG in Westminster, the SNP, under First Minister Alex Salmond, came to office in 2007 with clean hands on the Lockerbie/Zeist affair. Quite unaccountably however, it is now impossible to differentiate between the SNP’s conduct on this matter and that expected from parties that might be viewed as more likely to act at the behest of Westminster’s wishes than in the interests of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Their record shows the following:
* On taking up the reins of power in 2007, the SNP government maintained the Labour appointed, Crown Office, career civil servant Elish Angiolini as Lord Advocate.
* Within a month of the SNP coming to office, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) released its Statement of Reasons, including its six grounds for appeal. At the end of their term, the Scottish Government had still not published this document, which had taken three years to produce and cost the tax payer in excess of £1,000,000.
* In 2009, the Scottish Government introduced secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument handing power to the suppliers of evidence given to the SCCRC, when drawing up the Statement of Reasons, to block publication of the document without the supplier’s consent.
* Following a flurry of activity in August 2009 during which Mr al-Megrahi was met separately by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, and representatives of the Libyan government, the prisoner dropped his second appeal, when under no legal obligation to do so under the terms of compassionate release, and was duly repatriated. Question marks still persist over what may have transpired at these meetings in HM Prison Greenock, or on other occasions, that could have led to the dropping of what was promising to be a most revealing appeal.
* In 2010, the Scottish Government rushed the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detentions and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 through parliament as emergency legislation. Not only was there no emergency but section 7 of the new Act, which places significant obstacles before anyone wishing to apply to the SCCRC and, if successful there, to appeal to the High Court in the interests of justice, was unnecessarily and inexplicably included.
* For over a year following Mr al-Megrahi’s release, the Scottish Government maintained that it lacked the power to open an inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist case. It finally admitted that it had had the power to do so all along after being backed into a corner by Justice for Megrahi (JFM). No apology for this has ever been forthcoming, either to JFM or to the Scottish people.
* Prior to seeking election for a second term, the SNP government promised to introduce primary legislation in order to facilitate the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. Not only is primary legislation not required to release the document for publication, the process involved would be extremely time consuming. All that is necessary is that the consent requirement in the present statutory instrument, introduced by the same SNP government in 2009, be removed by an amending statutory instrument. This, by contrast, could involve a process lasting little more than a month to complete.
* Throughout the SNP’s first term in office, and still in force, HMG has held Public Interest Immunity Certificates over two of the SCCRC’s six grounds for appeal. This deny the tax payers, who footed the bill for the document, access to the Statement of Reasons, and additionally, not once has the SNP government protested at this interference by HMG in the power devolved to Holyrood over Scots Law. In fact, the SNP government has positively supported it through the consent arrangement.
[Robert Forrester's article is also the subject of a news item in The Firm headlined Committee claims Mulholland's appointment puts image before justice which contains the following:]
The Justice For Megrahi committee have said that the appointment of "career civil servant" Frank Mulholland to the post of Lord Advocate prioritises "the preservation of the Crown’s image might take priority over concerns about propriety in the dispensation of justice."
The Committee, founded by Dr. Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Fr Pat Keegans and Professor Robert Black QC said they anticipated Mulholland's tenure would lead to "years of delaying tactics, obfuscation, economies with the truth and hurriedly erected barricades."
"It would, of course, be unfair to criticise the new Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, before he has properly established his feet under the desk. However, one can be forgiven for thinking that for Mr Salmond to appoint someone who seems ostensibly to hail from the same Crown Office, career civil servant background as Elish Angiolini did indicates that we are very likely in for another four years of business as usual," said committee secretary Robert Forrester, on behalf of the group.
"Another four years of delaying tactics, obfuscation, economies with the truth and hurriedly erected barricades, all in the interest of defending the Crown’s reputation and to Hell with justice! Why?
"By appointing Lord Advocates whose experience is largely based upon life within the civil service structure of the Crown Office in preference to those who have worked their way up through the ranks in legal practice, it is hardly surprising if the preservation of the Crown’s image might take priority over concerns about propriety in the dispensation of justice – as the conflict between Zeist doubters and Elish Angiolini appears to attest."
