Anniversary of refusal of Megrahi appeal

[On this date in 2002, Abdelbaset Megrahi’s appeal against conviction was refused by five judges sitting in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist. Here is what I wrote some time later, originally in the Edinburgh Law Review, and now to be found here:]

Introduction

Megrahi duly intimated his intention to appeal against his conviction. Pending the appeal he remained incarcerated in the Netherlands in HM Prison, Zeist. On 14 March 2002 the appeal was dismissed. An Opinion of the Court extending to 200 typed pages divided into 370 paragraphs was delivered[3]. The appeal was against conviction only: there was no attempt to challenge the recommendation, that a minimum of twenty years should be served before release was considered, which accompanied the trial court’s mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

As required by the provisions of the High Court of Justiciary (Proceedings in the Netherlands) (United Nations) Order 1998, the Appeal Court consisted of five Lords Commissioners of Justiciary and sat in the premises of the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands[4].The hearing extended from 23 January to14 February 2002. The proceedings (except when the evidence of witnesses was being heard) were televised live over the internet on a website maintained by the BBC, the first occasion in Scotland (or elsewhere in the United Kingdom) that live public broadcasting of judicial proceedings has been permitted. The consensus of opinion was that the administration of justice was not impaired by the presence of the television cameras, but that the level of excitement and drama was such that there is unlikely to be much clamour in the foreseeable future from either broadcasters or the viewing public for the experiment to be repeated.

The grounds of appeal

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.

As far as the appeal based on the remaining twenty paragraphs of the written grounds of appeal was concerned, its failure appears to have been rendered virtually inevitable by two concessions made in the course of argument by the appellant’s counsel. The first of these, as recorded in the Opinion of the Court (paragraph 4) is as follows:

“At the trial it was not submitted on the appellant’s behalf that there was insufficient evidence in law to convict him. In its judgment the trial court rejected parts of the evidence relied upon by the Crown at the trial. Nevertheless, it was not contended in the appeal that those parts of the evidence not rejected by the trial court did not afford a sufficient basis in law for conviction.”

The second concession is recorded in the following terms (paragraph 5):

“Under subsection (3) [of s106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995] an appellant may bring under review of the High Court:

‘any alleged miscarriage of justice, which may include such a miscarriage

based on –

(b) the jury’s having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned.’ …

Mr Taylor, who appeared for the appellant, expressly disavowed any reliance on para (b).”

The importance of these concessions is emphasised by the Appeal Court in the penultimate paragraph of its Opinion (paragraph 369):

“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”

The issues that the appeal did not address

The limitations under which the Appeal Court was thus constrained to operate effectively disabled it from considering the issues of (a) whether there was sufficient evidence in law to justify such absolutely crucial findings-in-fact by the trial court as (i) that the date of purchase in Malta of the clothes surrounding the bomb was 7 December 1988, (ii) that Megrahi was the purchaser and (iii) that the case containing the bomb started its progress from Malta’s Luqa Airport and (b) whether those findings or any of them (on the assumption that there was a legal sufficiency of evidence) were such as no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have made, or been satisfied of beyond reasonable doubt, in the light of (i) justifiable criticisms of the evidence and witnesses supporting them and (ii) ex facie credible contrary evidence.

The issues that the appeal did address

What the appellant instead invited the Appeal Court to do was to hold that various findings-in-fact made by the trial court (a) were based upon a misunderstanding of the evidence or were without a basis in the evidence; or (b) were arrived at by giving undue weight to evidence that supported them or insufficient weight or “proper regard[5]” to evidence that contradicted them; or (c) were in the nature of inferences from primary facts drawn in situations where other, non-incriminating, inferences were equally open.

As regards (a) the Appeal Court held that in two or three instances the trial court had found a fact proved on the basis of a misunderstanding of the evidence led, or where there was no evidential basis for the finding. But in each such case the Appeal Court went on to decide that the error was insignificant, could not have affected the ultimate outcome of the case and, hence, was not such as to give rise to a miscarriage of justice.

