[This is the headline over a report on the website of the Barrhead News. It reads as follows:]
Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is still being properly monitored from Barrhead's social work office - even although his country is engulfed in civil war.
East Renfrewshire Council made that assurance this week while arguments raged over whether terminally ill Megrahi - controversially released on permanent bail on compassionate grounds - should be seized by rebel fighters and surrendered to the US to stand trial in America.
In a further twist a Justice For Megrahi group, who claim he's innocent, want the rebels to send him back to Scotland instead if he ends up in their custody. [RB: Not a very accurate summary of JFM's query to the Scottish Government.]
Last week the bail deal again came under scrutiny after news footage showed him in a wheelchair attending a rally in support of Libyan dictator Colonel Gadafi.
They argue the Holyrood government should declare an "open door" policy for the bailed prisoner to save him from any bid to have him tried, as they see it unfairly, in the USA.
East Ren Council has acquired its bizarre supervision role because Megrahi's family lived in the area when he was in prison in Scotland appealing his sentence.
East Ren is still his technical bail address even although his family had returned home to Libya and he was allowed to join them
When he was released after medical advice said he was dying the council was automatically handed the task of keeping tabs on him.
However despite the extraordinary circumstances, the council says that so far Megrahi hasn't done anything to breach his bail conditions.
"We're able to monitor him in exactly the same way as we would somebody released under conditions in Barrhead," said a council spokesman.
He said if he did break the bail terms - for example he can't leave Libya - it would be for the Scottish Government to decide what action to take.
A council social worker in Barrhead speaks to Megrahi regularly by phone or computer webcam link, and there's no suggestion he's failing to cooperate.
East Renfrewshire Council also has an up-to-date picture of his health, said its spokesman, but as with any other bailed prisoner isn't at liberty to give details.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Boyd stands on the burning deck…
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, now a consultant at Dundas and Wilson, has publicly defended the “robust” conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and claimed that he, his predecessors and successors in office were all “satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound.”
Boyd also rejected a suggestion published yesterday in The Times from Professor Robert Black QC that the three Camp Zeist trial judges may have “subconsciously” been unwilling to undermine the Lord Advocate’s judgement in bringing the Pan Am 103 case to trial, by returning not guilty or not proven verdicts.
“It’s a frankly pretty ludicrous allegation - a slur on the reputation of judges who are all very senior and experienced,” Boyd said.
“I had been in office for all of three months when the trial took place, so I could not possibly have been responsible for their appointment. Had I been, there is no question of my having a hand in influencing them. This is not the culture of the Scottish judiciary. I utterly reject the suggestion.”
“Every Lord Advocate from Peter Fraser to Elish Angiolini has examined the evidence at one time or another - six in total.
“All were satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound. Not one of us would have prosecuted or defended the conviction if we considered that there was any doubt. The process was robust and the conviction sound.”
Professor Black’s suggestion was originally published some four years ago, and reiterated at a Q&A session following a public performance of David Benson’s one-man stage show [Lockerbie: Unfinished Business] at the Edinburgh Fringe on Monday afternoon. In 2007, Black said:
“It has been suggested to me, very often by Libyans, that political pressure was placed upon the judges. I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges.
“What happened, I think, was that it was internal politics in Scotland. Prosecutions in Scotland are brought by the Lord Advocate. Until just a few years ago, one of the other functions of the Lord Advocate in Scotland was that he appointed all Scottish judges.
“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."
In response to Boyd’s comments, Black said this morning that Boyd has overlooked that: “one of the six grounds upon which, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, was that, on the evidence led at Camp Zeist, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb.
“Without that finding in fact, Megrahi could not have been convicted,” he added.
Lord Maclean, one of the three trial judges who acted uniquely as jurors in this case for the first time in their careers, in his only interview on the subject given to The Firm’s Editor Steven Raeburn in 2005, gave a carefully qualified and hedged defence of the unanimous split verdicts in the case.
“I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made and the verdicts we reached were correct," he said.
In February this year the Scottish Parliament was urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
The committee highlighted errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
In June this year Lord [Peter] Fraser was challenged by Dr Jim Swire to explain his position after he told an Al Jazeera documentary film crew that he accepted a key witness in the Pan Am 103 trial had been bribed by Scottish Police.
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will consider whether an inquiry into the affair is to be constituted in the new Parliamentary session.
[The glorious aptness of The Firm's brilliant headline can be gauged by reading the dreadful poem from which it is taken.]
Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, now a consultant at Dundas and Wilson, has publicly defended the “robust” conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and claimed that he, his predecessors and successors in office were all “satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound.”
Boyd also rejected a suggestion published yesterday in The Times from Professor Robert Black QC that the three Camp Zeist trial judges may have “subconsciously” been unwilling to undermine the Lord Advocate’s judgement in bringing the Pan Am 103 case to trial, by returning not guilty or not proven verdicts.
“It’s a frankly pretty ludicrous allegation - a slur on the reputation of judges who are all very senior and experienced,” Boyd said.
“I had been in office for all of three months when the trial took place, so I could not possibly have been responsible for their appointment. Had I been, there is no question of my having a hand in influencing them. This is not the culture of the Scottish judiciary. I utterly reject the suggestion.”
“Every Lord Advocate from Peter Fraser to Elish Angiolini has examined the evidence at one time or another - six in total.
