As far as I can discover, the only newspaper that provides a report on the third day of the procedural hearing is The Herald. The following are excerpts:
'The Crown yesterday insisted further investigations over undisclosed documents relating to the key witness in the Lockerbie trial, to be carried out ahead of an appeal into the case, were "unnecessary".
'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, this week began a challenge to demand undisclosed material they believe will help free their terminally ill client at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
'The Crown Office and the Advocate General are opposing this, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist. (...)
'Ronnie Clancy, QC, advocate-depute acting for the Crown, said searches had already been undertaken voluntarily by police since the defence's move was launched last year and referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's three-year investigation into the case.
'He argued the SCCCR's investigation - which referred Megrahi for a fresh appeal - was sufficient. (...)
'A delegation from the Crown Office is also to travel to Malta and "one of the tasks in hand is to actively seek consent for disclosure" of documents.
'It will also approach other foreign sources as some material could have security issues in their own jurisdiction should it be made public.
'Mr Clancy said an answer will be sought within 28 days and the defence team given the 170 documents or reasons why they should not be disclosed. (...)
'He also said the wide scope of the information sought was restrictive and said it indicated the call for disclosure was a "grand fishing expedition".
'Elements of the broad scope search could be narrowed down, Ms Scott suggested.
'She added: "What has taken place in terms of this voluntary exercise is not a proper search at all."
'Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie will give their decision at a later date. Megrahi's appeal is due to start on April 27.'
Showing posts sorted by date for query Ronnie Clancy. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Ronnie Clancy. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Saturday 21 February 2009
Wednesday 21 January 2009
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.
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.
Thursday 18 December 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday 16 December 2008
A response to Richard Marquise
[I am deeply grateful to Peter Biddulph for allowing me to post the following response written by him to Richard Marquise's recent broadcast and print contributions to Lockerbie lore.]
1. It would appear that Mr Marquise never handled the fragment [of circuit board allegedly from the MST-13 timer that allegedly detonated the bomb], never saw the fragment. All his forensic information appears to have come from Thomas Thurman, proven to be a manipulator of prosecution reports by the US Department of Justice in 36 out of the 52 Thurman cases that they investigated.
And yet Thurman too never saw the fragment or handled it. When challenged by journalists, he admitted that he had worked solely on photographs supplied by the Scottish police and Thomas Hayes. And the evidence he gave on US TV about identifying the fragment was given as a voice-over using photographs of a sample from the CIA's own laboratory in Langley, Virginia.
Thurman, by resigning and "leaving" the employ of the FBI avoided being a witness at the trial, and his claims and record regarding the fragment were never tested in court. All references to Thurman in the trial transcript took "a priori" that he was on the team who found the fragment that proved Libya did it. His questionable history was never challenged by the defence. Were they negligent?
2. Mr Marquise's senior FBI colleague Oliver Revell never saw the fragment, never handled the fragment. In a televised discussion in 1995 on UK Channel Four TV he claimed :
". . . And we were operating on the premise that [Iran] was the responsible party. But we simply could not bring to bear all of the information we had, and the evidence, and make it fit. And then when the item – the microchip – was found and was identified – and by the way it was through both RARDE and Tom Thurman of the FBI laboratory – independently – that we found the other connection, and then we started working on that." (My italics).
So, whatever might be said by the FBI now, their case in 1991 centred entirely upon the provenance of the fragment of the bomb said to have been found in July 1989 by Dr Thomas Hayes. Should Hayes' evidence be in any way suspect, the case would collapse.
Mr Marquise has claimed elsewhere that the retirement of the CIA's Vincent Cannistraro took place before the key evidence was found. He has said that to for us to say otherwise is wrong.
Well, it's not wrong. Cannistraro was busy as head of the Lockerbie team when Hayes claimed to have found the fragment. Cannistraro retired a year and a half later, in November 1990.
3. The chief identification witness, Tony Gauci, was exposed in 2005 by the very man who - in 1991 - helped with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, former Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's own words, Gauci could not be trusted.
And now a Mr Clancy [Ronnie Clancy QC] of the Scottish Crown team has conceded in a recent Scottish High Court hearing in Edinburgh that even if Gauci's evidence is discredited, it would not significantly affect the prosecution case. A strange claim and admission indeed. Are they already conceding the case in total? [RB: What Mr Clancy said was that the Crown’s view was that there was sufficient evidence to justify Megrahi’s conviction even if Gauci’s evidence were discounted.]