In a damning indictment of the failure of the criminal justice system, Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi Committee lays bare the intent of a "rampant" Crown Office and a Government that is determined to prevent the most serious miscarriage of justice in Scots history being heard.
Whereas the former Labour administrations at Holyrood could be said to have been tainted by their links to HMG in Westminster, the SNP, under First Minister Alex Salmond, came to office in 2007 with clean hands on the Lockerbie/Zeist affair. Quite unaccountably however, it is now impossible to differentiate between the SNP’s conduct on this matter and that expected from parties that might be viewed as more likely to act at the behest of Westminster’s wishes than in the interests of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Their record shows the following:
* On taking up the reins of power in 2007, the SNP government maintained the Labour appointed, Crown Office, career civil servant Elish Angiolini as Lord Advocate.
* Within a month of the SNP coming to office, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) released its Statement of Reasons, including its six grounds for appeal. At the end of their term, the Scottish Government had still not published this document, which had taken three years to produce and cost the tax payer in excess of £1,000,000.
* In 2009, the Scottish Government introduced secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument handing power to the suppliers of evidence given to the SCCRC, when drawing up the Statement of Reasons, to block publication of the document without the supplier’s consent.
* Following a flurry of activity in August 2009 during which Mr al-Megrahi was met separately by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, and representatives of the Libyan government, the prisoner dropped his second appeal, when under no legal obligation to do so under the terms of compassionate release, and was duly repatriated. Question marks still persist over what may have transpired at these meetings in HM Prison Greenock, or on other occasions, that could have led to the dropping of what was promising to be a most revealing appeal.
* In 2010, the Scottish Government rushed the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detentions and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 through parliament as emergency legislation. Not only was there no emergency but section 7 of the new Act, which places significant obstacles before anyone wishing to apply to the SCCRC and, if successful there, to appeal to the High Court in the interests of justice, was unnecessarily and inexplicably included.
* For over a year following Mr al-Megrahi’s release, the Scottish Government maintained that it lacked the power to open an inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist case. It finally admitted that it had had the power to do so all along after being backed into a corner by Justice for Megrahi (JFM). No apology for this has ever been forthcoming, either to JFM or to the Scottish people.
* Prior to seeking election for a second term, the SNP government promised to introduce primary legislation in order to facilitate the publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. Not only is primary legislation not required to release the document for publication, the process involved would be extremely time consuming. All that is necessary is that the consent requirement in the present statutory instrument, introduced by the same SNP government in 2009, be removed by an amending statutory instrument. This, by contrast, could involve a process lasting little more than a month to complete.
* Throughout the SNP’s first term in office, and still in force, HMG has held Public Interest Immunity Certificates over two of the SCCRC’s six grounds for appeal. This deny the tax payers, who footed the bill for the document, access to the Statement of Reasons, and additionally, not once has the SNP government protested at this interference by HMG in the power devolved to Holyrood over Scots Law. In fact, the SNP government has positively supported it through the consent arrangement.
[Robert Forrester's article is also the subject of a news item in The Firm headlined Committee claims Mulholland's appointment puts image before justice which contains the following:]
The Justice For Megrahi committee have said that the appointment of "career civil servant" Frank Mulholland to the post of Lord Advocate prioritises "the preservation of the Crown’s image might take priority over concerns about propriety in the dispensation of justice."
The Committee, founded by Dr. Jim Swire, Iain McKie, Fr Pat Keegans and Professor Robert Black QC said they anticipated Mulholland's tenure would lead to "years of delaying tactics, obfuscation, economies with the truth and hurriedly erected barricades."
"It would, of course, be unfair to criticise the new Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, before he has properly established his feet under the desk. However, one can be forgiven for thinking that for Mr Salmond to appoint someone who seems ostensibly to hail from the same Crown Office, career civil servant background as Elish Angiolini did indicates that we are very likely in for another four years of business as usual," said committee secretary Robert Forrester, on behalf of the group.
"Another four years of delaying tactics, obfuscation, economies with the truth and hurriedly erected barricades, all in the interest of defending the Crown’s reputation and to Hell with justice! Why?
