Statement by Professor Hans Köchler

Lockerbie Appeal:
Is the insistence on the right to a fair trial absurd and illogical?
Scottish judiciary has to abide by the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights
Statement by Dr. Hans Köchler

Vienna, 3 July 2008
P/RE/20161c

According to reports in the Scottish media, Crown counsel Ronnie Clancy QC has branded as "absurd" and "illogical" demands that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's appeal before the High Court of Justiciary shall not be restricted to the grounds of appeal given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC had announced its decision to refer Mr al Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary for a new appeal. The Commission had given six reasons for its decision some of which it kept secret upon announcement. Obviously (and not only in view of its "secretive" nature), the list of grounds given by the SCCRC cannot be considered as an exhaustive enumeration of all possible grounds of appeal. The grounds given by the SCCRC are simply those that led that body to suspect a miscarriage of justice. The reasons revealed by the SCCRC to the public are almost identical to the points I had raised in my trial and appeal reports (in 2001 and 2002 respectively) which I had submitted to the United Nations.

Contrary to the Crown's position, it is neither absurd nor illogical if an appellant expects an appeal court to hear additional grounds of appeal - if new information has indeed become available. Rather, it would be absurd and illogical to limit the appeal to a fixed number of grounds, i.e. - as regards the present case - to those grounds given in last year's decision of the SCCRC (whereby the evidence related to some of the grounds is still being kept secret).

In order to be fair, an appeal process must be comprehensive. Justice requires truth. Certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt" can not be established if the Defence is prevented from giving the grounds of appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to it. A court's judgment must be based on arguments. To determine that certain issues and facts are excluded from being considered (because the presentation of some grounds of appeal is rejected by one party) invalidates the entire argumentative process.

A "fair trial" according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("European Convention on Human Rights") requires that no one interferes into the competence of the Defence and that, accordingly, additional evidence that has become available is also heard. The limitation of the grounds of appeal is not only contrary to the rationale of a judicial review as such and, thus, intrinsically unfair, but it is also illogical if the goal of an appeal process is indeed a comprehensive review of the original verdict. There can be no rational argumentation of an appeal if the appellant is told what grounds he is allowed to raise and what not.

Rather, in terms of the labels used by the Crown counsel, it could be argued that the original verdict of the High Court of Justiciary was "absurd" and "illogical" since it declared one of the two Libyan suspects "guilty" and the other one "not guilty" - while the entire logic of the indictment was based on the theory of the two suspects having conspired together to ingest an explosive device at Luqa airport (Malta) to be transported in a piece of unaccompanied luggage to Frankfurt airport and from there on to Heathrow.

The effort at limiting the scope of the appeal by restricting the grounds that can be heard is especially serious in view of the British Government's insistence on withholding evidence from the Defence by means of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Should the efforts of the Crown and the British Government succeed, the appellant would again be denied his right to a fair trial and will thus be entitled to seek redress from the European Court of Human Rights.

Dr Hans Köchler

The wheels of justice...

... grind exceeding slow.

In my coverage on this blog of the tenth procedural hearing on 18 December 2008, I wrote the following:

'The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.'

The dates fixed by the court for this procedural hearing are Wednesday 18th to Friday 20th February 2009.

The scope of the appeal

The procedural hearing that started today is not, after all, about the issue of disclosure of the mystery documents. It is about whether, as the Crown argues, Mr Megrahi’s new appeal should be limited solely to the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the Criminal Appeal Court, or whether other issues can be ventilated as well. Existing appellate decisions in earlier cases have held that the grounds of appeal should not be limited to those issues accepted by the SCCRC. This is why the current procedural hearing is being heard by a bench of five judges: so that the earlier three-judge decisions can, if the court is so minded, be overruled.

According to Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, allowing the appeal to go beyond the specific matters on which the SCCRC referred the case back to the court would be “absurd” and “illogical”.

Brief accounts of today's proceedings can be found on the BBC News website and on the icDumfries website.

The on-going appeal

The appeal hearing continued on Wednesday, notwithstanding the prisoner transfer application submitted by the Libyan Government.

Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her review of the evidence regarding ingestion of the fatal suitcase at Luqa Airport in Malta, and argued that the trial court's conclusion that the bomb started its fatal progress there was one that they were not entitled to reach on the evidence presented at the trial. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to entitle the trial court to reach the conclusion that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was a "Libyan plot".

Ms Scott indicated to the court that she was likely to conclude her submissions on Thursday morning. It will then be for Ronnie Clancy QC to respond on behalf of the Crown.

Al Megrahi wins legal victory in Lockerbie appeal

[This is the headline over a report published in The Herald on this date in 2008. It reads as follows:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing won a legal victory today in the latest stage of his bid to have his conviction overturned.

Judges ruled that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's appeal could have a wide-ranging focus, looking beyond the issues raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) when it suggested he might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The decision came after the Libyan's lawyers lodged full grounds of appeal earlier this year and argued that the full appeal should include all the points pertinent to the case.

The Crown had opposed the move, arguing that it would be "absurd", "illogical" and incompetent in law for Al Megrahi to be granted a hearing with such a broad focus.

Today, three judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh rejected the Crown's position.

Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, said the court "holds that the appellant (Al Megrahi) is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits".

Al Megrahi's lawyer welcomed the "important victory" for his client.

Solicitor Tony Kelly said afterwards: "It is a complete victory for the appellant's position before the court and a complete rejection of the Crown's argument.

"The Crown employed lots of resources to try to restrict the court and they have been stopped in their tracks.

"It is an important victory for Mr Al Megrahi."

Al Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, is serving a minimum of 27 years in prison after being convicted of bombing Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 270 people.

He lost an appeal in 2002, but was given a fresh chance to clear his name in June last year when the SCCRC referred his case back to appeal judges for a second time.

In its 790-page report, the independent body identified five reasons which led it to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

Al Megrahi's full appeal is unlikely to be heard until next year, but numerous procedural hearings in the case have already been held.

In June this year, the Crown argued that the grounds of Al Megrahi's appeal should be confined to the reasons given by the SCCRC for referring the case to the court.

At a special five-judge hearing, Advocate Depute Ronnie Clancy QC said the commission's inquiries had been wide-ranging, having been undertaken in the UK and as far afield as Malta, Libya and Italy.

Granting Al Megrahi a wide-ranging second attempt to overturn his conviction would be "absurd" and "illogical", he argued.

But judges dismissed those arguments today.

Scotland's top judge, Lord Hamilton, told a procedural hearing in Edinburgh: "The court's conclusion is that... it rejects the statutory construction urged by the Advocate Depute and holds that the appellant is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits."

He said the court was applying the law as it currently stands.

Lord Hamilton went on: "Whether it is desirable, having regard to, among other things, the use of judicial resources, that a reference appellant should have unrestricted scope in what he lays before the court for adjudication is a matter for Parliament, but this court must apply the statute as presently framed."

Al Megrahi was not in court for today's hearing.

r Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster and is spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 group, was in court for today's decision.

After the hearing, he said: "This is excellent news from the point of view of the relatives.

"The attempt was to limit what was submitted to the court for the second appeal and this is the criminal authorities saying they are not going to restrict the defence.

"Since our remit is to look for the truth, the more that comes out in court the happier we are.

"So I am really jubilant about today's hearing."

[RB: Regrettably, the law on this matter has now been altered by the Scottish Parliament. In any new appeal allowed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (eg in an application by Megrahi’s family) the appeal court would be limited to the specific grounds of referral allowed by the SCCRC unless the court was prepared, in the interests of justice, to permit additional grounds of appeal to be added: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194(D) (4A) and (4B), as inserted by Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 13), ss 83, 206(1).]

Procedural hearing: second day

It appears that the Lord Advocate does not agree with the Advocate General’s suggestion that the solution to the impasse over the disclosure of the mysterious foreign document would be for it to be disclosed to special (security-vetted) counsel rather than to Megrahi’s regular legal team.

