Justice for Megrahi: we live to fight another day

[What follows is the text of a message sent today by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, to JFM members and supporters following Tuesday’s meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee:]

The Justice Committee's consideration of JFM's petition 1370, calling on the Scottish Government to endorse for an independent inquriy into the investigation and legal processes involved in the Lockerbie/Zeist affair, held on Tuesday 18th February, was by far the most animated session of the Justice Committee that I have attended on the subject: reaching almost operatic proportions. It generated valiant, bravura performances from both Christine Grahame MSP (SNP Convener of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament) and John Finnie MSP (Independent) in the teeth of determined pressure to close the petition: this opposition emanated largely from Margaret Mitchell MSP (Conservative).

The principal argument used against maintaining 1370 open was the feeling that the Justice Committee was wandering away from its strict remit with regard to the petition proper by conflating it with JFM's allegations of criminality against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials. Margaret Mitchell's position is an interesting development in that the principal Conservative Party member on the Justice committee when JFM received its first unanimous vote by the committee to keep 1370 open (11th December 2012) was the late David McLetchie MSP. JFM had up until that moment rather regarded Mr McLetchie an arch foe. However, he was most vocal in his support of the petition: backing up earlier statements made by John Finnie. The catalyst behind his change of heart was in fact that he was attracted by the new dynamic brought to the petition not only by the lodging with the then Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary of the JFM allegations themselves but also by the manner in which the JFM allegations were being treated by the authorities. This referred to the Justice Directorate's release of our private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice MacAskill to the Crown Office and the ensuing media attacks on JFM launched by Chambers Street, culminating in Lord Advocate Mulholland's outbursts to Magnus Linklater on the anniversary of the 103 tragedy in 2012.

It is now, therefore, most curious that the Conservative Party appears to doing a complete volte-face on essentially the same principle that encouraged Mr McLetchie to support 1370. In the current situation, both JFM and the Justice Committee are being confronted by an outrageously dismissive attitude by Police Scotland and the Crown Office with respect to the JFM allegations (follow this link to our submission: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20140130_JFM_to_Committee.pdf, and this one to the email sent to myself by Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone, which was also sent as a last minute submission to the Justice Committee on Tuesday morning: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20140217_PS_to_JFM.pdf).

As Mr McLetchie recognised at the time, the petition and the allegations had become inextricably entwined  as a result of the attitudes of the authorities to the allegations. This situation has not altered one jot. In fact, the attitude of Police Scotland and the Crown Office towards JFM is now even more parlous than it ever has been, so why has the position of the Conservative Party changed? Something of a mystery, methinks.

Ultimately though, the strength of Christine Grahame's anger at the behaviour of Police Scotland, and John Finnie's reasoned presentation of the current, developing environment vis-à-vis JFM and the authorities, and 1370 and the now 9 JFM allegations, won the day. As  you will see from the reports below and from watching the recording of the session, it was decided that letters would be sent to Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House and Detective Superintendent Johnstone asking them, amongst other things, to account for the seemingly blasé, slipshod and dismissive conduct of Police Scotland. The Justice Committee also sanctioned a letter to the SCCRC to ask if the al-Megrahi family have made a referral for a third appeal against the Zeist conviction. For details, see the video link below.

We live to fight another day then. What is more, these new letters could well have the potential to be as significant as the one which the Public Petitions Committee sent to the Scottish Government which established that it did after all have the power to sanction an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act of 2005.

The transcript is not yet available but soon will be. In the meantime, you can watch the session by following this link to Parliament TV:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41409.aspx. The consideration of 1370 begins 1 hour, 8 minutes and 43 seconds into the session.  

See here below links to press reports:

http://www.holyrood.com/2014/02/msps-vent-frustration-at-police-inquiry-on-megrahi/

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/police-accused-of-dragging-heels-on-lockerbie-1-3310491

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/msps-keep-lockerbie-petition-open.1392736606

The Committee of JFM would like to express its deep gratitude to its members who turned up in person to back 1370 on Tuesday, and, as ever, to thank all of you for your unqualified support of the campaign, and the invaluable ideas and advice you offer us.

