[Over the past twenty-four hours, a substantial number of visitors to this blog have come via the Daily Paul website, which describes itself as "inspired by Ron Paul" US Republican congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas and the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement. The item on the website reads as follows:]
Is Obama's trip to Britain tied to damning Lockerbie legislation? Why is the US fighting so hard to silence Megrahi?
Current Events
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-plans-law-change-over-lockerbie-files-2284523.html
We did see the same thing when India was wanting to extradite [David] Headley, Obama made a trip to India.
Another excellent account from an insider who helped orchestrate the trial, Robert Black:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 29 May 2011
A review of Lockerbie - Unfinished Business at Dumfries
[The following is taken from an item posted yesterday on Tootlepedal's Blog.]
In the evening, we went to the Buccleuch Centre for the third time in two days, this time to see a one man play. It was a very well researched play based on the experiences of Jim Swire who has been campaigning for many years to get, at the very least, an enquiry into the Lockerbie disaster that is actually making some effort to arrive at the truth unlike the rather farcical trial that was held. It was a very well judged piece of work and well acted. I had not known what to expect at all but I found it very moving and at the same time intensely enraging. It has been very hard over the past two years to see pontificating politicians and journalists referring to Al Megrahi as a mass murderer when it is fairly plain that he wasn’t the perpetrator of the crime at all and this play just reminded you of how poorly the whole affair reflects on Britain in general and Scottish Justice in particular. Not to mention the Americans.
In the evening, we went to the Buccleuch Centre for the third time in two days, this time to see a one man play. It was a very well researched play based on the experiences of Jim Swire who has been campaigning for many years to get, at the very least, an enquiry into the Lockerbie disaster that is actually making some effort to arrive at the truth unlike the rather farcical trial that was held. It was a very well judged piece of work and well acted. I had not known what to expect at all but I found it very moving and at the same time intensely enraging. It has been very hard over the past two years to see pontificating politicians and journalists referring to Al Megrahi as a mass murderer when it is fairly plain that he wasn’t the perpetrator of the crime at all and this play just reminded you of how poorly the whole affair reflects on Britain in general and Scottish Justice in particular. Not to mention the Americans.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Instinctive hostility
[The following is a paragraph from a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman about the First Minister's reaction to Nat Fraser's successful appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The same comment could with justice be made in relation to the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]
When the merits of the Scottish legal system are questioned (internally or externally) Scotland's legal hierarchy and its nationalist politicians respond with an almost instinctive hostility that immediately obscures the rational basis of any external scrutiny that overturns a decision by the Scottish courts.
[Two interesting letters on the same subject appear in today's edition of The Herald under the heading It’s right to be proud of Scots law but justice must come first.]
When the merits of the Scottish legal system are questioned (internally or externally) Scotland's legal hierarchy and its nationalist politicians respond with an almost instinctive hostility that immediately obscures the rational basis of any external scrutiny that overturns a decision by the Scottish courts.
[Two interesting letters on the same subject appear in today's edition of The Herald under the heading It’s right to be proud of Scots law but justice must come first.]
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Making curiosity uncool…
[This is the heading over an item posted today on bensix's blog Back Towards The Locus. It contains the following:]
I’ve noted how media critics of “conspiracy theories” aren’t just opposed to grandiose, unfounded claims but to suspicion of official or quasi-official narratives. Here are some notes on how the charge of “conspiracy theory” works to discredit this scepticism.
For example, with regards to the Pan Am attack, Geoffrey Robertson wasted no time in dismissing sceptics of Megrahi’s guilt…
"If Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing (and, conspiracy theories aside, the evidence justified the verdict), then Gaddafi must have given the order…"
I will say this for Robertson: he’s remarkably efficient. What’s the point of explaining the biased procedure, dodgy witnesses and meager evidence of the prosecution when you can dismiss all scepticism as the work of minor nutjobs?
[RB: Quite. Minor nutjobs like Benedict Birnberg, Ian Hamilton QC, Hans Koechler, Anthony Lester QC, Len Murray, Gareth Peirce and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, to name but a few.]