“All were satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound. Not one of us would have prosecuted or defended the conviction if we considered that there was any doubt. The process was robust and the conviction sound.”
Professor Black’s suggestion was originally published some four years ago, and reiterated at a Q&A session following a public performance of David Benson’s one-man stage show [Lockerbie: Unfinished Business] at the Edinburgh Fringe on Monday afternoon. In 2007, Black said:
“It has been suggested to me, very often by Libyans, that political pressure was placed upon the judges. I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges.
“What happened, I think, was that it was internal politics in Scotland. Prosecutions in Scotland are brought by the Lord Advocate. Until just a few years ago, one of the other functions of the Lord Advocate in Scotland was that he appointed all Scottish judges.
“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."
In response to Boyd’s comments, Black said this morning that Boyd has overlooked that: “one of the six grounds upon which, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, was that, on the evidence led at Camp Zeist, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb.
“Without that finding in fact, Megrahi could not have been convicted,” he added.
Lord Maclean, one of the three trial judges who acted uniquely as jurors in this case for the first time in their careers, in his only interview on the subject given to The Firm’s Editor Steven Raeburn in 2005, gave a carefully qualified and hedged defence of the unanimous split verdicts in the case.
“I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made and the verdicts we reached were correct," he said.
In February this year the Scottish Parliament was urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.
The committee highlighted errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”
In June this year Lord [Peter] Fraser was challenged by Dr Jim Swire to explain his position after he told an Al Jazeera documentary film crew that he accepted a key witness in the Pan Am 103 trial had been bribed by Scottish Police.
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will consider whether an inquiry into the affair is to be constituted in the new Parliamentary session.
[The glorious aptness of The Firm's brilliant headline can be gauged by reading the dreadful poem from which it is taken.]
Lord Boyd hits back at Lockerbie allegations
[Today's edition of The Times carries a report, behind its paywall, on the reaction of Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC, the Lord Advocate at the time of the Lockerbie trial, to yesterday's report in the same newspaper on my remarks following the performance of David Benson's Lockerbie: Unfinished Business. It reads in part:]
A former Lord Advocate yesterday broke his silence to hit back at campaigners who claim that the Libyan bomber was wrongly convicted.
In a powerful statement to The Times, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, who was in charge of Scotland’s prosecution service when Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi came to trial, said that allegations that the Crown Office had influenced the judges were “ludicrous”.
He added that Professor Robert Black, QC, who told an Edinburgh Fringe audience on Monday night that the judges had reached a guilty verdict contrary to the evidence because they were “consciously or unconsciously” under pressure from him to do so, was “irresponsible” and had cast “a slur on the reputation of senior and experienced judges”.
He added: “Al-Megrahi was properly convicted in this case and that conviction was upheld on appeal. He will die convicted of the worst mass murder ever carried out in British history, and deservedly so.” (...)
In the course of it, Professor Black said that the three trial judges, Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Maclean, had reached a verdict contrary to the evidence because they had been influenced by the power of the Lord Advocate, who was not only in charge of the prosecution but was also responsible for the appointment of Scottish judges.
Lord Boyd, who has not spoken publicly about such allegations before, said: “It’s a frankly pretty ludicrous allegation — a slur on the reputation of judges who are all very senior and experienced . . . I had been in office for all of three months when the trial took place, so I could not possibly have been responsible for their appointment. Had I been, there is no question of my having a hand in influencing them. This is not the culture of the Scottish judiciary. I utterly reject the suggestion.”
He was entirely satisfied that the conviction of al-Megrahi had been safe. “Every Lord Advocate from Peter Fraser to Elish Angiolini has examined the evidence at one time or another — six in total,” he said. “All were satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound. Not one of us would have prosecuted or defended the conviction if we considered that there was any doubt . . . The process was robust and the conviction sound.”
Lord Boyd said that, as Solicitor General, he had been in charge of the preparation of the Crown case, and was entirely satisfied with its strength.
[Lord Boyd in his comments does not mention that one of the six grounds upon which, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, was that, on the evidence led at Camp Zeist, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb. Without that finding in fact, Megrahi could not have been convicted.]
A former Lord Advocate yesterday broke his silence to hit back at campaigners who claim that the Libyan bomber was wrongly convicted.
In a powerful statement to The Times, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, who was in charge of Scotland’s prosecution service when Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi came to trial, said that allegations that the Crown Office had influenced the judges were “ludicrous”.
He added that Professor Robert Black, QC, who told an Edinburgh Fringe audience on Monday night that the judges had reached a guilty verdict contrary to the evidence because they were “consciously or unconsciously” under pressure from him to do so, was “irresponsible” and had cast “a slur on the reputation of senior and experienced judges”.
He added: “Al-Megrahi was properly convicted in this case and that conviction was upheld on appeal. He will die convicted of the worst mass murder ever carried out in British history, and deservedly so.” (...)
In the course of it, Professor Black said that the three trial judges, Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Maclean, had reached a verdict contrary to the evidence because they had been influenced by the power of the Lord Advocate, who was not only in charge of the prosecution but was also responsible for the appointment of Scottish judges.
Lord Boyd, who has not spoken publicly about such allegations before, said: “It’s a frankly pretty ludicrous allegation — a slur on the reputation of judges who are all very senior and experienced . . . I had been in office for all of three months when the trial took place, so I could not possibly have been responsible for their appointment. Had I been, there is no question of my having a hand in influencing them. This is not the culture of the Scottish judiciary. I utterly reject the suggestion.”