Don't forget that you can follow daily developments as they relate to the Lockerbie/Zeist case on our indomitable Professor Black's blog (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/).

Conservative Party contortions over Megrahi petition

[What follows is the text of an article by Justice for Megrahi's secretary, Robert Forrester, that was due to appear in the the Scottish edition of today's Sunday Express. I cannot find it on the newspaper's website (which is pretty selective in its coverage) but it probably does appear in the print edition:]

The Justice Committee's consideration of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) petition, calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist affair, held on Tuesday 18th February, was by far the most animated session yet on the subject. Reaching almost operatic proportions, it generated valiant, bravura performances from both Christine Grahame MSP (SNP Convener of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament) and John Finnie MSP (Independent) in the teeth of determined pressure to close the petition: this opposition emanated largely from Margaret Mitchell MSP (Conservative).

The principal argument used against maintaining the JFM petition, PE 1370, open was the feeling that the Justice Committee was wandering away from its strict remit with regard to the petition proper by conflating it with JFM's allegations of criminality against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials.

Margaret Mitchell's position is an interesting development in that the principal Conservative Party member on the Justice Committee when JFM received its first unanimous vote by the committee to keep 1370 open (11th December 2012) was the late David McLetchie MSP. JFM had, up until that moment, rather regarded Mr McLetchie an arch foe. However, he was most vocal in his support of the petition: backing up earlier statements made by John Finnie. The catalyst behind his change of heart was in fact that he had been attracted by the new dynamic brought to the petition not only by the lodging with the then Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary of the JFM allegations themselves but also by the manner in which the JFM allegations were being treated by the authorities. This referred to the Justice Directorate's release of our private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice MacAskill to the Crown Office and the ensuing media attacks on JFM launched by Chambers Street, culminating in Lord Advocate Mulholland's outbursts to Magnus Linklater on the anniversary of the 103 tragedy in 2012.

It is now, therefore, most curious that the Conservative Party appears to doing a complete volte-face on essentially the same principle that encouraged Mr McLetchie to support 1370. In the current situation, both JFM and the Justice Committee are being confronted by an outrageously dismissive attitude by Police Scotland and the Crown Office with respect to the JFM allegations. As Mr Mcletchie recognised at the time, the petition and the allegations had become inextricably entwined as a result of the attitudes of the authorities to the allegations.

This situation has not altered one jot. In fact, the attitude of Police Scotland and the Crown Office towards JFM is now even more parlous than it ever has been following the freezing of the investigation into three highly contentious allegations, so why has the position of the Conservative Party changed? Something of a mystery. Or, perhaps Margaret Mitchell’s viewpoint is simply her own and not necessarily her party’s. Perhaps she sees herself as a champion of the Crown Office and Police Scotland where Mr Mcletchie wisely spied a political opportunity in supporting the JFM’s mutually complementary petition and allegations. Perhaps he saw JFM as an irritant to First Minister Salmond and his longstanding Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill. They can hardly be overjoyed today by the fact that Petition PE 1370 has now entered it’s fourth year on the parliamentary books on top of the results of a public opinion poll in the Scottish Sunday Express of 4th September 2011 (Sample: 500. 52% expressed the view that there ought to be an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, 34% disagreed and 14% were unsure).

Ultimately though, the strength of Christine Grahame's anger at the behaviour of Police Scotland, and John Finnie's reasoned presentation of the current, developing environment vis-à-vis JFM’s petition and the now 9 JFM allegations won the day: with the Justice Committee decision that letters would be sent to the Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House and Detective Superintendent Johnstone asking them, amongst other things, to account for the seemingly blasé and dismissive conduct of Police Scotland.

It now remains to be seen whether or not Margaret Mitchell will, before her next consideration of this petition, experience the same political epiphany that David McLetchie did.

Consideration of petition PE1370

[What follows is the text of the petitioners' submission to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee in advance of today's resumed consideration of the Justice for Megrahi petition.]

On 15th February 2011, the ‘Justice for Megrahi Committee’ (JFM) delivered their latest submission to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) in relation to the above petition. At their meeting of 1st of March 2011, the PPC voted to maintain the status of petition 1370 as open and carry it over to the new PPC in its ‘Legacy Paper’ inviting the new committee to give further consideration to the petition.