"By appointing Lord Advocates whose experience is largely based upon life within the civil service structure of the Crown Office in preference to those who have worked their way up through the ranks in legal practice, it is hardly surprising if the preservation of the Crown’s image might take priority over concerns about propriety in the dispensation of justice – as the conflict between Zeist doubters and Elish Angiolini appears to attest."
Mulholland to be new Lord Advocate
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Solicitor General Frank Mulholland will today be named Lord Advocate, succeeding Elish Angiolini who last year announced plans to step down.
This will create a vacancy for the second law officer post and The Herald understands that it has been decided that a woman will fill the deputy role.
One of the names mooted for the Solicitor General post had been experienced QC Ronnie Clancy, a son of a police officer who has been at the bar since 1990 and was senior Crown counsel in the Lockerbie appeal.
However, The Herald has been told that with the promotion of Mr Mulholland, his No 2 will be a woman. A source at the Faculty of Advocates made the point that the number of women there has expanded from 10 to 100 in just 20 years, so with other senior female fiscals there will be no shortage of choice. (...)
Mr Mulholland was appointed by Alex Salmond as Solicitor General four years ago and it is understood he will now be promoted to the top post.
Mr Salmond will name his Cabinet team today after being sworn in at the Court of Session. He will swear three oaths – as First Minister, as Keeper of the Seal, and of allegiance to the Queen – before receiving the Royal warrant confirming his appointment as First Minister.
[This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).
The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.
The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has picked up this post. Its report can be read here.]
Solicitor General Frank Mulholland will today be named Lord Advocate, succeeding Elish Angiolini who last year announced plans to step down.
This will create a vacancy for the second law officer post and The Herald understands that it has been decided that a woman will fill the deputy role.
One of the names mooted for the Solicitor General post had been experienced QC Ronnie Clancy, a son of a police officer who has been at the bar since 1990 and was senior Crown counsel in the Lockerbie appeal.
However, The Herald has been told that with the promotion of Mr Mulholland, his No 2 will be a woman. A source at the Faculty of Advocates made the point that the number of women there has expanded from 10 to 100 in just 20 years, so with other senior female fiscals there will be no shortage of choice. (...)
Mr Mulholland was appointed by Alex Salmond as Solicitor General four years ago and it is understood he will now be promoted to the top post.
Mr Salmond will name his Cabinet team today after being sworn in at the Court of Session. He will swear three oaths – as First Minister, as Keeper of the Seal, and of allegiance to the Queen – before receiving the Royal warrant confirming his appointment as First Minister.
[This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).
The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.
The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has picked up this post. Its report can be read here.]
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Moussa Koussa plotting to topple Gaddafi
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the London Evening Standard. It reads in part:]
Libyan defector Moussa Koussa is secretly working with the Allied campaign to topple Colonel Gaddafi, triggering fears he may escape justice in Britain.
The Standard understands that Mr Koussa, Gaddafi's former intelligence chief, is still in Qatar after being allowed to leave Britain last month following interviews with police over the Lockerbie bombing. The former foreign minister fled to the UK on March 30.
He was allowed to fly to Qatar in mid-April for a summit on Libya despite protests by MPs and families of victims of the 1988 terror atrocity in which 270 people were killed.
Conservative MP Robert Halfon said: "I very strongly hope that he does come back to the UK in order to face full justice from the domestic or international courts if he is charged with war crimes or any alleged offence related to Lockerbie."
He condemned the decision to allow Mr Koussa to leave, saying Britain should not be used as a "transit lounge". (...)
The dictator's former right-hand man is understood to be encouraging other senior figures to defect and meeting rebel leaders. (...)
Shukri Ghanem, the Libyan oil minister and head of the National Oil Co, defected and fled to Tunisia from the wartorn country this week as Nato stepped up its bombing campaign.
Libyan defector Moussa Koussa is secretly working with the Allied campaign to topple Colonel Gaddafi, triggering fears he may escape justice in Britain.
The Standard understands that Mr Koussa, Gaddafi's former intelligence chief, is still in Qatar after being allowed to leave Britain last month following interviews with police over the Lockerbie bombing. The former foreign minister fled to the UK on March 30.
