The break-in at Heathrow Terminal 3

[On this date in 1988, the night before the departure of Pan Am 103, there was a breach of security at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 3 that potentially gave access to the baggage build-up area used for luggage destined for that flight. This breach of security was known to the Lockerbie investigators but was not disclosed to the legal teams defending Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah and so did not feature in the evidence led at the Zeist trial where Megrahi was convicted. The failure to disclose this material to the defence formed one of the grounds of Megrahi’s 2002 appeal. What follows is an account on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website of proceedings at that appeal on 13 February 2002:]

A former Heathrow Airport security guard has said he found a baggage store padlock "cut like butter" the night before the Lockerbie bombing. Ray Manly was giving evidence at the appeal by Abdelbasset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi against his conviction for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing. Al-Megrahi's defence team argue that the bomb could have been placed on Pan Am Flight 103 at Heathrow. At his trial, one of the key areas of the prosecution case was that the bomb was loaded onto a feeder flight from Luqa Airport in Malta, where al-Megrahi worked.

Evidence about the reported break-in was not introduced at the trial and is only now being heard for the first time. Mr Manly was on a night shift in Terminal 3 on the night of 20/21 December 1988. He told the Scottish Court in the Netherlands that the doors separating landside from airside were unmanned at night after they had been locked. During his rounds, he spotted that a padlock securing the doors had been broken.

"The padlock was on the floor. In my opinion it was as if it had been cut like butter - very professional," he said. The court was shown Mr Manly's security report, written soon after the incident in which he described the break-in as "a very deliberate act, leaving easy access to airside". Mr Manly informed his colleaguePhilip Radley and police were called. But Mr Manly said he did not see any police officers that night and was only interviewed by anti-terrorist squad officers about the incident the following January, after the Lockerbie disaster.

Giving evidence, Mr Radley told the five appeal court judges that Terminal 3's landside area, where passengers arrived to check in, was separated from airside by two thick rubber doors at the end of a corridor. Access to the airside area was restricted to staff. The doors were secured by a 4ft long iron bar and a heavy duty padlock and security guards were on duty on each side of the doors. Mr Radley said he was on the nightshift on 20 December when his supervisor called to tell him that the padlock on the doors had been broken. A guard was placed on the doors - designated T3 2a and T3 2b - until the morning, when a replacement padlock was found.

The court was shown Mr Radley's log book for the night including an entry recorded at 35 minutes past midnight on December 21: "Door at T3 2a lock broken off."  Questioned by Alan Turnbull QC, for the prosecution, Mr Radley explained that baggage handlers working airside would pass through the doors when starting their shift and leave the same way - unless they were delayed and the doors at T3 2a and 2b had been locked for the night. In that case, he said, baggage handlers would have to take a longer route out of the terminal and there had been complaints about having to do so. On the night of 20 December, baggage handlers had to stay late because of a delayed flight, he confirmed. Mr Turnbull suggested that a member of staff taking a short cut, could have forced the door, breaking the padlock.

Manly, who cautioned the court he might have to take a break since he was taking strong medication for a serious illness, bristled at Turnbull's suggestions that his recollections about the incident might have become confused. "I'm still suffering from the horror of it all...if someone had carried out their jobs, this might have never happened," he said.

Philip Radley, Manly's supervisor, also disputed Turnbull's suggestion that a baggage handler probably forced open the double doors that were also secured with a long metal bolt. "You couldn't break it out like that," he said. Turnbull said a muted response by airport officials and police to the incident showed they did not believe an intruder had slipped into sensitive areas at the airport. Manly said he was interviewed by an anti-terrorist squad shortly after the incident, but his story was never followed up at the Lockerbie inquiry.

Questioned by the defence Mr Radley said the detour for baggage handlers if the doors were locked was only "a couple of minutes". He could not recall any previous incident in which staff had forced open locked doors. The prosecution has also been allowed to present 11 new witnesses, to counter the new evidence. Although the court's decision to allow the new evidence to be heard can be seen as a boost to the defence case, under Scottish law the appeal judges have to weigh whether the new testimony, had it been heard at the original trial, would have changed the outcome of that case.