As regards (b) and (c) the Appeal Court insisted that, as long it was (as here) not contended that no reasonable trial court could have made the finding-in-fact, challenge of findings on these grounds was simply not competent. The weight to be given to evidence or the “proper regard” to be accorded to it were matters entirely for the trial court, as was the question of what inferences to draw from the primary facts that it held proved. Even where, as here, the tribunal of fact was not an inscrutable jury but a bench of judges who gave reasons for their findings, the Appeal Court was simply not entitled to substitute its own views for those of the trial judges. It followed that all of the grounds of appeal directed towards issues of “weight” or “proper regard” fell to be rejected as raising matters not within the competence or powers of the Appeal Court. This is emphasised at various points in the Opinion of the Court[6] but principally in the section headed “The function of an appeal court.[7]”

Conclusion

Before the verdicts in the original trial were delivered, I expressed the view [on TheLockerbieTrial.com website] that for the judges to return verdicts of guilty they would require (i) to accept every incriminating inference that the Crown invited them to draw from evidence that was on the face of it neutral and capable of supporting quite innocent inferences, (ii) to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, positively identified Megrahi as the person who bought from his shop in Sliema the clothes and umbrella contained in the suitcase that held the bomb and (iii) to accept that the date of purchase of these items was proved to be 7 December 1988 (as distinct from 23 November 1988 when Megrahi was not present on Malta). I went on rashly to express the opinion that, for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi, it is submitted that this is precisely what the trial judges did.

As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them.

Until such time as an appellate court (perhaps on a reference from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) is required to address the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi’s representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate, I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.

______

3. Al Megrahi v H M Advocate 2002 SCCR 509, available at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/index1.asp

4. The High Court (Proceedings in the Netherlands) (United Nations) Order 1998, SI 1998 No 2251, art 14(1), (2) available at www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982251.htm

5. "Proper regard" is an expression used frequently in the written grounds of appeal.

6. For examples of grounds of appeal being rejected on this basis, see Opinion of the Court, paras 76, 80, 84, 118, 129,262, 274, 288, 327, 351.

7. See Opinion of the Court, paras 20-27.

Lockerbie Revealed: The secret report that damns Scottish justice

[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams that was published in The Herald on this date in 2012. It reads as follows:]

A damning secret report has revealed the flawed handling of the Lockerbie case by Scottish prosecutors and the key documents not disclosed to the defence team which could have cleared the Libyan convicted of the atrocity.

The full 821-page Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) dossier, which has been seen by The Herald, uncovers serious discrepancies in the Crown Office's reasons for not disclosing vital information.

The Herald can reveal the commission – whose job it is to review cases post-appeal and investigate whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred – even wrote to the Crown warning it would take legal action if the prosecution did not hand over important documents and speed up information sharing.

The SCCRC rejected many of the defence team's submissions but upheld six different grounds which could have constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown failed to disclose seven key items of evidence that led to the Lockerbie case being referred back for a fresh appeal.

The SCCRC made clear that, had such information been shared with the defence, the result of the trial could have been different.

Its full report details why the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was referred for a second appeal.

The Scottish Government says it wants to release the document in the interests of transparency but cannot do so because it is covered by data protection law, which is reserved to Westminster.

The report reveals failings on the part of the Crown and shows it delayed the SCCRC by responding very slowly to requests for documents. In several cases the SCCRC was told items had gone missing or there was no record of them.

Three of the undisclosed documents related to payments of around $3 million (£1.9m) made by the US Justice Department to Paul and Tony Gauci – key witnesses in the Crown's case.

Tony Gauci claimed Megrahi bought clothes in his Malta shop, which were later found to be in the suitcase that contained the bomb which killed 270 in December 1988. His identification of Megrahi was critical to the prosecution case.

However, the defence did not know he had been offered and paid reward money after Megrahi's appeal failed in 2002. If Megrahi's legal team had been made aware of the payments they could have challenged the credibility of the prosecution case. In its report the SCCRC says: "Such a challenge may well have been justified, and in the commission's view was capable of affecting the course of the evidence and the eventual outcome of the trial."

The Crown was unable to adequately explain why a memorandum by Scottish police officer Harry Bell referring to reward money was not disclosed. The Crown claimed a 1998 High Court case, which set a precedent for disclosing important information to a defence, barred disclosure.

This has since been challenged at the UK Supreme Court and even greater disclosure is now required.

The commission also found Mr Gauci had a magazine with a photograph of Megrahi stating he was the Lockerbie bomber three days before he identified him at an identification parade in Holland.

In 2001 the Scottish court sitting at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands convicted Megrahi of murder. A second accused, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, was acquitted.