He was entirely satisfied that the conviction of al-Megrahi had been safe. “Every Lord Advocate from Peter Fraser to Elish Angiolini has examined the evidence at one time or another — six in total,” he said. “All were satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound. Not one of us would have prosecuted or defended the conviction if we considered that there was any doubt . . . The process was robust and the conviction sound.”
Lord Boyd said that, as Solicitor General, he had been in charge of the preparation of the Crown case, and was entirely satisfied with its strength.
[Lord Boyd in his comments does not mention that one of the six grounds upon which, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, was that, on the evidence led at Camp Zeist, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb. Without that finding in fact, Megrahi could not have been convicted.]
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Lockerbie judges under pressure to convict al-Megrahi, claims legal expert
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times. It can be read here, behind the newspaper's paywall. The following are brief excerpts:]
One of Scotland’s top legal experts claimed last night that the three judges at the trial of the Lockerbie bomber reached a guilty verdict “contrary to the evidence” because “consciously or subconsciously” they were under pressure to convict from the then Lord Advocate.
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, added that there was no doubt that the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi for mass murder had been a miscarriage of justice. (...)
Professor Black dismissed the notion that the trial judges, Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean, had been “nobbled” by politicians, but instead said that they had been influenced by the power of the Lord Advocate, Scotland’s leading legal official. (...)
“The Lockerbie case was the most important criminal case there had ever been in Scotland,” Professor Black said. “For the outcome of that case, after all the publicity about the investigation ... for that investigation, and that prosecution to result in two verdicts of not guilty would have been a slap in the face of the Lord Advocate. Consciously or subconsciously these judges were not willing [to do that].” [RB: It is noteworthy that one of the six reasons given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for finding that Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice was that no reasonable tribunal could, on the evidence, have made the finding in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb. Without that finding, Megrahi could not in law have been convicted.]
Professor Black was sharing a stage with Jim Swire, 75, the GP whose daughter Flora was among the victims of the bombing, following a production of the play Lockerbie at the Edinburgh Fringe.
Written and performed by David Benson, it dramatised Dr Swire’s emotional journey, from his first anxiety about his daughter’s safety when news of a terrorist bomb broke in December 1988, through his decades of struggle to establish the identity of the terrorists who had killed her.
It records Dr Swire’s despair after al-Megrahi’s conviction because of his belief that an innocent man was jailed.
In an after-show discussion, Dr Swire endorsed Benson’s production, which set out to demolish all the planks of the case against the Libyan.
The play suggested that forensic tests on a fragment of bomb had been completely undermined because the expert witnesses called at the trial had been discredited. It also cast doubt on the evidence of two witnesses who claimed to identify al-Megrahi as the bomber.
One of Scotland’s top legal experts claimed last night that the three judges at the trial of the Lockerbie bomber reached a guilty verdict “contrary to the evidence” because “consciously or subconsciously” they were under pressure to convict from the then Lord Advocate.
Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, added that there was no doubt that the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi for mass murder had been a miscarriage of justice. (...)
Professor Black dismissed the notion that the trial judges, Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean, had been “nobbled” by politicians, but instead said that they had been influenced by the power of the Lord Advocate, Scotland’s leading legal official. (...)
“The Lockerbie case was the most important criminal case there had ever been in Scotland,” Professor Black said. “For the outcome of that case, after all the publicity about the investigation ... for that investigation, and that prosecution to result in two verdicts of not guilty would have been a slap in the face of the Lord Advocate. Consciously or subconsciously these judges were not willing [to do that].” [RB: It is noteworthy that one of the six reasons given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for finding that Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice was that no reasonable tribunal could, on the evidence, have made the finding in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb. Without that finding, Megrahi could not in law have been convicted.]
Professor Black was sharing a stage with Jim Swire, 75, the GP whose daughter Flora was among the victims of the bombing, following a production of the play Lockerbie at the Edinburgh Fringe.
Written and performed by David Benson, it dramatised Dr Swire’s emotional journey, from his first anxiety about his daughter’s safety when news of a terrorist bomb broke in December 1988, through his decades of struggle to establish the identity of the terrorists who had killed her.
It records Dr Swire’s despair after al-Megrahi’s conviction because of his belief that an innocent man was jailed.
In an after-show discussion, Dr Swire endorsed Benson’s production, which set out to demolish all the planks of the case against the Libyan.
The play suggested that forensic tests on a fragment of bomb had been completely undermined because the expert witnesses called at the trial had been discredited. It also cast doubt on the evidence of two witnesses who claimed to identify al-Megrahi as the bomber.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Lockerbie verdict a tragedy for Scottish justice, says Jim Swire
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the Ekklesia website. It reads in part:]
The verdict in the trial that convicted Ali al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing is a tragedy for Scotland and Scottish justice, says Jim Swire - whose daughter Flora was among those killed in the tragedy.
Dr Swire, who announced that in his 75th year he will be stepping back from campaigning while the Justice for Megrahi Campaign and others continue their efforts, was speaking after a powerful performance of the award-winning drama Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, as part of the Festival of Spirituality and Peace in Edinburgh.