[RB: The appeal court rejected this ground of appeal. Here is my explanation of why it did so:]

The only ground upon which a criminal appeal can succeed in Scotland is that there has been a miscarriage of justice. In the Note of Appeal lodged on behalf of Megrahi there were set out in 21 paragraphs (many of them subdivided) the grounds upon which, individually or in combination, it was contended that a miscarriage had occurred. One of those grounds related to the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard during the original proceedings. This evidence related to a breach of security at Heathrow Terminal 3 (potentially giving access to the baggage build-up area) the night before Pan Am 103 departed from that terminal on its fatal flight. The Appeal Court allowed the new evidence to be led before it, but ultimately concluded that it could not be regarded as possessing such importance as to have been likely to have had a material bearing on the trial court’s determination of the critical issue of whether the suitcase containing the bomb was launched on its progress from Luqa Airport in Malta (an essential plank in the prosecution case) or from Heathrow. This ground of appeal was accordingly rejected.

Justice Committee resumes consideration of Megrahi petition on 5 January

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (PE1370) features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee to be held on 5 January 2016 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 4. The Committee Clerk’s paper on the agenda item reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction – Lodged: 01 November 2010

Terms of the petition

The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Background

Operation Sandwood

At its meeting on 21 April 2015, the Committee considered an update received from Justice for Megrahi, which included a request to consider the appointment of an “independent prosecutor” to assess the findings of the forthcoming Police Scotland investigation known as “Operation Sandwood”. 'Sandwood' is the operational designation for Police Scotland's investigation of JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to the Lockerbie/Zeist affair which led to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perversion of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s final “Sandwood” report is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

The Committee previously agreed to write to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an “independent prosecutor”. His response outlined arrangements made by the Crown Office to employ an independent Crown Counsel who had not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have reject the involvement of an independent Crown Counsel because it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach.‟

Police Scotland regularly meets with JFM to discuss ongoing issues regarding the case. At its meeting of 28 April officers highlighted the appointment of an independent QC to enhance the professional integrity of the investigation separate from the appointment by the Crown office.

High Court ruling

Separately, in December 2014 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission asked the High Court for a ruling on the legal status of the victims’ relatives, to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on Megrahi‟s behalf. It ruled in July that the victims’ relatives had no legitimate interest to institute an appeal against the deceased‟s conviction.  It appears that the only method by which an appeal against the deceased conviction could be instigated is through the deceased‟s relatives or the executor of his estate. Whilst there have been some reports indicating that Megrahi’s family wish to be involved in an appeal, the Court proceeded on the basis that the SCCRC‟s reference was on behalf only of certain victims of the bombing.

Recent developments

Operation Sandwood

Following consideration of the petition on 22 September, the Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate again requesting more information about the appointment of an independent prosecutor to examine the findings of the Police investigation “Operation Sandwood”. The response, attached in Annexe C does not add to the earlier response provided and cites an earlier response sent to JFM (Annexe D) which the committee had sight of last time I considered the petition. [RB: These two annexes are to be found at the end of the committee papers.]

JFM have now responded directly to members reiterating their concerns about the impartiality of the COPF in handling this case and have sought assurances that independent consideration of the police investigation be agreed to. To date both the Scottish Government and COPF have concluded this is not necessary.

Clerks expect a further response from JFM in due course. This will be forwarded to members as soon as it is received. [RB: A lengthy response has been submitted by JFM to the committee. Once it appears on the Justice Committee’s section of the Scottish Parliament website, I shall reproduce it on this blog.]

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

On 5 November the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced that: “it is not in the interests of justice” to continue with a review of the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Consequently, the application has been refused.”

In a news release published that day The Commission‟s Chairman, Jean Couper said:

“A great deal of public money and time was expended on the Commission‟s original review of Mr Megrahi‟s case which resulted, in 2007, in him being given the opportunity to challenge his conviction before the High Court by way of a second appeal. In 2009, along with his legal team, Mr Megrahi decided to abandon that appeal. Before agreeing to spend further public money on a fresh review the Commission required to consider the reasons why he chose to do so. It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review. It remains open in the future for the matter to be considered again by the Commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers. This will require the cooperation of the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and his family.”