Ronnie Clancy QC, appearing for the Lord Advocate, suggested that the way forward might be for limited disclosure – perhaps by way of a summary of the document – to be made to Megrahi and his lawyers. He is reported as saying, “The principle about involving the defence to the maximum extent looms large here. The Lord Advocate is mindful of the difficulty that the petitioner [Megrahi] would have in bringing a ground of appeal without even limited disclosure." He acknowledged that the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in legal matters north of the border, may be "less enthusiastic" about the idea. "I don't understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage," he added.

As might be expected, Megrahi’s counsel are strongly opposed to the Advocate General’s proposal and to anything less than full disclosure of the document to Megrahi’s current legal representatives.

Maggie Scott QC, senior counsel for the Libyan, is reported as saying: "Megrahi's position here is that he wants disclosure of these documents in order to exercise his right of appeal. My main concern is any proposed procedure which determines the substance of the appeal taking part in the absence of Megrahi or his defence counsel."

The report on the BBC News website can be read here.

[Reports on the first day of the hearing by Scotland's two daily "heavies", The Herald and The Scotsman, can be seen here and here.]

Proceedings at tenth (public) procedural hearing

Today’s procedural hearing was largely concerned with fine-tuning the protocol drafted by the court regarding the appointment, powers and duties of the special counsel to be appointed in connection with the document relating to timers in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has asserted public interest immunity on grounds of national security and international relations.

This document has not been made public and so it is difficult for observers to form an opinion as to its contents or, indeed, to follow the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel and the Advocate General on behalf of the Foreign Secretary. However, the document has now been finalised and the person suggested by the appellant’s legal team has been appointed by the court to perform this function, subject to his (or her) successfully undergoing the necessary security vetting. The court urged the relevant authorities to carry out the vetting of the special counsel (and any solicitor appointed by him to assist in the performance of his duties) with the very highest urgency. The Crown and the Advocate General were instructed to prepare summaries of the submissions made by them at the closed hearing (from which the appellant’s lawyers were excluded) so that they can be handed over to the special counsel as soon as his vetting is successfully concluded. The appellant’s legal team indicated that they would be in a position fully to brief the special counsel by 23 January 2009.

The remaining issue discussed was the timing of the next procedural hearing (to consider the further petitions for disclosure lodged on behalf of the appellant before the ninth procedural hearing on 27 and 28 November). Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi proposed that it should be on a date between 21 and 23 January, it having been indicated by the court administrative office that all three of the judges were available then. Ronnie Clancy QC argued that this was, for various reasons, far too early for the Crown and that a date should be fixed in February or March. The Advocate General concurred. The court indicated that it would consider these submissions and intimate its decision on the date of the next hearing “in early course”.

Still no obvious sign, therefore, that either the Crown or the Advocate General have revised their Fabian tactics in the light of the appellant's medical condition or any other factors.

Seventh (public) procedural hearing

Today's procedural hearing related to the appellant's two petitions for access to material used at the Zeist trial, or referred to in material used at the trial. In respect of one petition, concerning documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Abdelbaset Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, the Crown (represented by Ronnie Clancy QC) intimated that it was no longer opposing the appellant's application to be allowed to show the originals to an expert psychologist. The court accordingly granted the prayer of the petition.

As regards the second petition, relating to the appellant's claim to be allowed access to documents and productions used at the Zeist trial (and to other material referred to in such documents), and to be permitted to subject them to forensic scientific examination, the Crown's opposition was maintained. However, after an adjournment of twenty minutes, the court (Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Eassie) granted the prayer of the petition, subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed between the Crown and the appellant's representatives for the security of the productions during the forensic examination.

The fact that the court, without reserving judgement, granted the application makes it unnecessary for me to try to explain the convoluted grounds on which the Crown opposed the application. This is something that (despite having taken ten pages of notes during the hearing) I would have found it difficult to do for a (predominantly) lay readership. Perhaps the most important aspect of today's hearing is the ease and speed with which the court dismissed the Crown's submissions and granted the appellant's requests.

[For some light relief, why not glance at this piece from Radar?]

Ninth (public) procedural hearing: first day

Today’s lengthy procedural hearing was taken up with (a) submissions on the appellant’s most recent petition for disclosure of material in the hands of the Crown; and (b) case management and timetabling.