I’ve noted how media critics of “conspiracy theories” aren’t just opposed to grandiose, unfounded claims but to suspicion of official or quasi-official narratives. Here are some notes on how the charge of “conspiracy theory” works to discredit this scepticism.
For example, with regards to the Pan Am attack, Geoffrey Robertson wasted no time in dismissing sceptics of Megrahi’s guilt…
"If Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing (and, conspiracy theories aside, the evidence justified the verdict), then Gaddafi must have given the order…"
I will say this for Robertson: he’s remarkably efficient. What’s the point of explaining the biased procedure, dodgy witnesses and meager evidence of the prosecution when you can dismiss all scepticism as the work of minor nutjobs?
[RB: Quite. Minor nutjobs like Benedict Birnberg, Ian Hamilton QC, Hans Koechler, Anthony Lester QC, Len Murray, Gareth Peirce and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, to name but a few.]
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
The Truth Never Dies by Charles Albert Booth
This is the title of a recently-published book on the Lockerbie disaster. It is described on, and can be ordered through, this website. An interview with the author can be read here.
Blair spinning again on Pan Am 103
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The first paragraph reads as follows:]
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to address criticisms made by solicitor Gareth Peirce of his role in the repatriation of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, but has instead issued a two year old “response“ to The Firm on the basis that “none of the facts have changed”.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to address criticisms made by solicitor Gareth Peirce of his role in the repatriation of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, but has instead issued a two year old “response“ to The Firm on the basis that “none of the facts have changed”.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Gareth Peirce: “layers and layers of deceit” in Pan Am 103 case
[Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just published on its website a long interview with Gareth Peirce, the solicitor for the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, and a related news item. What follows is an excerpt from the latter.]
Peirce says that the construction and maintenance of the discredited case against Megrahi has required active participation from those at all levels of the criminal justice system, with both tacit and overt support from the top of the political hierarchy.
“In the most notorious cases, everyone played their part, absolutely everybody,” she says.
“A big part of the blame lies within those who form the criminal justice system. It looks as if in the prosecution of the Lockerbie case, the defendants met the same fate, even to the extent of the same personnel featuring, in the person of the forensic scientists.”
The principal forensic analyst, Thomas Hayes, employed by the Crown to testify against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was the same discredited analyst who was proven to have fabricated his evidence in the manufactured case against the Guildford Four.
He and Alan Feraday testified that the key forensic evidence, a fragment of circuit board, survived the explosion of Pan Am 103 and left traces of clothing connected to a shop in Malta. The owners of that shop provided the identification of Megrahi to the court, and were later found to have been paid in millions of dollars for their testimony. This testimony has been widely discredited by EU explosives consultant John Wyatt and others who claim that such an thing is not possible in physics.
“That was the most shocking revelation to me,” Peirce says.
“Exactly the same forensic scientists who produced the wrongful conviction of Guiseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played. Yet here they were. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far less a conviction in Lockerbie.
“What shocked me most was that I thought that all that had been gone through on Guildford and Birmingham, the one thing that had been achieved was that nobody would be convicted again on bad science. But yet in the Lockerbie case, it isn’t just the same bad science, it is the same bad scientists.”
In July 2007 former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit claiming that he had manufactured the crucial circuit board evidence and passed it to named individuals charged with investigating the Pan Am 103 case during 1989.
“All of this is screaming out for an inquiry. The ingredients that make up the prosecution’s case are really so rotten. They can’t and they shouldn’t sustain the weight of a presumed safe finding. You can see that they are utterly contaminated. They have no integrity. The forensic findings lack all the ingredients that should make them safe. The continuity of exhibits is all over the place. The only other pillar on which it is held up is this non-identification. It is just a catastrophe. The whole edifice is rotten, and it is astonishing it was ever stood up in the first place.”
Peirce says that the construction and maintenance of the discredited case against Megrahi has required active participation from those at all levels of the criminal justice system, with both tacit and overt support from the top of the political hierarchy.
“In the most notorious cases, everyone played their part, absolutely everybody,” she says.