Over the past four months, there have been important developments in relation to the Lockerbie enquiry and matters related to the conviction, appeals and compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. We believe that these matters are relevant to the consideration of our petition and the related submission of 15th February 2011 and we wish to update the Petitions Committee members on them.

Civil War in Libya
Since mid February, 2011, Libya has degenerated into civil war. The rebel forces are currently represented by a body known as the ‘Transitional National Council’. Many commentators have suggested that this conflict could lead to the secrets of Lockerbie being revealed. Claims and counterclaims have proliferated.

Since becoming Chairman of the ‘Transitional National Council’, the former Libyan Justice Minister, Mr Abdel Jalil, has made numerous claims that he is in possession of proof that Colonel Gaddafi and Libya were behind the downing of Pan Am 103. He has, however, been unable to substantiate his claims.

The visit to London of the former Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Moussa Koussa (formerly also former head of the Libyan Intelligence Agency), on the 30th of March 2011 has also failed to deliver any additional insight into who was responsible for Lockerbie.

During his stay, he had discussions with representatives of the UK Government and others, including the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. He departed the UK for Qatar on the 15th of April and the Scottish delegation have so far refused to divulge any information regarding their meeting on the grounds that to do so may compromise the on-going police investigation of the Lockerbie case. ‘JFM’ finds it quite extraordinary that the interviewers refused to offer even a general comment which might suggest that Mr Koussa had at least supplied information which could substantiate and justify the Crown case for Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction or open the way for further enquiry. Effectively, parliament and the people are being denied the opportunity to assess whether any information received from Mr Koussa supports or otherwise the Crown’s position over Lockerbie. Yet again, a curtain of secrecy is drawn over matters related to revealing the truth about Lockerbie and the subsequent events.

On the 6th April the Guardian reported:
‘Libya's rebel administration has said that it signed an apology for the Gaddafi regime's role in IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing under pressure from the British government, and that the document is the result of "misunderstanding"’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/libya-rebels-lockerbie-apology.

It is alleged that following talks with a lawyer whom they believed represented the British Government, the ‘Transitional National Council’ signed a document offering an unequivocal apology from Libya for international crimes carried out by the Gaddafi regime, including
Lockerbie and deaths resultant from IRA activities where Libyan supplied Semtex was employed.

It is now alleged that the document might have been signed under duress and in the hope of alleviating their dire circumstances. If the claim that the lawyer has been operating at the behest of the UK government on this fishing expedition is true, it shows the lengths that the UK authorities will go to hide the truth.

Scottish Government Undertaking
According to recent media reports, the new SNP government intends to honour the commitment given by Alex Salmond before the election to seek a change in the law to allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to publish papers relating to their decision that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in the conviction of Mr Megrahi. Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1009738.aspx

The Lord Advocate and Crown Office has remained implacably opposed to such release and, as we pointed out in our submission of 15th February, we totally refute the Lord Advocate’s argument for failing to disclose any matters related to Mr Megrahi’s appeal.

In our petition, we argue for the release of these papers and we believe it is important that Parliament monitors this government undertaking carefully.

Election of a Majority SNP Government
For the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament one political party enjoys an absolute majority. The next 5 years therefore are uncharted waters and many commentators have warned about the need to ensure that this SNP majority government is subject to effective scrutiny and held to account.

‘For the first time in the parliament’s history, a single party is now in control of the Government, the legislature and its committees, and has supplied the Presiding Officer.’…...Most obviously, Holyrood is a unicameral parliament: there is no second chamber to fine tune legislation and force MSPs to think again. In theory, the committees should compensate for this, scrutinising and revising laws, as well as delivering unwelcome home truths to Ministers. But while committees aspire to cross-party ideals, they often split on partisan lines, as the health committee did last year when it rejected a minimum price for alcohol. The SNP majority means every committee can railroad through legislation if it chooses, and there is no risk of a comeback, no matter how infuriated the opposition might get.’
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/politics/monarch-of-the-glens-1.1101477

While the ‘JFM’ committee believes that to date it has been well served by the Public Petitions Committee, this unprecedented centralisation of power concerns us greatly. Given the opposition to any further inquiry by the Lord Advocate, Crown Office and other establishment organisations, we fear Lockerbie will be further sidelined. The Petitions and Justice Committees have the power to prevent this happening and hold our government to account. Should the PPC allow our petition to fall, it will mean that the continuing disputes over the biggest terrorist outrage ever perpetrated on Scottish soil will no longer be subject to open and accountable scrutiny in any corner of the Scottish Parliament.