He was allowed to fly to Qatar in mid-April for a summit on Libya despite protests by MPs and families of victims of the 1988 terror atrocity in which 270 people were killed.
Conservative MP Robert Halfon said: "I very strongly hope that he does come back to the UK in order to face full justice from the domestic or international courts if he is charged with war crimes or any alleged offence related to Lockerbie."
He condemned the decision to allow Mr Koussa to leave, saying Britain should not be used as a "transit lounge". (...)
The dictator's former right-hand man is understood to be encouraging other senior figures to defect and meeting rebel leaders. (...)
Shukri Ghanem, the Libyan oil minister and head of the National Oil Co, defected and fled to Tunisia from the wartorn country this week as Nato stepped up its bombing campaign.
New Libya regime should aid Lockerbie probe
[This is the headline over a report published yesterday in the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reproduces a report that featured in one of the two disappearing posts on this blog. The report reads in part:]
The United States would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, a top US official said.
"I would encourage them, we would hope that they would do that," Deputy US Secretary of State James Steinberg told Democratic Senator Robert Menendez during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Libya.
But Steinberg repeatedly sidestepped Menendez's push to make US diplomatic recognition of any government to replace embattled strongman Moamer Kadhafi contingent on cooperating on a new probe into the attack.
"We share the importance that you attach to it," the diplomat said, but it would be better for Libya to do so of their own accord "rather than because we impose the commitment."
Menendez said he had met with senior Libyan opposition figure Mahmud Jibril, who handles foreign policy for Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) and discussed the issue.
"He indicated that, once a new government is formed, that they would be willing to cooperate with the United States on a new investigation" into the Lockerbie bombing, said the senator. (...)
Scottish prosecutors, who as part of a devolved administration operate independently from the British government in London, have said that they are still investigating the bombing.
[Any genuine new investigation should be warmly welcomed. But I fear that the outcome of an investigation such as is here envisaged would be pre-determined.]
The United States would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, a top US official said.
"I would encourage them, we would hope that they would do that," Deputy US Secretary of State James Steinberg told Democratic Senator Robert Menendez during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Libya.
But Steinberg repeatedly sidestepped Menendez's push to make US diplomatic recognition of any government to replace embattled strongman Moamer Kadhafi contingent on cooperating on a new probe into the attack.
"We share the importance that you attach to it," the diplomat said, but it would be better for Libya to do so of their own accord "rather than because we impose the commitment."
Menendez said he had met with senior Libyan opposition figure Mahmud Jibril, who handles foreign policy for Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) and discussed the issue.
"He indicated that, once a new government is formed, that they would be willing to cooperate with the United States on a new investigation" into the Lockerbie bombing, said the senator. (...)
Scottish prosecutors, who as part of a devolved administration operate independently from the British government in London, have said that they are still investigating the bombing.
[Any genuine new investigation should be warmly welcomed. But I fear that the outcome of an investigation such as is here envisaged would be pre-determined.]
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
ICC arrest warrant for Abdullah Senussi
[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Guardian:]
Abdullah Senussi, Muammar Gaddafi's brother-in-law and intelligence chief, must have been an easy choice for the prosecutor of the international criminal court: his close association with the worst excesses of the Libyan regime goes back many years, and he reportedly played a key role in attempting to crush the Benghazi uprising when it began, in February.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, described Senussi as Gaddafi's "righthand man, the executioner". But Senussi was more than a hard man in one of the most repressive regimes in the post-cold war world: his brief extended to political and PR strategies after Gaddafi abandoned terrorism and his WMD programmes in 2003 and sought a complete makeover. (...)
Until now, Senussi's most notorious exploit was as mastermind of the bombing of a French airliner over Niger in 1989 in which 170 people were killed. That led to a 1999 case in which he was convicted in absentia in France. He has been unable to travel abroad freely since then.
In the 1980s, he headed Libya's external security organisation, in which capacity he was said to have recruited Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people were killed. Like Megrahi, Senussi is a member of the powerful Megarha tribe. He is also a cousin of Abdel-Salam Jalloud, one of Gaddafi's oldest comrades.