4. Marquise's information regarding the British forensic tracing of the fragment came from Dr Thomas Hayes.
At the time of the trial, Hayes' record in the case of the IRA Maguire Seven (Guildford bombing) was never discussed in court. All that the judges heard was an oblique reference to "deliberate falsehoods" told by his former colleague and supervisor Dr Higgs in another IRA case, that of Judith Ward.
Since Hayes had not been part of that particular Higgs episode, he could - and did - deny all connection or knowledge of that particular Higgs conspiracy. The trial then moved on without further comment or question.
And yet Hayes was central to a Higgs conspiracy in another IRA trial, that of the Maguire Seven, in which the Hayes and Higgs were proved by Parliamentary investigation to have conspired to with-hold evidence that might assist the defence case.
But since the Maguire Seven story was not rehearsed in the Lockerbie trial, none of this could be considered by the Lockerbie judges.
I believe that if Hayes' history in the case of the Maguire Seven had been examined in court, his testimony in the case of Lockerbie would have been discredited in the same way as that of Majid Giaka, the double CIA and Libyan agent.
In his book Scotbom, and since, Mr Marquise gives the impression that American investigation was led and controlled by the FBI. In fact it was controlled overall by the CIA, and by certain people with much blood and lies on their hands. Among the White House team around that time were people proven by declassified documents to understand well the technique of the manufacture of evidence to destabilise Middle Eastern governments. These documents are now freely available. But nobody - including the media in both countries - seems to care any more. It's old news, unwelcome news. People die, so what? Life must go on etc.
All of this, naturally, never came to the attention of the Lockerbie judges. Hopefully the second appeal will offer a long overdue opportunity for the true back-story of Lockerbie to emerge.
If Mr Marquise wishes to challenge any of the above, I will gladly supply the document dates and references with appropriate quotations. I will also arrange for sections of the film and television records to be put on the web. And I will ensure that relevant sections of the trial transcript are also put on the web. People can then judge for themselves where this story might go over the next six months.
1. It would appear that Mr Marquise never handled the fragment [of circuit board allegedly from the MST-13 timer that allegedly detonated the bomb], never saw the fragment. All his forensic information appears to have come from Thomas Thurman, proven to be a manipulator of prosecution reports by the US Department of Justice in 36 out of the 52 Thurman cases that they investigated.
And yet Thurman too never saw the fragment or handled it. When challenged by journalists, he admitted that he had worked solely on photographs supplied by the Scottish police and Thomas Hayes. And the evidence he gave on US TV about identifying the fragment was given as a voice-over using photographs of a sample from the CIA's own laboratory in Langley, Virginia.
Thurman, by resigning and "leaving" the employ of the FBI avoided being a witness at the trial, and his claims and record regarding the fragment were never tested in court. All references to Thurman in the trial transcript took "a priori" that he was on the team who found the fragment that proved Libya did it. His questionable history was never challenged by the defence. Were they negligent?
2. Mr Marquise's senior FBI colleague Oliver Revell never saw the fragment, never handled the fragment. In a televised discussion in 1995 on UK Channel Four TV he claimed :
". . . And we were operating on the premise that [Iran] was the responsible party. But we simply could not bring to bear all of the information we had, and the evidence, and make it fit. And then when the item – the microchip – was found and was identified – and by the way it was through both RARDE and Tom Thurman of the FBI laboratory – independently – that we found the other connection, and then we started working on that." (My italics).
So, whatever might be said by the FBI now, their case in 1991 centred entirely upon the provenance of the fragment of the bomb said to have been found in July 1989 by Dr Thomas Hayes. Should Hayes' evidence be in any way suspect, the case would collapse.
Mr Marquise has claimed elsewhere that the retirement of the CIA's Vincent Cannistraro took place before the key evidence was found. He has said that to for us to say otherwise is wrong.
Well, it's not wrong. Cannistraro was busy as head of the Lockerbie team when Hayes claimed to have found the fragment. Cannistraro retired a year and a half later, in November 1990.
3. The chief identification witness, Tony Gauci, was exposed in 2005 by the very man who - in 1991 - helped with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, former Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's own words, Gauci could not be trusted.
And now a Mr Clancy [Ronnie Clancy QC] of the Scottish Crown team has conceded in a recent Scottish High Court hearing in Edinburgh that even if Gauci's evidence is discredited, it would not significantly affect the prosecution case. A strange claim and admission indeed. Are they already conceding the case in total? [RB: What Mr Clancy said was that the Crown’s view was that there was sufficient evidence to justify Megrahi’s conviction even if Gauci’s evidence were discounted.]