Options

The Committee can:  

Keep the petition open and monitor the progress of “Operation Sandwood”,  

Take any other action in relation to the petition that the Committee considers appropriate (including closing the petition).

Something disturbing and rotten in our justice system

[On Monday 14 December, Justice for Megrahi circulated a letter headed The Crown Office - cause for serious concern? This morning JfM has issued a follow-up press release. It reads as follows:]

AS THE TWENTY-SEVENTH LOCKERBIE ANNIVERSARY LOOMS, PROMINENT SCOTS SPEAK OUT

“... something disturbing and rotten in our justice system”

A letter this week by Justice for Megrahi (JfM) to 350 of Scotland’s ‘great and good’, informing them that bias and prejudice have disqualified the Crown Office from assessing a major new Police Scotland report into nine serious criminal allegations related to Lockerbie, has elicited outspoken responses which show Lockerbie, after twenty-seven years, is still an issue of the highest importance that the Crown Office can no longer be trusted to deal with.

Hugh Andrew, Managing Director of publishers Birlinn, states: “Behaviour such as the clear leaking of information by the crown prosecution service to sympathetic journalists, the pointblank refusal to accept the implications of a damning report and the refusal to consider clearly relevant new evidence not available at the time of trial and independently verified, is a pointer to something disturbing and rotten in our justice system. In a case of such importance it is essential that all evidence is fairly and openly considered. That every form of subterfuge seems deployed to prevent this begs some fairly ominous questions.”

Justice campaigner and retired police officer Iain McKie, a member of the Justice for Megrahi committee, commented: “A major Police Scotland report is about to be published which could point to Mr Megrahi’s innocence and possible criminal acts by former Crown Office personnel and prosecution witnesses. Surely this disqualifies the Lord Advocate and Crown Office from coming anywhere near this report.”

He added: “Our SNP government was elected by people like myself who were searching for more honest, open and transparent government. It is a matter of some regret to me that Michael Matheson seems to have turned his back on us in support of the arrogant and totally unjust stance being adopted by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office.”

Patriot and Nationalist Ian Hamilton QC observes: “I don't think there's a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted.”

Prominent Scots author James Robertson, also a JfM member, states: “The Lord Advocate/ Crown Office have described the JfM complainers as ‘conspiracy theorists’, dismissed the allegations as ‘defamatory and entirely unfounded’ and ‘deliberately false and misleading’, have acted publicly to underline Mr Megrahi’s guilt and have threatened the integrity of the ongoing police enquiry. What more need I say.”

One of the most distinguished of Scotland's criminal court solicitors and a member of JfM,Len Murray, observes: “The Lord Advocate/Crown Office have refused to have a prosecutor totally independent of them appointed to assess the report and decide on any prosecution and the Scottish Government has refused to act to protect the public interest. It seems clear that these authorities are intent on burying the findings of this report.”

International agreement on Lockerbie trial

On this date in 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concluded in The Hague an agreement setting out the arrangements for a trial of the Lockerbie suspects to take place before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. The full text of the agreement can be read here.

Lockerbie inquiry ruled out

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2002. It reads as follows:]

Relatives of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing have been told there will be no further investigation by the UK Government.

At a meeting with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw they were told a fresh inquiry was unlikely to be of any benefit.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of murder for smuggling a bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988, with the loss of 270 lives.

Megrahi was moved to Glasgow's Barlinnie Prison in March after he lost an appeal against his conviction. He is now serving a sentence of at least 20 years.

His appeal was rejected by judges at the special Scottish court at the Camp Zeist compound.

The government in July rejected calls from MPs for a public inquiry into the tragedy but pledged to look at other scrutiny options.

In a written Commons statement Mr Straw said: "We have taken the view that to be of value, any scrutiny should be able to deliver new and useful conclusions despite the passage of time and the investigations that have already taken place.

"We have concluded that, given the absence of any significant new information, the fact that the key issues have already been extensively explored and action taken - including substantial changes to airport procedures - it is most unlikely that any further form of inquiry would unearth further lessons to be learned 14 years after the event which had not already been identified by earlier investigations.

"The government have therefore decided not to initiate any further form of review on Lockerbie."

A Scottish MP in March called for a public inquiry into the bombing despite Megrahi's conviction.