Salmond criticism of the Supreme Court
We feel that the current heated debate taking place about the place of the Supreme Court in dealing with Scottish Human Rights issues is extremely relevant to our petition. While not wishing to take sides in the dispute, we would observe that it is human rights issues like Lockerbie that are at the very heart of the dispute.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Alex-Salmond-launches-scathing-attack.6785206.jp

What is of concern to us, and we would suggest to the people of Scotland, is that justice is served no matter the court. The Scottish Government is claiming that the human rights of the Scottish people are best served by Scottish courts sitting in Scotland.

We would argue that for nearly 23 years Scottish Courts and the Scottish Government have failed to deliver the truth about Lockerbie despite these claims of supremacy in human rights matters. We are at a loss to equate the current government’s refusal to hold a judicial inquiry into Lockerbie with this principle that Scotland and Scotland alone is capable of delivering justice to all of its people.

Media coverage
Media interest in Lockerbie and associated events has remained high across the world with the fall out from the Civil War in Libya being high on the agenda.

Of particular significance is a film, ‘The Pan Am Bomber’, commissioned by ‘Al Jazeera English’ which is being broadcast throughout June and July and can now be found on ‘You Tube’. This film casts even more doubt on the Megrahi conviction and makes a powerful case for an immediate inquiry.

We would recommend that committee members view this film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVVmt1W-6U

Conclusion and recommendations
Much has occurred in the interim between the last Public Petition’s Committee meeting, which voted to carry petition 1370 forward in its ‘Legacy Paper’, and today. As ever, most of this information is shrouded in controversy and as a result the truth about Lockerbie becomes even more elusive.

Effectively year in and year out new information, rumour and supposition is released about the Lockerbie tragedy and the Megrahi conviction. Year after year the UK and US governments continue their conspiracy of silence. The whole affair has become a running sore and, despite having the power to do so, the Scottish Government continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry into the worst case of mass murder ever perpetrated on Scottish soil, a disaster which taints the Scottish Justice System across the world.

The fact remains that while we might not be able to force the UK and American governments to the table, the Scottish Government has the power to launch a public inquiry that will ensure that we as a country have done everything in our power to reveal the truth about Lockerbie. Our conscience will at last be clear.

That public inquiry would be able to examine many important witnesses including representatives of the Crown Office, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the SCCRC and the police. It will have the power to review the SCCRC papers and many other documents currently held in secret by the Crown Office, Government and police. It will be able to probe matters related to the Lockerbie investigation, all legal proceedings relating to Mr al-Megrahi’s 2001 conviction and his subsequent release, and any new information that has been obtained over the years.

We urge the committee to keep this petition live by carrying out further enquiry itself or referring it to the Justice Committee. Surely it cannot be right that the search for the truth about the worst terrorist outrage ever to be perpetrated on Scottish soil should not continue to be the subject of enquiry in our own Scottish parliament.

In closing, we would refer Petition’s Committee members to a recent article In the ‘The Firm’ magazine where editor Steven Raeburn interviews Gareth Pierce the lawyer who was instrumental in having the wrongful conviction of the ‘Birmingham Six’ and ‘Guildford Four’ overturned on appeal. This article (see link below*) offers a powerful review of the controversy surrounding Lockerbie and we believe will help members understand just why a public inquiry is urgently needed.