Robert Black, QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist trial, said: "I don't think there could possibly have been a guilty verdict if the Crown had disclosed to the defence all the material they had in their possession and they were obliged to disclose, even as the law on disclosure stood in 2000/01.

"Why didn't the Crown disclose? Was it because they convinced themselves getting a guilty verdict was more important than obeying 'technical' rules – after all, this was a terrorism case?

"The law about disclosure was clarified after the Zeist trial. But even in 2000/01 the law as it stood would have required the Crown to disclose all the material they withheld. I am delighted The Herald is unveiling this information."

A Crown Office spokesman said last night: "We note the Commission reported delays in obtaining materials from the Crown but also accepted that the Crown's responses to requests were often detailed and helpful in this uniquely large and complex case."

He added: "Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges following trial during which the evidence was rigorously tested and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an appeal court presided over by the Lord Justice General."

Why the SCCRC report has not been officially published

When the SCCRC referred the Lockerbie case back for a fresh appeal in June 2007 they were only able to publish a summary of their findings.

At that stage if they had published the full report they could have been prosecuted. Legally their hands were tied.

In an effort to get the report published, the Scottish Government passed a statutory instrument, which meant it would no longer be a criminal act for the SCCRC to publish such reports.

However, the 821-page document was still bound by Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation.

The commission wrote to the individuals mentioned in the report asking for their consent for publication. Consent was not given.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi said he would agree if the Crown did. Ultimately, however, the Crown did not.

To try to get the report into the public domain, ministers brought forward legislation to ease publication. This should be enacted in May but because of the status of the SCCRC, they are still bound by Data Protection legislation.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has written to UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to ask for an exemption under Data Protection.

The Herald is the first newspaper to have had access to the report. Five years on it is finally closer to being aired.

Lockerbie compensation deal reached

[What follows is the text of a report that appeared on the Sky News website on this date in 2003:]

Libya has reached a £1.6bn agreement with the United States and Britain to accept civil responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, according to reports. Under the deal, Libya would pay up to £6.2m to the families of each of the flight's 270 victims into a special trust account.

The cash would be in return for the removal of international sanctions.

Sources said Libya was prepared to accept civil liability for the acts of a state employee but not criminal responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.

"History is in the making. A deal could be announced at any moment," the source said after US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns met Libyan and British officials in London.

Conditions

Under the arrangement, Libya would compensate families of the 259 mostly-American passengers and crew killed in the mid-air explosion of the Pan Am flight over the Scottish town.

Families of the 11 people killed on the ground would also be compensated.

Tripoli would pay up only if a series of steps to remove United Nations and United States sanctions against it, the source said.

That would make the total value of the settlement roughly $2.7bn if all conditions were met.

A Libyan intelligence agent, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, was convicted of the crime by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands.

The British Foreign Office described the talks as a "useful session".

"We made further progress. Now the delegations are reporting back to the capitals to consult on the next stage," a spokesman said.

Repeal of sanctions

The comments were mirrored in Washington by the US State Department, although officials on both sides of the Atlantic declined to give details.

Family members of passengers killed on Pan Am flight 103 said the State Department had invited Lockerbie victims' families to a meeting on Wednesday for an update on the issue.

The source said Tripoli would initially pay $4m per victim into an escrow account once UN sanctions against Libya, suspended after the Lockerbie trial, were formally lifted.

Another $4m would follow if the US removed its national sanctions against Libya, which remain in force.

A final $2m would be paid if Washington also repealed its Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

If the US failed to lift those measures within eight months, Libya would pay only $1m extra into the account, limiting its total payment to $5m per victim.

Briefing paper for Justice for Megrahi media conference

JUSTICE FOR MEGRAHI: BRIEFING PAPER 

Media Conference: Dynamic Earth, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS Wednesday 16th March 2016 at 1.45pm 

Introduction

In September 2012 ‘Justice for Megrahi’ (JfM) made nine allegations of criminality against police, Crown Office officials and forensic scientists involved in the initial Lockerbie investigation and Camp Zeist trial. 

These allegations are currently the subject of a major Police Scotland investigation codenamed ‘Operation Sandwood’ and it is anticipated that the police report will be completed over the next two months and should according to accepted practice be forwarded to Crown Office 

This paper provides a brief outline of JfM’s concerns about the constitutional implications should such a procedure be followed. We believe that the bias and prejudice shown towards JfM and the Operation Sandwood enquiry by the Crown authorities makes it against the public interest for the Crown to receive this report. 