4. Marquise's information regarding the British forensic tracing of the fragment came from Dr Thomas Hayes.
At the time of the trial, Hayes' record in the case of the IRA Maguire Seven (Guildford bombing) was never discussed in court. All that the judges heard was an oblique reference to "deliberate falsehoods" told by his former colleague and supervisor Dr Higgs in another IRA case, that of Judith Ward.
Since Hayes had not been part of that particular Higgs episode, he could - and did - deny all connection or knowledge of that particular Higgs conspiracy. The trial then moved on without further comment or question.
And yet Hayes was central to a Higgs conspiracy in another IRA trial, that of the Maguire Seven, in which the Hayes and Higgs were proved by Parliamentary investigation to have conspired to with-hold evidence that might assist the defence case.
But since the Maguire Seven story was not rehearsed in the Lockerbie trial, none of this could be considered by the Lockerbie judges.
I believe that if Hayes' history in the case of the Maguire Seven had been examined in court, his testimony in the case of Lockerbie would have been discredited in the same way as that of Majid Giaka, the double CIA and Libyan agent.
In his book Scotbom, and since, Mr Marquise gives the impression that American investigation was led and controlled by the FBI. In fact it was controlled overall by the CIA, and by certain people with much blood and lies on their hands. Among the White House team around that time were people proven by declassified documents to understand well the technique of the manufacture of evidence to destabilise Middle Eastern governments. These documents are now freely available. But nobody - including the media in both countries - seems to care any more. It's old news, unwelcome news. People die, so what? Life must go on etc.
All of this, naturally, never came to the attention of the Lockerbie judges. Hopefully the second appeal will offer a long overdue opportunity for the true back-story of Lockerbie to emerge.
If Mr Marquise wishes to challenge any of the above, I will gladly supply the document dates and references with appropriate quotations. I will also arrange for sections of the film and television records to be put on the web. And I will ensure that relevant sections of the trial transcript are also put on the web. People can then judge for themselves where this story might go over the next six months.
Thursday 27 November 2008
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!
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!
Thursday 6 November 2008
Avizandum
The Criminal Appeal Court (consisting of Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Wheatley) today reserved judgement in Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation pending his appeal. No indication was given as to how long this period of avizandum (consideration) would be. There is a further sitting of the court already fixed for 27 November, but it is devoutly to be hoped that their Lordships will be in a position to announce their decision before then.
As anticipated in a previous post on this blog, the appellant's counsel, Maggie Scott QC, founded on (1) the substantial nature of the appellant's grounds of appeal, including the fact that some of them have the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) the delay that has already occurred in the case and the further delay that is likely before the appeal is heard; and (3) the state of the appellant's health.
The Crown, represented by Ronnie Clancy QC, opposed the granting of bail, principally on the ground of the gravity of the crime of which the appellant stands convicted (the murder of 270 persons), but also on the basis that at least some of the grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed; that the delays which had occurred were not (at least primarily) the fault of the Crown (this submission causing a measure of astonishment amongst many of those present in the courtroom); and that the appellant's illness (which the Crown accepted as genuine) could be satisfactorily treated in Greenock Prison.
The court investigated what conditions should be attached to interim liberation, if granted, which at least indicates that the possibility is being taken seriously.
The report of today's hearing on the BBC News website can be read here.
As anticipated in a previous post on this blog, the appellant's counsel, Maggie Scott QC, founded on (1) the substantial nature of the appellant's grounds of appeal, including the fact that some of them have the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) the delay that has already occurred in the case and the further delay that is likely before the appeal is heard; and (3) the state of the appellant's health.
The Crown, represented by Ronnie Clancy QC, opposed the granting of bail, principally on the ground of the gravity of the crime of which the appellant stands convicted (the murder of 270 persons), but also on the basis that at least some of the grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed; that the delays which had occurred were not (at least primarily) the fault of the Crown (this submission causing a measure of astonishment amongst many of those present in the courtroom); and that the appellant's illness (which the Crown accepted as genuine) could be satisfactorily treated in Greenock Prison.
The court investigated what conditions should be attached to interim liberation, if granted, which at least indicates that the possibility is being taken seriously.
The report of today's hearing on the BBC News website can be read here.