*Steven Raeburn, editor of The Firm, interviews Gareth Peirce.
http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/932/The_Quiet_Storm.html

Justice Committee to consider Justice for Megrahi petition on 4 June

[The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will be considering Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE 1370) calling on the Scottish Government to institute an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction at its meeting on Tuesday, 4 June at 09.45 in Committee Room 2 (agenda item 5). The proceedings will be viewable here. Members of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group will be present at the meeting (but not me: I'll be wending my way back from the Roggeveld Karoo to Edinburgh). 

A paper by the Justice Committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

Background

1. Petition PE1370 by Justice for Megrahi (JFM) calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent 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.

2. The petition was lodged on 1 November 2010. The petition was carried over to Session 4 and on 28 June 2011, the new Public Petitions Committee referred it to the Justice Committee for further consideration.

3. The Justice Committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 11 December 2012 where it agreed to keep the petition open pending allegations against the Crown Office and the police being investigated. 

Recent Submissions

4. The petitioners have provided the Committee with an update on the complaints they have raised against the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the police. The published versions are attached to this paper as an Annexe. Clerks have circulated the unredacted submissions to the Committee.

5. JFM’s submissions give accounts of their recent interaction and correspondence with the Scottish Government, COPFS and the police.

Justice Directorate of the Scottish Government

6. JFM believes that without an independent inquiry into their allegations, there is a conflict of interest where Police Scotland and COPFS are investigating complaints against themselves.

7. JFM’s submissions indicate that it has asked for an independent investigator to be appointed to look into their allegations against the COPFS and police. It believes that the Scottish Government has powers, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to appoint an independent investigator.

8. The Committee is asked by JFM to write to the Scottish Government to ascertain whether it accepts JFM’s assertion that it has the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 (or any other Act or common law) to appoint an independent investigator and, if so, whether it would be willing to do so to investigate JFM’s allegations.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

9. JFM also has expressed concerns about how it has been portrayed in the press by the Lord Advocate while considerations of their allegations were being considered.

10. JFM requests that the Committee writes to COPFS to ask for comment or further information on the following points:

a. whether it will account for the public criticism of JFM when a

police investigation of their allegations were imminent;

b. what resources have been allocated to the investigation of JFM’s

allegations;

c. whether it will keep JFM informed of developments in the

investigation of their allegations; and

d. whether it has instructed the police on how to proceed with the

investigation into JFM’s allegations.

11. If the Committee agrees to write to COPFS, it is invited to consider whether it wishes to raise all or only some of the above points with COPFS. 

Police

12. JFM’s allegations are being taken forward by the police and investigations are ongoing. Supplement 1 (pages 9 and 10 of this paper) to the petitioners’ submission gives an account of a meeting with former Chief Constable Shearer, who is heading up the investigation for Police Scotland. 

Possible options for action

13. The Committee is invited to consider the petition and agree a course of action:

a. whether to keep the petition open or not;

b. whether to write to the Scottish Government on behalf of the petitioners asking for comments on its powers to appoint an independent investigator into JFM’s allegations; and

c. whether to write to COPFS on behalf of the petitioners and in what terms to do so.

[A Justice for Megrahi press release issued today contains the following:]

The petition should  be considered at approximately mid-day. Dr Jim Swire, Robert Forrester, Iain McKie, Tessa Ransford OBE, James Robertson and other members of the  ‘Justice for Megrahi’ Committee and its signatory membership will attend the meeting and will be  available for interview in the Parliament’s main reception area after the meeting. 

Justice for Megrahi in their most recent submission to the Justice Committee in respect of petition PE 1370, state:

‘The manner in which the Justice Directorate and the Crown Office are currently dealing with our entreaties is something which ought to be of deep concern to anyone who today falls under Scottish jurisdiction. We believe that the Justice Committee members understand that it is not the allegations themselves that is their direct concern but the arrogant, prejudicial and unaccountable manner in which they are being dealt with. We believe it is the committee’s duty to ensure that issues of confidentiality, public officials acting in their own interests, prejudgment of our allegations and the maintenance of equity and accountability are examined. Only the Justice Committee can protect the public interest when complainers like ourselves are subjected to such oppressive conduct at the hands of the state.’