Our concerns are based on three central facts: 

1. A number of JfM’s nine allegations relate to the actions of ex Crown Office personnel or persons who were used as Crown witnesses in the trial of two Libyans, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah. For Crown Office to assess the ‘Operation Sandwood’ report would offend a basic principle of natural justice: - no person can judge a case in which he or she is party or in which he/she has an interest. (nemo judex in sua causa) 

2. Before and after the criminal allegations were delivered to the police, the Lord Advocate and Crown Office personnel described the JfM complainers as ‘conspiracy theorists’, dismissed the allegations as, ‘defamatory and entirely unfounded ... deliberately false and misleading’ and acted publicly to underline their opinion that Mr. Megrahi and his accomplices were the only guilty parties. JfM believes that these public interventions may have had an effect on ‘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 or alter legitimate evidence to ‘Operation Sandwood’. (See appendix) 

3. Given that the ‘Lockerbie Affair’ has been a central interest of Crown Office over the 27 years since Pan Am Flight 103 was downed in December 1988 it is impossible to identify persons within that authority who could be truly said to be ‘independent’ or are not under the potential influence of the Lord Advocate and other persons who have publicly rejected the nine criminal allegations and vilified the members of JfM who made them.  

Consequences

Given these three facts JfM calls into question the ability of the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to independently and objectively consider the final ‘Operation Sandwood’ police report. Having clearly made up their minds and publicised their views the public interest demands a totally independent prosecutor be appointed. 

These opinions have received backing from senior legal and political sources. 

As a solution we have recommended that a Prosecutor totally independent of Crown Office be appointed to consider any report which emanates from Operation Sandwood and that this person’s decision should not be open to be changed by the Lord Advocate or Crown Office. 

The Lord Advocate has undertaken to have what he terms ‘independent counsel’ appointed to receive and consider the Operation Sandwood report but has failed to confirm that the final decisions on the police report will be made by someone totally independent of himself and Crown Office. 

In pursuit of this goal JfM has enlisted the assistance of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, but to date the committee has failed to receive a definitive response. Related correspondence can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/44107.aspx 

We have also corresponded with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice Michael Matheson but he has refused to intervene. 

It seems clear to JfM that while the Lord Advocate might go some small way to meeting our requests he has no intention of giving up the Crown’s ultimate power to decide who will consider the ‘Operation Sandwood’ report, whether any prosecutions will result and what if anything is made public. 

Given that the police report is expected in the next two months JfM believes it is imperative to act now to do everything possible to ensure that neither the Lord Advocate nor Crown Office have any part to play in the final determination on the ‘Operation Sandwood’ report. 

Failing that it is vital these authorities are aware a steady spotlight will continue to shine on their actions to ensure that the previous bias and prejudice is not allowed to colour their judgement as the report is considered. 

That the Lord Advocate and Crown Office should have publicly dismissed the criminal allegations which will shortly be the subject of a major Police Scotland report is bad enough. That they should now seek to control what action is taken on that report is at best highly improper and at worst a denial of justice to those who believe that the truth should be heard. 

APPENDIX 

JfM CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS: PUBLIC INTERVENTIONS BY THE LORD ADVOCATE/ CROWN OFFICE. 

September 2012: ‘Justice for Megrahi’ (JfM) writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice seeking an independent investigation into 9 allegations of criminality. At this time and before they had been formally reported to the police Crown Office authorities publicly dismissed them as being without foundation: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/deliberately-false-and-misleading.html 

December 2012: Shortly after the allegations were officially made to the police and before their enquiry had started, in widely reported statements, the Lord Advocate again 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.’ http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/pro-megrahi-backers-flayed-by-new-lord.html 

December 2014: At the Lockerbie commemoration ceremony in America, the Lord Advocate re-emphasised Mr Megrahi’s guilt, and 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 of the criminal allegations were upheld this would call into question Mr Megrahi’s guilt and the culpability of Crown Office and police. 