Abdullah Senussi, Muammar Gaddafi's brother-in-law and intelligence chief, must have been an easy choice for the prosecutor of the international criminal court: his close association with the worst excesses of the Libyan regime goes back many years, and he reportedly played a key role in attempting to crush the Benghazi uprising when it began, in February.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, described Senussi as Gaddafi's "righthand man, the executioner". But Senussi was more than a hard man in one of the most repressive regimes in the post-cold war world: his brief extended to political and PR strategies after Gaddafi abandoned terrorism and his WMD programmes in 2003 and sought a complete makeover. (...)
Until now, Senussi's most notorious exploit was as mastermind of the bombing of a French airliner over Niger in 1989 in which 170 people were killed. That led to a 1999 case in which he was convicted in absentia in France. He has been unable to travel abroad freely since then.
In the 1980s, he headed Libya's external security organisation, in which capacity he was said to have recruited Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people were killed. Like Megrahi, Senussi is a member of the powerful Megarha tribe. He is also a cousin of Abdel-Salam Jalloud, one of Gaddafi's oldest comrades.
MacAskill blanks Pan Am 103 relative, but spin doctors come out swinging
This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, giving the response of the Scottish Government to yesterday's article in the magazine about Matt Berkley's concerns regarding Kenny MacAskill's evidence to Scottish and UK parliamentary committees about the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
There is an interesting post by David Macadam headed Lockerbie: Justice, Oil, Compassion? on The Oligarch Kings blog.
There is an interesting post by David Macadam headed Lockerbie: Justice, Oil, Compassion? on The Oligarch Kings blog.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Pan Am 103 relative questions MacAskill's evidence to MSPs
[This is the headline over an exclusive report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Matt Berkley, whose brother died on Pan Am 103 in 1988 has questioned the accuracy of evidence Kenny MacAskill gave to MSPs in Parliament and to the Justice Committee.
Berkley says evidence about the prison visit and the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement question the propriety of Mr MacAskill's choice to delay the transfer decision until Megrahi abandoned his appeal.
He also asks how the Lord Advocate failed to give correct legal advice.
"Contrary to Mr MacAskill's statements, there appears to be no evidence supporting a claim by Mr MacAskill to two parliamentary inquiries that Jack Straw committed Mr MacAskill to taking representations from this prisoner on transfer,” Berkely told The Firm.
“A question arises as to whether Mr MacAskill followed due process in what he described as a 'quasi-judicial' decision. The problem may bolster concerns that Mr MacAskill was negligent in failing to deal with the decision promptly. He might reasonably have been expected to take care to avoid tempting a prisoner to abandon his appeal, especially when the prisoner was in such obviously political circumstances."
MacAskill told the Justice Committee on 1 December 2009 that: "Jack Straw made it clear that, because this was the first situation in which a Government made an application, the prisoner should be given the opportunity to make representations."
Those statements, says Mr Berkley, appears to have no support, and that Mr Straw did not make those claims.
"What Mr Straw committed the UK to does not appear to be what Mr MacAskill followed,” Berkley said.
“Mr MacAskill made an invitation to the prisoner without advising him of an intention to transfer. Mr MacAskill never reached the stage of having any such intention, let alone telling the prisoner. More importantly, perhaps, the context of Mr Straw's commitment appears to be about something else: human rights of prisoners about to be transferred against their will, not those who had already said they wanted to go.
"Mr MacAskill repeated similar claims to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee and Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee."
Mr MacAskill has been asked to repond to Berkley's claims.
[I do not know what, if any, advice about procedure Jack Straw gave to Kenny MacAskill. But it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that if, in reaching his decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill proposed to hear representations from Lockerbie relatives, natural justice required him also to hear representations from Abdelbaset Megrahi. And if the relatives were to be allowed to make representations in person and not merely in writing, Megrahi would need to be accorded the same opportunity. Any other approach would have made a decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to refuse either prisoner transfer or compassionate release gravely vulnerable to judicial review. Nothing said or not said by Jack Straw affects this crucial point.