Russell Brown, whose Dumfries constituency includes the town of Lockerbie, said many questions had been left unanswered.

[RB: The full text of Jack Straw’s statement can be read here. It should be contrasted with assurances given to Dr Jim Swire by Tony Blair on 10 December 1998.]

UK-Libya rapprochement following the Lockerbie trial

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Gaddafi, Britain, UK and US: A secret, special and very cosy relationship that was published in The Independent on Sunday on 4 September 2011. An important event in the post-Lockerbie rapprochement occurred on 16 December 2003:]

Most of the papers were found at the private offices of Moussa Koussa, the foreign minister, regime security chief and one of Gaddafi's chief lieutenants, on Friday afternoon. (...)

Mr Koussa, who defected after the February revolution and spent time in the UK, left to take up residence in the Gulf after demands that he face police questioning over the murder of Libyan opposition figures in exile, the Lockerbie bombing and the killing of the policewoman Yvonne Fletcher. In a sign of the importance of the British connection, MI6 merited two files in Mr Koussa's office, while the CIA had only one. UK intelligence agencies had played a leading role in bringing Gaddafi's regime in from the cold.

The documents reveal that British security agencies provided details about exiled opposition figures to the Libyans, including phone numbers. Among those targeted were Ismail Kamoka, freed by British judges in 2004 because he was not regarded as a threat to the UK's national security. MI6 even drafted a speech for Gaddafi when he was seeking rapprochement with the outside world with a covering note stressing that UK and Libyan officials must use "the same script". (...)

Britain's extraordinary rekindling of relations with Libya did not start as Mr Blair sipped tea in a Bedouin tent with Gaddafi, nor within the walls of the Travellers Club in Pall Mall – although this "summit of spies" in 2003 played a major role. It can be traced back to a 1999 meeting Mr Blair held with the man hailed as one of the greatest to have ever lived: Nelson Mandela, in South Africa.

Mr Mandela had long played a key role in negotiations between Gaddafi, whom he had hailed as a key opponent of apartheid, and the British government. Mr Mandela first lobbied Mr Blair over Libya in October 1997, at a Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Edinburgh. Mr Mandela was pressing for those accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to be tried outside Scotland. In January 1999, Mr Mandela, during a visit by Mr Blair to South Africa, actively lobbied the PM on behalf of Gaddafi, over sanctions imposed on Libya and the Lockerbie suspects.

UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 when Gaddafi handed over the two Lockerbie suspects, including Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was eventually convicted of the bombing. Libya also accepted "general responsibility" for the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Both moves allowed the Blair government to begin the long process of renewing ties with Libya.

Within a couple of years, the issue of persuading the Gaddafi regime to turn itself from pariah into international player surged to the forefront of the British government's agenda. It was during this time, according to the documents found in Mr Koussa's office, that MI6 and the CIA began actively engaging with Libyan intelligence chiefs. But it was a key meeting on 16 December 2003, at the Travellers Club, that would put the official UK – and US – stamp on Gaddafi's credibility. Present were Mr Koussa, then head of external intelligence for Libya, and two Libyan intelligence figures; Mr Blair's foreign affairs envoy, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, and three MI6 chiefs; and two CIA directors. Mr Koussa's attendance at the meeting in central London was extraordinary – at the time he had been banned from entering Britain after allegedly plotting to assassinate Libyan dissidents, and so was given safe passage by MI6.

Mr Koussa's pivotal role at the Travellers Club casts light on how, following his defection from Gaddafi's regime during the initial Nato bombing campaign earlier this year, he was able to slip quietly out of the country. Two days after the 2003 meeting, Mr Blair and Gaddafi held talks by telephone; and the next day, 19 December, the announcement about Libya surrendering its WMD was made by Mr Blair and President Bush.

In March 2004, Mr Blair first shook hands with Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent. The pair then met again in May 2007, shortly before Mr Blair left office.

Independent consideration needed for "Operation Sandwood" Lockerbie report

[This is the headline over an item posted yesterday on the website of The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland. It reads as follows:]

Lord Advocate and Crown Office would be "judge and jury in own cause"

by Robert Forrester

I am writing as secretary of Justice for Megrahi (JfM), a single purpose group which campaigns for the truth to be revealed about the Lockerbie Pan Am disaster in 1988.