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

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/304342-lord-advocate-mulholland-meets-fbi-director-to-discuss-lockerbie-probe/

http://www.scotsman.com/news/where-was-crown-s-lockerbie-fight-1-3644436 

Despite being aware of the seriousness of the 9 JfM allegations and the potential of the ‘Operation Sandwood’ police enquiry to bring new evidence to light, which might affect the guilt or otherwise of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and the integrity of the witnesses used by the prosecution at his trial, the Lord Advocate has continued to undermine ‘Sandwood’ by promoting the theory that the only persons responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy were Mr Megrahi and unidentified suspects in Libya. 

Even now In the latest publicity surrounding Crown Office identification of two ‘new’ suspects they wish to interview in Libya the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have continued to favour their own ongoing investigation without any regard to the potential their comments are having on the ongoing ‘Operation Sandwood'. 

Perhaps the ultimate irony comes in the recent comments made by the Lord Advocate in relation to the publicity surrounding the allegation made in the wake of the death of Sheku Bayoh in police custody. 

‘Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland urged all those with an interest in the death of Mr Bayoh not to engage in “speculation and a running commentary”. 

‘Mr Mulholland called for Pirc and the Crown Office to be allowed to “get on with their job” amid intense media interest in the case.’

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lord-advocate-appeals-for-calm-insheku-bayoh-case-1-3924644#ixzz3pNbFSC1t 

What a pity the Lord Advocate has ignored his own advice for so many years.

Iran denies new Lockerbie bombing claims

[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report as published on the Arab Today website on this date in 2014. It reads as follows:]

Iran on Tuesday denied any involvement in the Lockerbie bombing in the face of new allegations it contracted Palestinian militants to carry out the 1988 attack which killed 270 people.

Documents obtained by Al-Jazeera television for a documentary to be broadcast later on Tuesday provided new backing to longstanding allegations that Iran and not slain Libyan dictator Moamer Kadhafi was behind the downing of the Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town.

"We reject any claims of Iranian involvement in this act of terror," foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham told reporters.

"Iran's stance -- not only on this case but on all terrorist-related issues -- is quite clear: Iran flatly denies (links) to any act of terror."

Former Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, -- the only person ever convicted over the bombing -- maintained his innocence right up until his death in May 2012.

Al-Jazeera said that new evidence gathered for Megrahi's planned appeal, which was aborted by his release from prison on compassionate grounds in 2012, supported his innocence and implicated a Syrian-based Palestinian militant group.

Campaigners led by Jim Swire, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, have long claimed that Tehran contracted the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command to carry out the bombing in revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes, which killed 290 people in July 1988. The Syria-based PFLP-GC is blacklisted as a terrorist group by both the European Union and the United States.

In the documentary called Lockerbie: What Really Happened? Al-Jazeera cites testimony from alleged former senior Iranian intelligence official, Abolghasem Mesbahi, who defected to Germany in the late 90s. Mesbahi claims Iran contracted the bombing to PFLP-GC leader Ahmed Jibril, and provides names of those he says were involved in the operation.

"Money was given to Jibril upfront in Damascus for initial expense. The mission was to blow up a Pam-Am flight," Mesbahi told Al-Jazeera.

Former CIA agent Robert Baer, who was involved in the Lockerbie investigation, told Al-Jazeera that US intelligence agencies had long been convinced of Iran's involvement. He said the finger of blame was pointed at Kadhafi's Libya because the US government did not want to alienate Syria in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf war.

Kadhafi's regime admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing in 2003 and eventually paid $2.7 billion in compensation to victims' families. But Kadhafi's now jailed son and heir apparent Seif al-Islam has long insisted that the admission was merely a tactical ploy to end the regime's pariah status and mend fences with the West.

[RB: I understand that a further Al-Jazeera documentary on Lockerbie will shortly be ready for broadcast.]

Advance notice of media conference

LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONCERN GROWS AS CROWN OFFICE PREPARES TO CONSIDER NEW LOCKERBIE REPORT

Media Conference: Dynamic Earth, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS - Wednesday 16 March 2016 at 1.45pm

The above media conference will be held in the Biosphere at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh, on Wednesday 16 March.

At this event, a panel of  top legal experts and politicians will discuss why the imminent Police Scotland report on its three-year investigation into 9 criminal allegations related to the Lockerbie Pan Am investigation and trial should not be considered by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office.

A full media release will be circulated on Monday 14 March.

[RB: Readers of this blog are invited to attend the event even if not affiliated to a media organization.]

Are you still playing the game or not?