It is, of course, true that there was absolutely no legal reason why Kenny MacAskill should have decided to deal with the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer concurrently with Megrahi's application for compassionate release. This was a grave blunder and the unnecessary linkage gave rise to the problems over abandonment of the appeal and what MacAskill said about abandonment (or was understood by Megrahi to have conveyed) during their meeting in HM Prison Greenock.]
Matt Berkley, whose brother died on Pan Am 103 in 1988 has questioned the accuracy of evidence Kenny MacAskill gave to MSPs in Parliament and to the Justice Committee.
Berkley says evidence about the prison visit and the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement question the propriety of Mr MacAskill's choice to delay the transfer decision until Megrahi abandoned his appeal.
He also asks how the Lord Advocate failed to give correct legal advice.
"Contrary to Mr MacAskill's statements, there appears to be no evidence supporting a claim by Mr MacAskill to two parliamentary inquiries that Jack Straw committed Mr MacAskill to taking representations from this prisoner on transfer,” Berkely told The Firm.
“A question arises as to whether Mr MacAskill followed due process in what he described as a 'quasi-judicial' decision. The problem may bolster concerns that Mr MacAskill was negligent in failing to deal with the decision promptly. He might reasonably have been expected to take care to avoid tempting a prisoner to abandon his appeal, especially when the prisoner was in such obviously political circumstances."
MacAskill told the Justice Committee on 1 December 2009 that: "Jack Straw made it clear that, because this was the first situation in which a Government made an application, the prisoner should be given the opportunity to make representations."
Those statements, says Mr Berkley, appears to have no support, and that Mr Straw did not make those claims.
"What Mr Straw committed the UK to does not appear to be what Mr MacAskill followed,” Berkley said.
“Mr MacAskill made an invitation to the prisoner without advising him of an intention to transfer. Mr MacAskill never reached the stage of having any such intention, let alone telling the prisoner. More importantly, perhaps, the context of Mr Straw's commitment appears to be about something else: human rights of prisoners about to be transferred against their will, not those who had already said they wanted to go.
"Mr MacAskill repeated similar claims to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee and Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee."
Mr MacAskill has been asked to repond to Berkley's claims.
[I do not know what, if any, advice about procedure Jack Straw gave to Kenny MacAskill. But it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that if, in reaching his decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill proposed to hear representations from Lockerbie relatives, natural justice required him also to hear representations from Abdelbaset Megrahi. And if the relatives were to be allowed to make representations in person and not merely in writing, Megrahi would need to be accorded the same opportunity. Any other approach would have made a decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to refuse either prisoner transfer or compassionate release gravely vulnerable to judicial review. Nothing said or not said by Jack Straw affects this crucial point.
It is, of course, true that there was absolutely no legal reason why Kenny MacAskill should have decided to deal with the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer concurrently with Megrahi's application for compassionate release. This was a grave blunder and the unnecessary linkage gave rise to the problems over abandonment of the appeal and what MacAskill said about abandonment (or was understood by Megrahi to have conveyed) during their meeting in HM Prison Greenock.]
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Moussa Koussa helping NATO?
[Been wondering what Moussa Koussa is up to these days? The Guardian thinks it knows. The following are excerpts from an article on the paper's website headlined Koussa among defectors 'helping Nato bomb secret Gaddafi sites':]
A network of Libyan defectors, including the former regime stalwart Moussa Koussa, are helping Nato to destroy Muammar Gaddafi's military sites, including bunker complexes from which much of the war has been run, according to senior officials in Libya.
Nato planners have stepped up their operations over the capital, Tripoli, and the western mountains in recent days, despite a strike on the eastern city of Brega early on Friday that killed up to 11 people, many of them Islamic clerics. (...)
Despite almost nightly air strikes, and increasing numbers of daylight attacks on the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital remains under regime control. The city is free of checkpoints and any opposition elements are maintaining a low profile. Discontent – for now – seems directed at France, Britain and Italy, whom residents blame for a critical fuel shortage.
But there is growing anger towards former regime loyalists, first among them Koussa, who defected to Britain in early April after more than 30 years as Gaddafi's most trusted henchman.
The former foreign minister and intelligence chief is understood to have passed on "invaluable" details of the dictator's police state, including the precise location of the regime's most sensitive sites.