"This is not my tragedy alone, or even the tragedy of the other 269 families alone, but a tragedy for Scotland," Dr Swire declared. "We need now to turn ourselves to what Scotland can do to get itself out of the mess created by the trial, and how the mess created for the Scottish judicial system."
He was strongly backed by prominent Scottish legal expert Professor Robert Black QC, who said that no independent lawyer examining the gaps and problems identified in the first 89 paragraphs of the trial verdict against Megrahi could reasonably concur with the "beyond reasonable doubt" in paragraph 90.
"Our security as citizens of Scotland depends upon the fairness and independence of the justice system. That was not demonstrated in this trial and has not been demonstrated since," Professor Black said.
The event is the first occasion that the whole Justice for Megrahi committee, with Dr Swire, has appeared in public in a full question and answer session.
Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb on Wednesday 21 December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground. It is the biggest single terrorist attack in British history.
Dr Swire, other UK relatives of the victims, and a range of legal campaigners, including Professor Black, say that the May 2000 trial of two Libyan suspects, the other of whom was not convicted, amounts to a cover up and a serious miscarriage of justice. Their concern is that the truth has not come out, and that the guilty have not been brought to justice.
All of the Crown's witnesses in the 36-week trial, which took place at a specially convened Scottish Court in the Netherlands, have subsequently been discredited.
In the latest revelation, a prosecution expert misled judges about key evidence, according to a classified police memo published by the Sunday Herald on 17 July.
But there remains significant evidence pointing towards the evidence of another Middle East terror group, the campaigners point out, which has not been examined in an open court.
They are backing a petition (http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417) before the Scottish Government calling for an independent enquiry into the Lockerbie trial verdict - which is being resisted by the administrations in both Holyrood and Westminster.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body, has also admitted that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
"The scandal around Megrahi is not that a sick man was released, but that he was ever convicted in the first place," Dr Swire said. "All I have ever wanted is to see the people who murdered my daughter are brought to justice."
The play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, which was first performed at the Edinburgh Fringe in 2010, and has received its only performance here in 2011, sets out in considerable detail the circumstances and evidence surrounding both the bombing and the claims and counter-claims leading up to, and surrounding, the trial 11 years later.
[A brief report in Tuesday's Edinburgh Evening News can be read here.]
The verdict in the trial that convicted Ali al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing is a tragedy for Scotland and Scottish justice, says Jim Swire - whose daughter Flora was among those killed in the tragedy.
Dr Swire, who announced that in his 75th year he will be stepping back from campaigning while the Justice for Megrahi Campaign and others continue their efforts, was speaking after a powerful performance of the award-winning drama Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, as part of the Festival of Spirituality and Peace in Edinburgh.
"This is not my tragedy alone, or even the tragedy of the other 269 families alone, but a tragedy for Scotland," Dr Swire declared. "We need now to turn ourselves to what Scotland can do to get itself out of the mess created by the trial, and how the mess created for the Scottish judicial system."
He was strongly backed by prominent Scottish legal expert Professor Robert Black QC, who said that no independent lawyer examining the gaps and problems identified in the first 89 paragraphs of the trial verdict against Megrahi could reasonably concur with the "beyond reasonable doubt" in paragraph 90.
"Our security as citizens of Scotland depends upon the fairness and independence of the justice system. That was not demonstrated in this trial and has not been demonstrated since," Professor Black said.
The event is the first occasion that the whole Justice for Megrahi committee, with Dr Swire, has appeared in public in a full question and answer session.
Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb on Wednesday 21 December 1988, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground. It is the biggest single terrorist attack in British history.
Dr Swire, other UK relatives of the victims, and a range of legal campaigners, including Professor Black, say that the May 2000 trial of two Libyan suspects, the other of whom was not convicted, amounts to a cover up and a serious miscarriage of justice. Their concern is that the truth has not come out, and that the guilty have not been brought to justice.
All of the Crown's witnesses in the 36-week trial, which took place at a specially convened Scottish Court in the Netherlands, have subsequently been discredited.
In the latest revelation, a prosecution expert misled judges about key evidence, according to a classified police memo published by the Sunday Herald on 17 July.
But there remains significant evidence pointing towards the evidence of another Middle East terror group, the campaigners point out, which has not been examined in an open court.
They are backing a petition (http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417) before the Scottish Government calling for an independent enquiry into the Lockerbie trial verdict - which is being resisted by the administrations in both Holyrood and Westminster.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body, has also admitted that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
"The scandal around Megrahi is not that a sick man was released, but that he was ever convicted in the first place," Dr Swire said. "All I have ever wanted is to see the people who murdered my daughter are brought to justice."
The play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, which was first performed at the Edinburgh Fringe in 2010, and has received its only performance here in 2011, sets out in considerable detail the circumstances and evidence surrounding both the bombing and the claims and counter-claims leading up to, and surrounding, the trial 11 years later.
[A brief report in Tuesday's Edinburgh Evening News can be read here.]
A better society is the people's work, says Salmond
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Ekklesia website. It reads in part:]
Working for a better society depends on ordinary people - not just political, civic and faith leaders - standing up to prejudice and injustice, Alex Salmond has said.
Scotland's First Minister made the comment as part of a strong message of support for the Festival of Spirituality and Peace in Edinburgh, which officially launched over the weekend.