As the 27th anniversary approaches on 21 December, we are contacting as many individuals and organisations as we can who are engaged with and interested in the Scottish justice system, alerting them to a situation which we believe is unparalleled in our legal history and to enlist their support.

In 2012 JfM made nine criminal allegations in connection with the Lockerbie investigation and trial which, if supported, not only throw serious doubt on Mr Megrahi’s conviction but also point to possible malpractice by Crown Office personnel, police and other prosecution witnesses involved in this investigation and trial.

In April 2013 the initial police enquiry was upgraded by Police Scotland when they launched a major criminal investigation codenamed "Operation Sandwood", which will report on our allegations to the Crown Office early next year.

We believe that by their continuing actions the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have totally disqualified themselves from considering this report.

We cite two main reasons:

• Some of the allegations relate to Crown Office personnel and thus they cannot be judge and jury in their own cause.
• The Lord Advocate and Crown Office have already come to a view on these allegations, in that they have publicly described the JfM complainers as "conspiracy theorists", and dismissed the allegations as "defamatory and entirely unfounded… deliberately false and misleading".

These views were first expressed before the police initiated their investigations and subsequently while they were in progress, and were clearly intended to undermine the credibility of the allegations and those who made them.

We would also draw your attention to the repeated public statements by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office that their whole focus is on tracing Mr Megrahi’s accomplices in Libya and elsewhere.

Should the ongoing Operation Sandwood investigations substantiate any of our allegations, then these very authorities will be forced to consider conclusions that they have consistently publicly decried.

It is this very public bias and prejudice evinced by the Crown authorities that convinces us they cannot be allowed to be the final arbiters of the Operation Sandwood report.

Our request for the police report to be considered by a prosecutor totally independent of the Crown has been dismissed by the Lord Advocate.

A plea to the Scottish Government to intervene and ensure an open and accountable consideration of the police report has also been peremptorily dismissed.

If you share our concerns, we would urge you to support our efforts to obtain an independent consideration of the police report by responding with your views to me at forrester.robert@gmail.com. If you wish any further information, please contact me.

The best source of information on Lockerbie and JfM’s ongoing campaign can be found on The Lockerbie Case blog run by Professor Bob Black QC, Emeritus Professor of Scots Law, Edinburgh University, at lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk.

Fear that findings of a Police Scotland probe into Lockerbie atrocity will be 'buried'

[What follows is the text of a report published in today’s edition of The National:]

Findings of a major Police Scotland investigation into allegations surrounding the Lockerbie disaster may never see the light of day, according to a group set up to clear the only man ever convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103

A week before the 27th anniversary of the bombing, in which 270 people died, Justice for Megrahi (JfM) said the Crown Office and Lord Advocate had “already come to a view” on the group's allegations doubting Abdelbaset al Megrahi’s conviction

The Libyan died in May 2012, after the Scottish Government had released him from a life sentence on compassionate grounds.

JfM said in a statement: “The families and friends of those who perished and the people of Scotland are faced with the very real possibility that the findings of a new major Police Scotland investigation into criminal allegations related to the disaster will remain buried in the dark recesses of the Crown Office, will never see the light of day and that the Scottish Government will do nothing to prevent this happening.”

One member of the group, Professor Bob Black, emeritus professor of law at Edinburgh University, said: “The position of the Lord Advocate and Crown Office is clearly untenable and it is against the public interest that the full truth about one of the world’s worst terrorist outrages should be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.”

He told The National of his frustration that an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) by Dr Jim Swire – whose daughter died in the disaster – was thrown out on the basis that victims' relatives had no legitimate interest to challenge the conviction.

He said: “That would’ve been an opportunity for the courts really to look again at the Lockerbie evidence, which they never got a chance to do because Megrahi developed terminal cancer and was sent back home, so the appeal was abandoned.

“The SCCRC’s six grounds for holding that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice have never been tested in court – and that’s a great shame.”

Black said JfM had made nine criminal allegations in connection with the Lockerbie investigation and trial which, had they been supported, would throw serious doubt on Megrahi’s conviction and “point to possible malpractice by Crown Office personnel, police and other prosecution witnesses”.