Justice Committee votes to keep Megrahi petition open

[The following account of this morning's discussion of the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370) in the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee comes from Patrick Haseldine:]

On 8 November 2011, the Justice Committee decided by six votes in favour [SNP and Lib-Dem] and three against [Labour and Conservative] to keep open the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370), which calls upon the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry into Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

James Kelly MSP [Labour, deputy convener], brother of Megrahi's former solicitor Tony Kelly, argued strongly that the court is the correct route for testing the soundness of criminal convictions. He could see no role for the Justice Committee to consider the JFM petition further.

However, Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP [Scottish National Party], said the petition should be kept open until all the parts of the legislative jigsaw come together: there was unfinished business in relation to the Lockerbie trial; the conclusions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's unpublished report remain untested; the SCCRC's power to refer cases back to the Appeal Court is being restricted; and Lord Carloway, who is currently reviewing law and practice of criminal investigations, is due to publish his report on 17 November 2011.

[The report just published by The Press Association news agency reads as follows:]

MSPs have voted to continue a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for his role in the Lockerbie bombing.

Holyrood's Justice Committee met to consider the petition by the Justice for Megrahi campaign, a group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 which killed 270 people.

SNP MSP Christine Grahame, the committee's convenor and a member of the Justice for Megrahi group, went head-to-head with Labour's James Kelly, vice-convenor and brother of Scottish lawyer Tony Kelly, who has acted for Megrahi, over whether the petition should continue.

He added: "Obviously it's an ongoing situation, particularly after recent events, and new information is continuing to come to the fore. I think the relevant place for that information to be considered is by the Scottish police and Scottish prosecutors, and as such I don't think there's a role for this committee to consider this petition further."

Ms Grahame declared her membership of Justice For Megrahi and her "particularly high profile in arguing that his conviction is unsound".

She said: "The Justice Committee is not being asked to conduct a public inquiry via the committee. We're being asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry. I think the committee will agree that this is unfinished business. We had the abandonment of the second part of the appeal, with the SCCRC report untested, in extraordinary circumstances."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government would welcome a wide-ranging inquiry into the circumstances of the Lockerbie atrocity and we stand ready to assist in any way we can.

"However, given the international dimensions to this issue, the scope of any such inquiry goes well beyond the restricted remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament, and would therefore have to be convened by those with the required powers. Scottish authorities would co-operate in full in any such inquiry.

"Scotland's justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for nearly 23 years, and in every regard the due process of Scots Law has been followed - in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.

"We believe that the SCCRC Statement of Reasons should be in the public domain and that is precisely why we are introducing a Bill later this year to facilitate publication. The Bill is necessary in order to overcome objections by interested parties preventing any publication."

[The report in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday, 9 November can be read here; that in The Scotsman can be read here.]

JFM secretary's report on Justice Committee consideration of Megrahi petition

[What follows is the report by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, on the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s consideration of JFM’s petition on 4 June:]

Most of you will already be aware of Tuesday's result, however, for those who do not, I enclose here various links to the event to put you in the picture. In brief, again, the Justice Committee is to be thanked for maintaining the status of our petition, PE 1370, as open. Moreover, they are also to be thanked for agreeing to write to both the Justice Directorate and the Crown Office on our behalf in order to establish a variety of factual information relating to the allegations we have lodged with Police Scotland. I will not go into the details of this here since it is all contained in our submissions to the Justice Committee and is self evident in the Committee's official report.

Clearly this is a positive result, however, and if not too late, the JFM Committee would like to enquire of the Justice Committee whether or not the letter to the Justice Directorate could be made a little more specific. Our feeling is that the form of the question is somewhat open in that it does not specify the laws that we have quoted as being the ones which provide the government with the power to farm out our allegations to an independent investigator: this being of particular relevance here where Mr MacAskill has, by offering us no alternative but to lodge our allegations with Police Scotland, created extraordinary and highly dubious circumstances in which the Crown Office and Police Scotland have become investigator, judge, jury and accused all rolled into one. Whilst there is a directness and simplicity to the from of words chosen by the Justice Committee in the letter, Mr MacAskill has a record of saying 'I 'beg to differ with JFM' in the interpretation of law. This occurred when we gave evidence on the Punishment and Review Act (shortly before the publication of the Statement of Reasons for Mr Megrahi's second appeal in The Herald). The fact is that his interpretation of the law was wrong then because the Scotland Act superseded the Data Protection Act, and Westminster had not seen fit to include the Data Protection Act in the Scotland Act as a reserved issue, therefore, the issue of its being raised at all with Westminster was indeed a red herring, as we said at the time. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that The Herald's actions rendered the whole business redundant, he got away with it on the day. We will be writing to the Justice Committee to see if it is possible to modify this current letter to the Justice Directorate, and I will inform you of the result as soon as I know it.