Salmond declared that "the Festival of Spirituality and Peace is now firmly established as one of the key Edinburgh International Festivals," and commended its topical programme of conversations about public issues, art, culture, performance and family events.
One of the hottest issues the Scottish Government has faced, the Lockerbie and Megrahi saga, will be aired at the Festival today (Monday 8 August), when Dr Jim Swire, spokesperson for the relatives of the victims, along with Professor Robert Black QC and the members of the Justice for Megrahi Committee will attend a public question and answer session following the only summer performance of David Benson's acclaimed and controversial play, 'Lockerbie: Unfinished Business' at St John's Church, Princes Street, from 4pm.
[Would it not be appropriate and courageous for Alex Salmond (or the Justice Secretary or the Lord Advocate or Justice Department or Crown Office officials) to match the First Minister's verbal support for the Festival with attendance at David Benson's performance? That'll be the day.]
Working for a better society depends on ordinary people - not just political, civic and faith leaders - standing up to prejudice and injustice, Alex Salmond has said.
Scotland's First Minister made the comment as part of a strong message of support for the Festival of Spirituality and Peace in Edinburgh, which officially launched over the weekend.
Salmond declared that "the Festival of Spirituality and Peace is now firmly established as one of the key Edinburgh International Festivals," and commended its topical programme of conversations about public issues, art, culture, performance and family events.
One of the hottest issues the Scottish Government has faced, the Lockerbie and Megrahi saga, will be aired at the Festival today (Monday 8 August), when Dr Jim Swire, spokesperson for the relatives of the victims, along with Professor Robert Black QC and the members of the Justice for Megrahi Committee will attend a public question and answer session following the only summer performance of David Benson's acclaimed and controversial play, 'Lockerbie: Unfinished Business' at St John's Church, Princes Street, from 4pm.
[Would it not be appropriate and courageous for Alex Salmond (or the Justice Secretary or the Lord Advocate or Justice Department or Crown Office officials) to match the First Minister's verbal support for the Festival with attendance at David Benson's performance? That'll be the day.]
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Doubts over visa could prevent Lockerbie bomber from returning to the UK
[This is the headline over a report (labelled "exclusive") in today's edition of the Sunday Mail. It picks up (without acknowledgment, of course) this blog post. The report reads as follows:]
The Lockerbie bomber would have to be awarded a UK visa before he could ever return to Scotland.
Supporters of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - convinced of his innocence - believe Britain could be a safe haven from US Special Forces planning to capture him in Libya.
But, in Parliament, Foreign Office minister Lord Howell stressed any visa application would take into account "the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted".
Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives. He was released from Greenock Prison in August 2009 after being given three months to live with cancer.
But he was spotted alive and well at a pro-Gaddafi rally last month.
US senators have demanded he face a fresh trial there and there is a plot to capture him.
Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the process which led to his conviction, said: "The Foreign Office seems to be saying that, even if the Scottish Government revoked the licence, the UK government could deny him a visa."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Megrahi is being monitored by East Renfrewshire Council and he is not leaving."
[Here is the full text of an e-mail that I sent to the writer of the report when he contacted me for a reaction to the FCO written answer:
"I have to say that I'm a bit surprised. Megrahi was released on licence, which permitted him to return to Libya. That licence could be revoked (eg if he broke the conditions attached to it or if the Scottish authorities thought his safety required his return to Scotland). However, the FCO seems to be saying that even if the licence were revoked by the Scottish Government, the UK government could deny him a visa. I wonder what the Scottish government would have to say about that. And it doesn't seem to say much for joined-up government."]
The Lockerbie bomber would have to be awarded a UK visa before he could ever return to Scotland.
Supporters of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - convinced of his innocence - believe Britain could be a safe haven from US Special Forces planning to capture him in Libya.
But, in Parliament, Foreign Office minister Lord Howell stressed any visa application would take into account "the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted".
Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives. He was released from Greenock Prison in August 2009 after being given three months to live with cancer.
But he was spotted alive and well at a pro-Gaddafi rally last month.
US senators have demanded he face a fresh trial there and there is a plot to capture him.
Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the process which led to his conviction, said: "The Foreign Office seems to be saying that, even if the Scottish Government revoked the licence, the UK government could deny him a visa."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Megrahi is being monitored by East Renfrewshire Council and he is not leaving."
[Here is the full text of an e-mail that I sent to the writer of the report when he contacted me for a reaction to the FCO written answer:
"I have to say that I'm a bit surprised. Megrahi was released on licence, which permitted him to return to Libya. That licence could be revoked (eg if he broke the conditions attached to it or if the Scottish authorities thought his safety required his return to Scotland). However, the FCO seems to be saying that even if the licence were revoked by the Scottish Government, the UK government could deny him a visa. I wonder what the Scottish government would have to say about that. And it doesn't seem to say much for joined-up government."]
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Megrahi return would be subject to UK immigration rules
[I am grateful to Robert Forrester for drawing my attention to the following House of Lords written question and answer from 21 June 2011.]
Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether reports on the whereabouts of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi are still being transmitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from Libya, and those on his health to East Renfrewshire Council; and whether they will detain him if he returns to the United Kingdom. [HL9768]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not monitor the location or health of Abdel Baset Ali Al Megrahi. East Renfrewshire was designated as the local authority responsible for monitoring Al Megrahi's health and location because his family lived in Newton Mearns during his imprisonment in Greenock prison. The Scottish Government have informed us that East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is maintaining regular contact with Al Megrahi as required by the conditions of his release licence. It would not be appropriate for the FCO to ask the council for this confidential information.