Black said a rule of legal practice was that a lawyer must never become involved in a situation where the interests of two clients conflict, or where his own personal interest conflicts with those of one of his clients.

He added: “Before the nine allegations of criminal misconduct were ever investigated, the Lord Advocate said there was nothing in them and that JfM were conspiracy theorists, and that what they had said was defamatory.

“This is the man whose office ultimately has to assess the [police] report, which has taken three years. Now that is a clear conflict of interest. He’s already made his mind up.”

The police investigation codenamed Operation Sandwood, is expected to report early next year.

Black said the Scottish [Parliament] was treating the Lockerbie case as “open” because of an earlier petition calling for an independent inquiry, and that JfM would want to see it raised again at Holyrood.

However, a Crown Office spokesperson said: “The Lord Advocate can confirm that he has had no involvement in the appointment of counsel undertaking this work other than to identify their criteria of independence and no previous involvement with the Lockerbie investigation. The counsel undertaking this work is not under the direction of the Lord Advocate.

“The Lord Advocate considers it important that any criminal allegations against persons who were representing the Crown are dealt with independently of the Crown. As indicated above, steps have been taken to ensure this is the case.” 

[RB: The reasons why the selection by the Lord Advocate of a Crown Office prosecutor with no previous involvement in the Lockerbie case does not adequately address Justice for Megrahi’s grave concerns are set out here and here.]

Operation Sandwood Report: Public Statements by Lord Advocate and Crown Office

[In the item The Crown Office - cause for serious concern? posted earlier today on this blog, mention is made of statements by the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate that, in the view of Justice for Megrahi, disqualify them from playing any part in assessing Police Scotland’s forthcoming Operation Sandwood report into JfM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. What follows is the text of a document released today by JfM on the Crown Office’s and Lord Advocate’s statements:]

Introduction

In relation to the forthcoming police Operation Sandwood report into Justice For Megrahi’s (JfM’s) 9 criminal allegations which is due to be submitted to the Crown Office early in 2016 we have consistently argued that this authority and the Lord Advocate have disqualified themselves from receiving, considering and making any prosecutorial or other decisions flowing from this report because of related public statements made by them.

Public Statements

In September 2012, following JfM’s letter to the then Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill laying out the allegations and seeking an independent investigation into them, and before they had been reported to the police, the Crown Office authorities publicly dismissed them as being without foundation in an article in The Scotsman:

‘But the Crown Office yesterday branded the allegations “defamatory and entirely unfounded”. A spokesman added that one of the allegations had been investigated by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which found no basis for appeal, while it was also found there was “no basis” for claims that any police officers or officials fabricated evidence.

“It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way,” he added. The Lockerbie conviction has already been upheld by five appeal court judges, while Megrahi abandoned a second appeal.’ http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/deliberately-false-and-misleading.html

In December 2012 shortly after the allegations were officially delivered to Dumfries and Galloway Police, in widely reported statements, the Lord Advocate went public calling the JfM members who has made the allegations, “conspiracy theorists” and labelling the allegations, ‘defamatory and entirely unfounded ....... deliberately false and misleading.’

‘Scotland’s Lord Advocate has launched a powerful and stinging attack against “conspiracy theorists” who claim that the Lockerbie bomber was wrongly convicted.

In the most detailed rebuttal yet made to the case mounted by campaigners who argue that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent and that Libya was not involved in the terrorist bomb plot that brought Pan Am 103 down over Lockerbie 24 years ago today, Frank Mulholland, QC, calls the allegations “without foundation” ‘.

He goes on to accuse those making them of uttering “defamatory” comments against High Court judges who are unable to respond. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/pro-megrahi-backers-flayed-by-new-lord.html

It is against this background of unprecedented public vilification of JfM’s legitimate allegations and those who made them that the subsequent behaviour of Lord Advocate/ Crown Office must be judged.

Having set themselves firmly against JfM and its claims their subsequent behaviour can clearly be seen as a consistent pattern of behaviour proactively supporting this totally unjustified bias and prejudice.

In June 2014 the BBC reported that the Megrahi family had instructed a Scottish lawyer to apply to have his conviction reviewed by the SCCRC and published a Crown Office response to the application.