“A big part of the blame lies within those who form the criminal justice system. It looks as if in the prosecution of the Lockerbie case, the defendants met the same fate, even to the extent of the same personnel featuring, in the person of the forensic scientists.”
The principal forensic analyst, Thomas Hayes, employed by the Crown to testify against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was the same discredited analyst who was proven to have fabricated his evidence in the manufactured case against the Guildford Four.
He and Alan Feraday testified that the key forensic evidence, a fragment of circuit board, survived the explosion of Pan Am 103 and left traces of clothing connected to a shop in Malta. The owners of that shop provided the identification of Megrahi to the court, and were later found to have been paid in millions of dollars for their testimony. This testimony has been widely discredited by EU explosives consultant John Wyatt and others who claim that such an thing is not possible in physics.
“That was the most shocking revelation to me,” Peirce says.
“Exactly the same forensic scientists who produced the wrongful conviction of Guiseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played. Yet here they were. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far less a conviction in Lockerbie.
“What shocked me most was that I thought that all that had been gone through on Guildford and Birmingham, the one thing that had been achieved was that nobody would be convicted again on bad science. But yet in the Lockerbie case, it isn’t just the same bad science, it is the same bad scientists.”
In July 2007 former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit claiming that he had manufactured the crucial circuit board evidence and passed it to named individuals charged with investigating the Pan Am 103 case during 1989.
“All of this is screaming out for an inquiry. The ingredients that make up the prosecution’s case are really so rotten. They can’t and they shouldn’t sustain the weight of a presumed safe finding. You can see that they are utterly contaminated. They have no integrity. The forensic findings lack all the ingredients that should make them safe. The continuity of exhibits is all over the place. The only other pillar on which it is held up is this non-identification. It is just a catastrophe. The whole edifice is rotten, and it is astonishing it was ever stood up in the first place.”
A sobering reflection
I gained thirty-five new Twitter followers (@rblackqc) in under 24 hours by twittering yesterday on the (non)applicability of English injunctions in Scotland (and incidentally on the arrogance and ignorance of English lawyers) rather than my usual subjects of the Lockerbie case and the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. How sad is that?
Sunday, 22 May 2011
London Councillor asks every MSP to back Pan Am 103 inquiry
[This is the headline over an exclusive report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
A London Councillor has contacted every new MSP in the Holyrood Parliament requesting them to endorse the public inquiry into the Pan Am 103 debacle called for by the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
Councillor David Durant, who represents the city's borough of Havering, called on MSPs to "help the search for truth and prove your Parliament is worthy of the name Parliament by supporting this petition."
The petition has been placed into the legacy papers and will be heard for an unprecedented fourth time before the newly constituted Petitons Committee.
"There was never a public inquiry into Lockerbie, but one day the truth will be told. Perhaps sooner than expected following the stunning SNP victory in May?" Durant writes.
"The Public Petitions Committee will soon discuss PE1370 Justice for Megrahi and MSPs can help the search for truth and prove your Parliament is worthy of the name Parliament by supporting this petition."
A London Councillor has contacted every new MSP in the Holyrood Parliament requesting them to endorse the public inquiry into the Pan Am 103 debacle called for by the Justice for Megrahi Committee.
Councillor David Durant, who represents the city's borough of Havering, called on MSPs to "help the search for truth and prove your Parliament is worthy of the name Parliament by supporting this petition."
The petition has been placed into the legacy papers and will be heard for an unprecedented fourth time before the newly constituted Petitons Committee.
"There was never a public inquiry into Lockerbie, but one day the truth will be told. Perhaps sooner than expected following the stunning SNP victory in May?" Durant writes.
"The Public Petitions Committee will soon discuss PE1370 Justice for Megrahi and MSPs can help the search for truth and prove your Parliament is worthy of the name Parliament by supporting this petition."
Friday, 20 May 2011
Webster investigation and prosecution compared with Lockerbie
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.
Because of events at Gannaga Lodge, there are unlikely to be further posts on this blog before Sunday 22 May.
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)