"He was the 'black box' of the regime," said an unnamed official who worked with Koussa. "I was with him the day before he left and nobody knew that he was going to do that. Why did he do it? I'd say he must have been emotionally weak. Things must have got to him."
After spending a month in Britain, Koussa is now in Qatar, from where he is believed to be helping Nato map targets.
A network of Libyan defectors, including the former regime stalwart Moussa Koussa, are helping Nato to destroy Muammar Gaddafi's military sites, including bunker complexes from which much of the war has been run, according to senior officials in Libya.
Nato planners have stepped up their operations over the capital, Tripoli, and the western mountains in recent days, despite a strike on the eastern city of Brega early on Friday that killed up to 11 people, many of them Islamic clerics. (...)
Despite almost nightly air strikes, and increasing numbers of daylight attacks on the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital remains under regime control. The city is free of checkpoints and any opposition elements are maintaining a low profile. Discontent – for now – seems directed at France, Britain and Italy, whom residents blame for a critical fuel shortage.
But there is growing anger towards former regime loyalists, first among them Koussa, who defected to Britain in early April after more than 30 years as Gaddafi's most trusted henchman.
The former foreign minister and intelligence chief is understood to have passed on "invaluable" details of the dictator's police state, including the precise location of the regime's most sensitive sites.
"He was the 'black box' of the regime," said an unnamed official who worked with Koussa. "I was with him the day before he left and nobody knew that he was going to do that. Why did he do it? I'd say he must have been emotionally weak. Things must have got to him."
After spending a month in Britain, Koussa is now in Qatar, from where he is believed to be helping Nato map targets.
SNP plans law change over Lockerbie files
[This is the heading over a report published today on the Independent on Sunday website. It reads in part:]
New laws to allow the publication of Lockerbie files are to be brought in by the SNP. (...)
The SNP wants to change the law to allow the publication of papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
That paved the way for Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction, which he dropped shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, after he was given three months to live.
Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the SNP now plans to bring forward new legislation.
First Minister Alex Salmond said in February that he would change the law if the SNP won a second term.
Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Sunday Express: "This is something the new SNP Government will do in early course. We have always been as transparent as possible.
"And following the announcement last December that the SCCRC was unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to current legislation we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome those problems presented by the consent provisions."
Labour MSP Richard Baker said: "We need to know what Kenny MacAskill's reason for this change in the law is.
"He has always maintained that Megrahi was properly convicted by a Scottish court and that he had no reason to doubt his guilt.
"Now he appears to be casting doubt on his own assertion and if that is the case then Mr MacAskill needs to explain whether that influenced his decision to grant compassionate release.
"The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
"He doesn't need to wait or change the law to get these documents in the public domain."
He said that medical evidence on the condition of offenders is heard in court every day in Scotland and Megrahi's case should be no different.
[Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.
I note that Kenny MacAskill again refers to the law being changed by primary legislation. As has been pointed out more than once on this blog, primary legislation is unnecessary. The necessary change could be made, quickly and efficiently, in secondary legislation by statutory instrument.
A similar article appears on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. It is reproduced on the Newsnet Scotland website, which I encourage readers to access because of the responses that follow the article. More welcome pressure, from primarily SNP supporters, for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.
This story has now (Monday) been picked up on The Scotsman website. It also features on the website of the staunchly pro-Labour Daily Record.]
New laws to allow the publication of Lockerbie files are to be brought in by the SNP. (...)
The SNP wants to change the law to allow the publication of papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
That paved the way for Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction, which he dropped shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, after he was given three months to live.
Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the SNP now plans to bring forward new legislation.
First Minister Alex Salmond said in February that he would change the law if the SNP won a second term.
Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Sunday Express: "This is something the new SNP Government will do in early course. We have always been as transparent as possible.
"And following the announcement last December that the SCCRC was unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to current legislation we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome those problems presented by the consent provisions."
Labour MSP Richard Baker said: "We need to know what Kenny MacAskill's reason for this change in the law is.
"He has always maintained that Megrahi was properly convicted by a Scottish court and that he had no reason to doubt his guilt.