Should Al Megrahi wish to return to the UK then he would be subject to UK immigration law and therefore be required to apply for an entry visa. Any such application for a visa from Al Megrahi would be considered in the appropriate way including consideration of the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted.
[A news report based on this written answer can now be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The editor, Steven Raeburn, cynically asks on Twitter @TheFirmOnline "Does this permit 'plausible deniability' to be argued by the UK Gov in the event of a stray missile landing on him...?"]
Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether reports on the whereabouts of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi are still being transmitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from Libya, and those on his health to East Renfrewshire Council; and whether they will detain him if he returns to the United Kingdom. [HL9768]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not monitor the location or health of Abdel Baset Ali Al Megrahi. East Renfrewshire was designated as the local authority responsible for monitoring Al Megrahi's health and location because his family lived in Newton Mearns during his imprisonment in Greenock prison. The Scottish Government have informed us that East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is maintaining regular contact with Al Megrahi as required by the conditions of his release licence. It would not be appropriate for the FCO to ask the council for this confidential information.
Should Al Megrahi wish to return to the UK then he would be subject to UK immigration law and therefore be required to apply for an entry visa. Any such application for a visa from Al Megrahi would be considered in the appropriate way including consideration of the seriousness of the offence for which he was convicted.
[A news report based on this written answer can now be found on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The editor, Steven Raeburn, cynically asks on Twitter @TheFirmOnline "Does this permit 'plausible deniability' to be argued by the UK Gov in the event of a stray missile landing on him...?"]
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business at Edinburgh Festival Fringe
David Benson will be giving a single performance of his award-winning one-man play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business on Monday, 8 August 2011 at 4pm at St John's Church, corner of Princes Street and Lothian Road, Edinburgh (venue 127). Members of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, including Dr Jim Swire, will be taking part in the post-show discussion. Details can be found here.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Lockerbie bomb lawyer’s Borders fiscal post
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Southern Reporter, a newspaper circulating in the Scottish Borders. It reads in part:]
A solicitor involved in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been appointed new area procurator fiscal for the Borders.
John Logue was part of the Crown Office’s Lockerbie team from 1998 to 2002 when Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty of murdering 270 people and during his first appeal.
Mr Logue will now oversee proceedings at Duns, Jedburgh, Peebles and Selkirk courts, as well as covering the Lothians. (...)
The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, said: “John has been pivotal in shaping the policy and management agenda of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service in recent years. He also played a crucial role at the Lockerbie trial and continues to work on the case. [RB: I suspect that the only real work still being done on the case is a rearguard action to defend the indefensible -- viz the conviction -- and to prevent an independent inquiry ever being instituted into it.]
“He has a lengthy track record in operational casework.
“I have every confidence that the Lothian and Borders team will continue to go from strength to strength under his leadership.”
[The chief procurator fiscal working on the Lockerbie case at the time of the Zeist trial and appeal is now a sheriff (a local judge in the Scottish system) as is the then principal solicitor for Abdelbaset Megrahi. The two leading advocates-depute (Crown prosecutors) at the trial are now both judges of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.]
A solicitor involved in the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber has been appointed new area procurator fiscal for the Borders.
John Logue was part of the Crown Office’s Lockerbie team from 1998 to 2002 when Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi was found guilty of murdering 270 people and during his first appeal.
Mr Logue will now oversee proceedings at Duns, Jedburgh, Peebles and Selkirk courts, as well as covering the Lothians. (...)
The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, said: “John has been pivotal in shaping the policy and management agenda of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service in recent years. He also played a crucial role at the Lockerbie trial and continues to work on the case. [RB: I suspect that the only real work still being done on the case is a rearguard action to defend the indefensible -- viz the conviction -- and to prevent an independent inquiry ever being instituted into it.]
“He has a lengthy track record in operational casework.
“I have every confidence that the Lothian and Borders team will continue to go from strength to strength under his leadership.”
[The chief procurator fiscal working on the Lockerbie case at the time of the Zeist trial and appeal is now a sheriff (a local judge in the Scottish system) as is the then principal solicitor for Abdelbaset Megrahi. The two leading advocates-depute (Crown prosecutors) at the trial are now both judges of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.]
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Secret report on Lockerbie bomber to be made public
[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of the Dumfries & Galloway Standard, one of the local newspapers covering the Lockerbie area, several days after other media featured the story. The report reads in part:]
A confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber could be made public.
Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi’s case back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
Speaking this week, First Minister Mr Salmond said: “I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC.
“It hasn’t been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties before you can publish the full statement. It hasn’t been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
“However, we believe we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do.”
[This article, like all of the others, fails to mention that it was the Scottish Government that chose to impose the consent requirement in the 2009 Statutory Instrument that first allowed publication. It also fails to mention that the consent requirement could, and should, be removed by Statutory Instrument without requiring primary legislation to be piloted through the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has signally failed to address the question why it is choosing to remove the restrictive requirement in this cumbersome and wholly unnecessary way.]
A confidential report which raises questions over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber could be made public.
Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond said legislation will be brought forward to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish its statement of reasons for referring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi’s case back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
Speaking this week, First Minister Mr Salmond said: “I intend to publish in full the findings of the SCCRC.
“It hasn’t been done to date because under the current law you have to have an agreement from all parties before you can publish the full statement. It hasn’t been possible to secure the agreement from all parties and therefore the statement is in limbo.
“However, we believe we can change the law so that the matter can be published under the full discretion of the SCCRC, and that is what we intend to do.”
[This article, like all of the others, fails to mention that it was the Scottish Government that chose to impose the consent requirement in the 2009 Statutory Instrument that first allowed publication. It also fails to mention that the consent requirement could, and should, be removed by Statutory Instrument without requiring primary legislation to be piloted through the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has signally failed to address the question why it is choosing to remove the restrictive requirement in this cumbersome and wholly unnecessary way.]
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
MacAskill reply to Forrester
[At the end of July, Justice for Megrahi's secretary Robert Forrester wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to inquire whether the Scottish authorities had offered Abdelbaset Megrahi an opportunity to return to Scotland given the circumstances currently obtaining in Libya. The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just published a report based on Kenny MacAskill's reply. It reads as follows:]
The Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has swept aside a query from the Justice for Megrahi campaign group asking whether Scotland maintained a duty of care to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi following the threats to his life under the newly recognised Libyan regime.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, had prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
The answer appears to be none.
Answering on behalf of all organisations, MacAskill said : “The Council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr Al Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence.”
“No request has been made to the Council by Mr Al Megrahi to change any of his licence conditions, including his place of residency,” he added.
The issue of the existing duty of care was not addressed in Mr MacAskill’s reply.
Mr Megrahi’s release licence (...) does not oblige Megrahi to remain at any fixed address. His obligation extends to notifying his supervising officer “in advance of any change in [your] place of residence”.
The Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has swept aside a query from the Justice for Megrahi campaign group asking whether Scotland maintained a duty of care to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi following the threats to his life under the newly recognised Libyan regime.
The likelihood of rendition by US authorities of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in the aftermath of the UK’s recognition of the former Libyan rebel forces as the new Government of Libya, had prompted the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to challenge the Scottish prison service, First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate to explain what commitments have been made to ensure his safety.
The answer appears to be none.
Answering on behalf of all organisations, MacAskill said : “The Council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr Al Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya and he continues to abide by the terms of his release licence.”
“No request has been made to the Council by Mr Al Megrahi to change any of his licence conditions, including his place of residency,” he added.
The issue of the existing duty of care was not addressed in Mr MacAskill’s reply.
Mr Megrahi’s release licence (...) does not oblige Megrahi to remain at any fixed address. His obligation extends to notifying his supervising officer “in advance of any change in [your] place of residence”.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Moussa Koussa "threatened" David Milliband
[What follows is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]
Meanwhile, it has emerged in a leaked Scottish Government document that Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister warned the UK Government that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s incarceration in Scotland would cause “severe difficulties” for bilateral relations.
The Libyan politician’s threat was made during a conversation with the UK’s then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in March 2009, five months before the Libyan man jailed for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was freed.
[It was already well known that Libya had let it be known to the UK government that failure to repatriate Megrahi would have consequences for UK-Libyan relations. It is interesting that this pressure was directed towards the UK government, in spite of the Libyan authorities having been informed, by me amongst others, that responsibility for deciding on prisoner transfer or compassionate release rested with the Scottish, not the UK, government. It would seem that the Libyans were still operating under the misapprehensions engendered by Tony Blair and his team during the "deal in the desert". Here is what I wrote in a blog post dated 14 September 2009:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
Some -- entirely predictable -- US press comments on the recent appearance of Megrahi at a rally in Tripoli can be read here and here and here.
A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman supporting the Justice Secretary's compassionate release decision can be read here.
My great trek from South Africa back to Edinburgh begins later today. It is unlikely that there will be further blog posts until Wednesday, 3 August at the earliest.]
Meanwhile, it has emerged in a leaked Scottish Government document that Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister warned the UK Government that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s incarceration in Scotland would cause “severe difficulties” for bilateral relations.
The Libyan politician’s threat was made during a conversation with the UK’s then Foreign Secretary David Miliband in March 2009, five months before the Libyan man jailed for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was freed.
[It was already well known that Libya had let it be known to the UK government that failure to repatriate Megrahi would have consequences for UK-Libyan relations. It is interesting that this pressure was directed towards the UK government, in spite of the Libyan authorities having been informed, by me amongst others, that responsibility for deciding on prisoner transfer or compassionate release rested with the Scottish, not the UK, government. It would seem that the Libyans were still operating under the misapprehensions engendered by Tony Blair and his team during the "deal in the desert". Here is what I wrote in a blog post dated 14 September 2009:
"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.
"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."
Some -- entirely predictable -- US press comments on the recent appearance of Megrahi at a rally in Tripoli can be read here and here and here.
A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman supporting the Justice Secretary's compassionate release decision can be read here.
My great trek from South Africa back to Edinburgh begins later today. It is unlikely that there will be further blog posts until Wednesday, 3 August at the earliest.]
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Call for Megrahi to have 'open door' to Scotland
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Supporters of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi say he should be allowed to return to Scotland to avoid being extradited to the United States.
The Justice for Megrahi group is calling on the Scottish Government to offer him an "open door" after American senators declared last week that they hoped to persuade Libyan rebels to hand him over if they gain control of the country.