[What follows is an item published on this date in 2004 by US historian and writer William Blum on his website:]

“Human kind cannot bear very much reality.” T S Eliot

Last year, Libya “accepted responsibility” for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Although even a superficial reading of Libyan statements on the matter made it plain that they were NOT admitting to actually planting the deadly bomb, American and British officials pretended that it was such an admittance; ergo, case closed, the US and the UK had once again seen to it that justice triumphed, Libya will pay compensation to the victims’ families, the US will consider lifting sanctions against Libya, everyone happy.

Then, on February 24, Libya’s prime minister Shokri Ghanem insisted to the BBC that his government’s statements were not an admission of actual guilt. “We thought it was easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed to compensation,” he said. “Therefore we said: ‘Let us buy peace, let us put the whole case behind us and let us look forward’.”

Not fair! cried the White House and 10 Downing Street. Libya was not playing the game right. They were cheating. The Bush administration abruptly canceled plans to lift the travel ban and other restrictions on Libya that had been planned (in return for Libya scrapping its nuclear weapons program as well as the Lockerbie issue). “It’s important for Libya to retract these statements,” said the State Department, “and to make clear what their policy is as soon as possible.”

The Libyan prime minister had of course made clear what he thought the truth was, but that was not what the State Department was asking for. They were asking to make the “policy” clear; ie, Are you still playing the game or not?

The head of the UK families organization declared: “We don’t understand the comments by prime minister Ghanem. Nobody knows why he has said this.” The fact that Ghanem simply wanted to inject some truth into the matter and clear Libya’s name apparently was not an option to be considered.

Then, Libya quickly returned to the game, saying it wanted “to set the record straight and be perfectly clear” about its position on the Lockerbie bombing. Its August 2003 statement of accepting responsibility for the plane bombing was still valid. “Recent statements contradicting or casting doubt on these positions are inaccurate and regrettable,” said the Libyan government.

Just as quickly, the State Department, referring to the Libyan statement, announced: “They have done what they needed to do.”

Gadaffi ‘ready to admit guilt’ for Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article by David Leppard that appeared in The Sunday Times on this date in 2003. It reads as follows:]

Ambassador William Burns, head of the US state department’s Middle East section, is expected to meet Libyan and British officials for talks in London this Tuesday. A formal announcement is expected soon afterwards.

Sources close to the talks disclosed yesterday that officials may be close to finalising a deal in which Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi finally admits responsibility for Lockerbie.

In exchange for a formal statement of admission, the United Nations Security Council is expected to permanently lift crippling sanctions against Tripoli.

Discussions have been going on for years about compensating relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland in December 1988.

Libya has previously denied reports that it was prepared to pay £7m to each Lockerbie victim, provided sanctions were lifted. It is currently on the US state department’s list of countries that sponsor international terrorism.

This week’s London meeting will involve Burns, a US assistant secretary of state, and a senior Libyan official, probably Mohammed Abdul Quasim al-Zwai, Gadaffi’s ambassador in London. A senior Foreign Office official will also attend.

The security council has demanded that Libya pay “appropriate compensation” and accept general responsibility for the bombing. As well as renouncing terrorism, it must also undertake to comply with any future inquiry.

If those demands are fully met, UN sanctions — imposed in 1992 but suspended at the moment — will be scrapped.

America imposed its own separate sanctions after the Libyans bombed a disco used by American soldiers in Germany in 1986. Libya is desperate to get rid of the sanctions so it can sell oil.

Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter at Lockerbie, said he believed the wording of a statement admitting Libya’s responsibility had already been agreed.

At an international court in the Hague two years ago, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a senior Libyan intelligence official, was convicted of the bombing. He is now serving a life sentence at Barlinnie high security prison in Glasgow. [RB: The only evidence that Megrahi was an intelligence official came from the defector Abdul Majid Giaka whose evidence on every other issue was dismissed by the court as wholly lacking in credibility. The court gave no reasons for their acceptance of Giaka’s testimony on this single topic.]

Gadaffi has always denied responsibility for the attack. But evidence uncovered during the Scottish police investigation revealed that it had been sanctioned by the head of his own intelligence service. [RB: No such evidence was presented at the trial, nor has any such evidence come into the public domain since.]

The Libyans are said to have wanted revenge for the bombing of their country by American planes, in which Gadaffi’s six-year-old adopted daughter had been killed.