As regards (a), the material in question is mainly the pre-trial witness statements of the more than 1100 witnesses who featured on the Crown’s list at the Zeist trial. The appellant’s lawyers claim that upwards of 800 of these statements have not yet been handed over. The Crown stated today that it was willing to do so, subject to any public interest immunity issues that might be raised by the Advocate General on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The Advocate General’s counsel, Raymond Doherty QC, indicated that in the vast majority of cases there was unlikely to be any PII concern and that these statements could be handed over by the Crown within fourteen days. In respect of any few statements in respect of which the UK Government’s assessment was that PII issues arose, the matter would have to return to the court.

As regards (b) Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi asked that the Crown be ordered to answer in writing the appellant’s detailed grounds of appeal. This would serve the useful purpose of clarifying the issues of fact and law on which there was genuine dispute between the parties and of identifying the factual and legal issues on which the parties were at one. The Crown responded that this was not normal Scottish practice and questioned whether it would serve any beneficial function.

The appellant’s legal team had been asked for this hearing to prioritise their grounds of appeal and to indicate the order in which the court should be asked to address them. Ms Scott stated that the appellant wished first consideration to be given to grounds of appeal 1 and 2 relating to the reasonableness of the verdict (ie whether any reasonable tribunal, on the evidence led, could have convicted Megrahi). She stated that the appellant’s legal team would be in a position to argue these grounds in April 2009 and that she anticipated that perhaps four weeks of court time would be required. The next chapter to be addressed should be those portions of ground of appeal 3 relating to the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Ms Scott tentatively suggested that this section of the hearing might be scheduled for July 2009 and that as much as eight weeks might be required.

Ms Scott also requested the court at this stage to forward the grounds of appeal to the lawyers who represented Mr Megrahi at the original trial, in order to give them an opportunity, if so minded, to respond to the issues raised and the criticisms made of them in ground of appeal 4 relating to defective or inadequate representation.

The Crown did not indicate any strong views on these prioritising and timetabling matters. The one particularly interesting thing that Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown disclosed was that, as of today, the Crown did not concede that even if Tony Gauci’s evidence were wholly discredited there remained insufficient evidence to justify the conviction of Megrahi. This is a view that few legal observers share.

The hearing was continued until tomorrow (Friday). It is to be expected that the court will then issue its decision on most of the issues outlined above. The other matter to be dealt with tomorrow is the protocol governing relations between the appellant’s legal team and the special (security-vetted) advocate appointed to consider the mystery document(s) in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has already asserted public interest immunity and the non-disclosure of which formed one of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s grounds for holding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is possible that when these matters are discussed tomorrow, the court will have to go into closed session.

The report on the BBC News website can be read here. The Herald's report of the proceedings can be read here. It appears to be the only Scottish or UK newspaper to provide any coverage. Like the BBC, it concentrates on the application for the criminal records of witnesses to be disclosed. Trust the British media to focus on the peripheral and inessential!

Mulholland to be new Lord Advocate

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]

Solicitor General Frank Mulholland will today be named Lord Advocate, succeeding Elish Angiolini who last year announced plans to step down.

This will create a vacancy for the second law officer post and The Herald understands that it has been decided that a woman will fill the deputy role.

One of the names mooted for the Solicitor General post had been experienced QC Ronnie Clancy, a son of a police officer who has been at the bar since 1990 and was senior Crown counsel in the Lockerbie appeal.

However, The Herald has been told that with the promotion of Mr Mulholland, his No 2 will be a woman. A source at the Faculty of Advocates made the point that the number of women there has expanded from 10 to 100 in just 20 years, so with other senior female fiscals there will be no shortage of choice. (...)

Mr Mulholland was appointed by Alex Salmond as Solicitor General four years ago and it is understood he will now be promoted to the top post.

Mr Salmond will name his Cabinet team today after being sworn in at the Court of Session. He will swear three oaths – as First Minister, as Keeper of the Seal, and of allegiance to the Queen – before receiving the Royal warrant confirming his appointment as First Minister.

[This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).

The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.

The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has picked up this post. Its report can be read here.]