In the meantime, see here below the relevant links covering the Justice Committee's consideration of PE 1370. I have also included a link to an interview given by James Robertson immediately after the hearing. James's most recent novel, The Professor of Truth was launched in Edinburgh on Thursday to a packed house, and has been receiving enthusiastic and very well-deserved reviews. James has been extremely courageous with this work: a book which, whilst it stands firmly on its own two feet without the references to actual events, quite obviously poses a significant challenge for the author simply because it does have these associations. I strongly recommend it to you all.

The committee wishes to thank both Tessa Ransford and James for joining us at the hearing on Tuesday, and to all of you for your constant support. 

Parliament PE 1370 general references page:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/44107.aspx

Parliament TV broadcast of 4th June JC consideration of PE 1370:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41408.aspx

JC official report:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=8193

Letter from JC to JD:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20130606_CG_to_Cab_sec.pdf

Letter from JC to COPFS

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20130606_CG_to_Crown_Agent.pdf

James Robertson BBC interview immediately subsequent to 4th June JC consideration of PE 1370:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0210pmg/The_Culture_Studio_with_Janice_Forsyth_04_06_2013/

Megrahi petition returns to Scottish Parliament Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday 5 September 2017 starting at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The following are (a) the committee clerk’s note on this agenda item and (b) Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the committee:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of the petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent 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.

Current consideration

7. At its meeting on 2 May 2017 the Committee agreed, as it had at its meeting on 24 January 2017, to keep the petition open pending completion of Operation Sandwood. This is the operational name for Police Scotland’s investigation into the nine allegations of criminality levelled by Justice for Megrahi at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the police, and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi’s conviction. The allegations range from perverting the course of justice to perjury.

8. The clerks understand from Police Scotland that the operation is ongoing and, although in its final stages, there are certain aspects that are not fully concluded. Once Police Scotland’s report is completed, it will be submitted for consideration by an independently appointed Queen’s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland, before going to the Crown Office. Clerks continue to seek updates from Police Scotland as to a likely publication date but Police Scotland is as yet not in a position to suggest when the report will be made public. (The JfM submission indicates that it believes the report will be available to the Crown Office at some stage this year).

9. The petitioners have provided a written submission (Annexe A) requesting the Committee to confirm that the petition will remain open until Crown Office consideration of the police report is complete and any related decisions are made. The submission also states, along similar lines to previous submissions, that the Petitioners continue to have regular meetings with the Operation Sandwood police team and that they have faith in the integrity and completeness of the police inquiry.

10. On 4 July 2017, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirmed it had received an application to review the conviction*. The SCCRC may refer a case to the High Court if it believes that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. The SCCRC stated that it will give careful consideration to this new application, but that it will not make any further comment at this time.

11. The Committee is asked to consider and agree what action it wishes to take in relation to the petition (...), having regard to its decisions in January and in May to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood.

*Mr Megrahi previously applied to the SCCRC in 2003, who referred his case to the High Court for appeal in 2007; however, this appeal was abandoned in 2009. After Mr Megrahi’s death in 2012, a new application was made to the SCCRC on his behalf in 2014, which was rejected in 2015 as the SCCRC had not had access to appeal materials from 2007-09

oooOooo

Annexe A

Letter from Justice for Megrahi

25 August 2017

Justice for Megrahi submission to the Justice Committee of the Scottish

Parliament’s consideration of PE 1370 on 5th September 2017

The position of Justice for Megrahi (JfM) remains largely as was following our last communication with your good selves on the Justice Committee of the ScottishParliament (JC).