‘A Crown Office spokesman said they "do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC." The spokesman added: "The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people. We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime, we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement.” ‘ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27698626

In December 2014, at the Lockerbie commemoration ceremony in America, the Lord Advocate once again re-emphasised Mr Megrahi’s guilt and stated the only remaining question was, ’who were his accomplices’? These comments were made in the full knowledge that Operation Sandwood was ongoing and that if any one of the criminal allegations was upheld this would call Mr Megrahi’s guilt into question and could point to Crown Office and police culpability.

The Daily Telegraph reported: ‘Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, used the 26th anniversary of the bombing to reaffirm his belief in the guilt of the only man convicted of the attack, and said Scottish prosecutors would never give up the fight to find his accomplices.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11306609/Lockerbie-bombing-senior-law-officer-vows-to-track-down-Megrahi-accomplices.html

The BBC reported: ‘Mr Mulholland said: "During the 26-year long inquiry not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case. "We remain committed to this investigation and our focus remains on the evidence, and not on speculation and supposition. "Our prosecutors and police officers, working with UK government and US colleagues, will continue to pursue this investigation, with the sole aim of bringing to justice those who acted along with al-Megrahi.” ‘

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30560364

In October 2015 the BBC reported: ‘A Crown Office spokesman said: "The Lord Advocate and the US Attorney General have recently agreed that there is a proper basis in law in Scotland and the United States to entitle Scottish and US investigators to treat two Libyans as suspects in the continuing investigation into the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34543983

Unfortunately these public statements by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office, highlighting and reinforcing Mr Megrahi’s guilt, fail to acknowledge, what they well knew, that there are two ongoing major investigations.

The first of them, to which the above quotations refer, is being conducted by a Crown Office/Police Scotland ‘Lockerbie Investigation Team’, in close liaison with the American FBI, and has been ongoing for a number of years. Its enquiries are based on the clear assumption that Megrahi did not act alone and his accomplices have still to be identified. The Lord Advocate has recently confirmed that as part of this investigation he is applying to interview two further Libyan suspects incarcerated in Libya.

The second investigation, mounted in 2012, followed JfM's nine allegations of criminality relating to the actions of Crown Office and police personnel and persons who were cited as Crown witnesses in the trial of the two Libyans. This investigation is now being carried out by a dedicated team of Police Scotland officers under the codename Operation Sandwood and a report is expected early next year.

As the Crown well knows the two investigations referred to above are potentially in direct conflict in that the first is predicated on the assumption that Mr. Megrahi is guilty. The Operation Sandwood enquiry however is into allegations that, if proved, point to his innocence and that there may have been malfeasance by some associated with the prosecution including Crown office personnel.

Conclusion

In publicly condemning the JfM allegations and the individuals who made them and by continuing to give such open public support to their own investigation the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have prejudiced and prejudged the outcome of Operation Sandwood.

In 2012 as soon as they were aware of our allegations, the resultant police investigation and the fact that if proved they could challenge the previous assumptions so actively being promoted by the Crown, these authorities should have taken immediate action to protect its integrity and made no further public comment which could be in any way related too that investigation.

As far as we can judge the Lord Advocate/Crown Office have taken absolutely no action to protect the ongoing Police Scotland major investigation and in fact have actively acted against it.

JfM believes that this consistent pattern of biased public statements, in addition to being completely inappropriate, has had the clear potential to influence and prejudice Operation Sandwood witnesses who have been required to provide statements against a background of this very public interference by Scotland’s senior prosecution authorities. We also fear that certain Crown, Police and expert witness, encouraged by the Crown statements, might seek to withhold from or alter legitimate evidence to Operation Sandwood.

Such blatant publicity also serves of course to set the whole of the Crown Office against any contradictory findings from Operation Sandwood thus making it entirely inappropriate for anyone associated with the Crown Office to receive, assess and decide on any action resulting from this report.

Since we made these allegations JfM has become increasingly concerned about the capability of the Lord Advocate/Crown Office to make objective and impartial decisions on any report emanating from the Operation Sandwood investigations. We believe that they have comprehensively disqualified themselves from such decisions and make it essential that a prosecutor completely independent of the Crown Office receives the report, assesses it and makes decisions arising from it without any Crown Office input.