Megrahi's supporters say the Scottish Government should pre-empt such a plan by bringing him back to Scotland to prevent a "diplomatic disaster".
Robert Forrester, of the Justice for Megrahi group, wrote: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
His comments come after US politicians stepped up their war of words over Megrahi's release after TV images of the bomber were broadcast at a pro-Gaddafi event in Libya last week.
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said he hoped to persuade a new Libyan government "to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "East Renfrewshire Council, as the supervising local authority, is responsible for monitoring al-Megrahi's release licence, and the council has been able to maintain regular contact with Mr al-Megrahi during the recent conflict in Libya."
[The same newspaper publishes a long article by Eddie Barnes headlined As the anniversary of the Lockerbie bomber's release looms are we any closer to solving the riddle? This focusses on the release of Megrahi and the medical evidence that underpinned it. There are extensive quotes from representatives of US relatives of Pan Am 103 victims but, strangely enough, none from UK relatives whose attitude has always been markedly different. The article does at least recognise that there are doubts about the Megrahi conviction in the following passage:]
Under pressure once again, MacAskill last week repeated the now familiar words he had used two years ago when he told the world that the man found guilty of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity could pack his bags and go home. Megrahi was suffering from a terminal illness; his fate was in the hands of a higher power; the Scottish Government had acted in good faith - and not with reference to any "deals in the desert".
And while MacAskill will find himself under greater pressure, it may be that the focus moves away from the decision to set him free to the decision to convict him in the first place. Last week, Salmond repeated his pledge to publish a confidential report, compiled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which sets out its reasons for sending Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
If published, the report, which was locked away after Megrahi dropped his appeal, is likely to put fresh scrutiny on his involvement in the bombing. (...)
Inquiries by Scottish prosecutors remain "ongoing". The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it can retry Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was found not guilty at the Camp Zeist trial in 2001. Prosecutors are re-examining evidence to see whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Meanwhile, US Senators are hoping to use the Libyan revolution to spirit Megrahi back out of Libya to the US. Having watched Megrahi on the TV, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez said last week: "I will continue to work to ensure that any new government in Libya co-operates with efforts to extradite Mr al-Megrahi to the United States to pay for his crimes."
Menendez and veteran fellow Democrat Frank Lautenberg have written to Hillary Clinton urging her to act. As we report today, the Justice for Megrahi group - which insists he is innocent - are calling on the SNP Government to offer Megrahi the option of returning to Scotland if he wishes to avoid what they describe as the threat of his "rendition" to the US. Robert Forrester, the secretary of the group, says: "It is now of vital importance that the Scottish authorities at least offer Mr al-Megrahi an open door through which to escape his current circumstances if he wishes to do so, not least because so many profound doubts exist over his 2001 conviction."
Such a move would be seen as the ultimate betrayal by families in the US, however, many of whom - such as [Frank] Duggan [President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc] - believe 100 per cent in Megrahi's guilt, and view those who consider him innocent as hopelessly naive. As he approaches a second anniversary which none of them ever dreamed of experiencing, Duggan's view of matters is understandably cynical. "There is no credible medical evidence. So the conclusion is that the man was let go for what were diplomatic, commercial and political reasons," he says. It may also be a case that a very sick man is clinging on to life, now that he has something to live for. If he continues to do so, he may finally see the riddle of his life finally brought to light.
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber
[This is the headline over a feature just published on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
An antidote to BBC Scotland's carnival of ignorance
It’s taken on the form of a regular parade on the airwaves of BBC Scotland, a bandwagon hitched to ignorance and manned by misrepresentation is once again being whipped up to high speed.
Mr al-Megrahi, the man whose conviction is now considered so unsafe by so many people that a (posthumous?) pardon now surely beckons, has refused to die on schedule. His appearance, frail and gaunt, sitting in a wheelchair at a rally in Tripoli was seized on by Pacific Quay who have spent the last few days questioning the decision to release him.
On Friday the state broadcaster ran yet another phone in with Shereen Nanjiani in the chair as the usual half-truths, misinformation and ignorance were broadcast to a bewildered nation. Labour’s Iain Gray was invited on to provide the same nauseating politicised commentary that has so infected the debate since the decision was taken to release Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Gray's party’s role in oil deals, secret negotiations with Libyans and arms sales to Gaddafi an apparent irrelevant detail.
Only in Scotland would the ‘national’ broadcaster and opposition amplify and promulgate with relish any and all accusations against the nation's medical profession, government and centuries old law. The Lockerbie bombing has been used, abused and spat out by these politically motivated ghouls, who parade faux outrage as the real victims are forgotten.
Newsnet Scotland has chronicled the excesses of the Scottish media on this issue, mainly BBC Scotland, and few of their presenters, with the exception of Revel Alderson, emerge with any credit. For almost £150 per year per licence we expect more than poorly informed tabloid style sensationalism - we expect journalism of the highest quality and we are being let down.
The one aspect of the whole affair that has been all but ignored by what’s left of the Scottish media is the soundness of Megrahi’s conviction. So, rather than waste time on what’s left of the BBC in Scotland, Newsnet Scotland invites you to instead form your own judgement on the conviction of Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by watching a documentary that sought to investigate some of the key evidence presented at his trial.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am bomber?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)