"Now he appears to be casting doubt on his own assertion and if that is the case then Mr MacAskill needs to explain whether that influenced his decision to grant compassionate release.
"The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
"He doesn't need to wait or change the law to get these documents in the public domain."
He said that medical evidence on the condition of offenders is heard in court every day in Scotland and Megrahi's case should be no different.
[Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.
I note that Kenny MacAskill again refers to the law being changed by primary legislation. As has been pointed out more than once on this blog, primary legislation is unnecessary. The necessary change could be made, quickly and efficiently, in secondary legislation by statutory instrument.
A similar article appears on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. It is reproduced on the Newsnet Scotland website, which I encourage readers to access because of the responses that follow the article. More welcome pressure, from primarily SNP supporters, for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.
This story has now (Monday) been picked up on The Scotsman website. It also features on the website of the staunchly pro-Labour Daily Record.]
The two disappearing posts
Blogger/Blogspot service has now been restored. But the two posts that I made on Thursday 12 May (and related readers' comments) have not been restored.
Here is what I said in posts to the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:
1. Julian Assange says more WikiLeaks Lockerbie documents are to be published in The Scotsman newspaper, maybe even from the period of the investigation into the disaster. See http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/RyanGallagher/2011/05/a-qa-with-julian-assange-part-ii-on-lockerbie-copycat-leaks-sites-and-protecting-whistleblowers.html
2. The US would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 says a senior State Department official. But would the result of any such new investigation be pre-determined? See US: New Libya regime should aid Lockerbie probe.
Here is what I said in posts to the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:
1. Julian Assange says more WikiLeaks Lockerbie documents are to be published in The Scotsman newspaper, maybe even from the period of the investigation into the disaster. See http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/RyanGallagher/2011/05/a-qa-with-julian-assange-part-ii-on-lockerbie-copycat-leaks-sites-and-protecting-whistleblowers.html
2. The US would "encourage" any new Libyan government to help a new investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 says a senior State Department official. But would the result of any such new investigation be pre-determined? See US: New Libya regime should aid Lockerbie probe.
Friday, 13 May 2011
Disappearing blog posts
Two posts that I made yesterday to this blog have mysteriously disappeared. References to them can be found here on the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page. I hope that this is nothing more than a temporary technical glitch.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Christine Grahame fails in bid to become Presiding Officer
[The following is from a report published this afternoon on the BBC News website:]
SNP backbencher Tricia Marwick has been elected as the new presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, in the wake of her party's election win.
The Mid Fife and Glenrothes MSP won the five-year job in a ballot of Holyrood's 129 members.
Ms Marwick pledged to do her "very, very best" in the role.
Out-going presiding officer Alex Fergusson said the election of a member of the likely party of government to the post presented "fresh challenges".
Labour criticised the appointment, saying it gave "cause for concern".
Ms Marwick, 57, saw off a challenge from party colleague Christine Grahame and former Labour minister Hugh Henry.
The elections were held as Holyrood sat for the first time since the SNP's landslide win at the polls, last week.
[This blog was today accessed from within Libya.]
SNP backbencher Tricia Marwick has been elected as the new presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, in the wake of her party's election win.
The Mid Fife and Glenrothes MSP won the five-year job in a ballot of Holyrood's 129 members.
Ms Marwick pledged to do her "very, very best" in the role.
Out-going presiding officer Alex Fergusson said the election of a member of the likely party of government to the post presented "fresh challenges".
Labour criticised the appointment, saying it gave "cause for concern".
Ms Marwick, 57, saw off a challenge from party colleague Christine Grahame and former Labour minister Hugh Henry.
The elections were held as Holyrood sat for the first time since the SNP's landslide win at the polls, last week.
[This blog was today accessed from within Libya.]
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
"Lockerbie: Unfinished Business" at Dumfries, Aberdeen and Langholm
David Benson will be giving a performance of his award-winning play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business at the Dumfries and Galloway Arts Festival at 7.30pm on 26 May at the Theatre Royal, Shakespeare Street, Dumfries. There will be further performances in Aberdeen on 27 May and in Langholm on 28 May.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)