We reiterate the value we place on the continued JC scrutiny until Crown Office has considered the Operation Sandwood report and has reported on its findings. JfM's sole interest remains acquiring justice for the victims of Pan Am 103, their families and friends, and those whom we regard as having been wrongly accused and convicted.

As your committee members will understand this report is central to any further

Analysis of the Lockerbie tragedy, is of direct significance to the ongoing SCCRC consideration of the Megrahi family's submission for another appeal and is vital if the massive stain on the Scottish Justice System is ever to be removed.

Moreover, it should be added that JfM and Police Scotland continue to maintain a highly valued and constructive rapport.

In short, JfM has complete confidence in the work of Police Scotland on its behalf regarding JfM's various allegations of criminality associated with the conviction of Mr al Megrahi.

Our present understanding is that the Police Scotland Operation Sandwood Report is in its final stages and will be available to the Lord Advocate at some stage this year.

JfM wishes all members of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament our very best and looks forward to being represented at your meeting on 5th September, 2017.

Megrahi petition on Justice Committee agenda for 23 February meeting

[The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will be resuming consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) at its meeting on 23 February 2016 commencing at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The relevant note by the committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): 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

17. “Operation Sandwood‟ is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s report of this operation is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The Committee has received a number of updates from JFM asking that an “independent prosecutor‟ be appointed to assess the findings of Operation Sandwood.

18. The Committee previously wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an „independent prosecutor‟ as proposed by JFM. His response outlined arrangements made by COPFS to employ independent Crown Counsel not involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have rejected the involvement of independent Crown Counsel as they consider it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach”. The Committee sought further information regarding the appointment of an independent prosecutor in September 2015 to which the Lord Advocate reiterated his earlier response.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

19. On 5 November 2015, 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.”

Latest developments

20. On 5 January 2016, the Committee agreed to write again to the Lord Advocate, asking him to respond to JFM‟s most recent submission to the Committee which questions the Lord Advocate‟s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for co-ordinating matters with the “independent counsel‟. The Committee requested the Lord Advocate‟s response by 5 February. At the time of writing this response has not been received. It will be circulated to members and published on the Committee‟s website as soon as it is received.

21. In the interim, JFM has provided a submission to the Committee outlining their disappointment that a response from the Lord Advocate has not yet been received (Annexe D).

Options for action on petition PE1370

22. The Committee may wish to agree to:

• keep the petition open and recommend that a future justice committee continues to monitor these issues and, in particular, progress with Operation Sandwood, or

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

ANNEXE D

Justice for Megrahi submission for the consideration of PE1370 by the Justice Committee on 23 February 2016

Since the last consideration of PE 1370, on 5 January 2016, nothing of import has emerged from either the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) that clarifies their position re JfM‟s request that a prosecutor entirely independent of COPFS, and who had been appointed independently of said body, receive and consider the final Police Scotland Operation Sandwood report.

On 12th January 2016, the Deputy Convenor of the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate asking that he address JFM‟s concerns over the manner in which he was dealing with our request for total independence from the Crown Office in the consideration of the Operation Sandwood report.

When this letter was posted on the Parliament website JfM expressed some concern that the terms of the agreement reached at the Justice Committee on 5th January to write to the Lord Advocate appeared not to have been fully met in that the 8 questions we asked the committee to put to the Lord Advocate had not been referred to. We are unaware if this issue had been resolved.

The Deputy Convenor afforded the Lord Advocate a full month in which to respond. At the time of writing, we believe that he is in default as no reply has yet been received by the Justice Committee.

Given that the submission of Police Scotland‟s Operation Sandwood report to the Crown Office is imminent this is a most unsatisfactory position.

It is clearly against the public and a constitutional interest that the Lord Advocate has so far failed to confirm that the police report will be considered by an authority entirely separate from the Crown Office and totally free from its influence or to lay out clearly what his intentions are.

Thus, JFM appeals to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament to exercise whatever means it has at its disposal to ensure that before the Operation Sandwood Report is submitted that your committee and JfM are fully briefed on how this report will be considered and who will consider it.