Wednesday 20 August 2008
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?]
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?]
Thursday 3 July 2008
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
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
Tuesday 17 June 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday 28 May 2008
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.]
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.]
Thursday 20 December 2007
Second procedural hearing
Today's procedural hearing before Lords Hamilton, Kingarth and Eassie was, as anticipated, largely concerned with the document in the hands of the Crown, seen and founded upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that the appellant's legal team is seeking to have disclosed to it. On 11 October the Crown was given six weeks either to get the consent of the foreign country which supplied it to disclosure, or to lodge detailed written reasons as to why the document should not be handed over. The Advocate General for Scotland (who provides Scottish legal advice to the UK Government Departments in London) was also instructed, if so advised, to lodge written answers.
The Lord Advocate (who, as well as being head of the Scottish public prosecution system, is legal adviser to the Scottish devolved Government) lodged answers basically saying no more than that, for reasons that she did not see fit to vouchsafe, the document in question was not disclosable. The Advocate General's answers objected to disclosure on the basis of Public Interest Immunity (PII), but did not deign to disclose what aspects of the public interest would be prejudiced by the document's being handed to the appellant (it already, of course, having been seen by the SCCRC); nor had the Advocate General had the courtesy to lodge a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which would have provided at least some enlightenment.
Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi argued that the Advocate General's PII objection should be dismissed without further argument given that he had not produced in his written answers any material to support it and because it had not been adopted by the Lord Advocate who, in the Scottish criminal justice system is the officer in whose hands alone rests the responsibility for protecting the wider public interest (subject, of course, to ultimate supervision by the High Court). Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, however, stated that although no mention of any public interest objection to disclosure was made in the Lord Advocate's answers, this was simply because she had decided that, on this issue, she should defer to the UK Government and the Advocate General since responsibility for foreign relations is non-devolved and rests with the UK Government and so that aspect of the public interest (ie preserving good relations with the foreign government that supplied the document and which has refused to consent to its being disclosed) should be ceded to the Advocate General.
The court, "with great reluctance" allowed the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General six weeks to provide full written reasons for their claim to PII and appointed all parties to lodge by that date a note of their legal arguments and the authorities supporting them on the PII issue. It then fixed a one day hearing for 20 February 2008 for the issue to be fully debated in open court. The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, made it abundantly plain that the court regarded the conduct of both the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General in failing, within the generous period of six weeks allowed them on 11 October, to provide written answers that set out the substance of their objection to disclosure, with full supporting reasons, as highly unsatisfactory.
Two other matters were discussed at the hearing. The first was the scope of the appeal. The Crown had earlier stated that it would consider asking the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to allow to be argued all (or some) of the Grounds of Appeal that related to matters that had been investigated by the SCCRC but rejected by that body. Today Mr Clancy went considerably further: the Crown now wished to argue that, as a matter of law, the Appeal Court was not permitted to hear Grounds of Appeal that had not been accepted by the SCCRC. That is a legal issue that has already been decided by a three-judge bench who held in 2004 (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC956.html) that there was no such restriction on the Grounds of Appeal that could be heard. Nothing daunted, Mr Clancy asked for a five-judge court to be convened to reconsider the matter. The court ordered the Lord Advocate to submit within one month a written note setting out her legal arguments and appointed the appellant to submit written answers within one month thereafter. A five-judge court would then be convened to hear oral argument.
The final issue raised was the problem the appellant's legal advisers have been encountering in gaining access to the productions used in the original trial. Dumfries and Galloway Police (who are the custodians of most of them) had apparently been advised by the Crown that the appellant could not have access without an order of the court. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown did not wish to be obstructive and that he was sure that the matter could be resolved amicably. Ms Scott's rejoinder was that the Crown had been nothing but obstructive. The court indicated that if any further problems were encountered in this regard the matter should be brought back before the court.
Observers of the appeal process have speculated that one of the Crown's principal tactics would be to seek to delay the proceedings at every turn. If corroborative evidence of this were needed, today's hearing has supplied it in abundance.
Once again, there was a good attendance on the public benches. Among the relatives present was Dr Jim Swire and Ms Marina Larracoechea Azumendi. Also in attendance was Edwin Bollier, principal of MeBo, the Zürich company that manufactured the timer that is alleged to have detonated the bomb on board Pan Am 103. The acoustics of the courtroom were somewhat better than on the previous occasion. But they still leave a lot to be desired.
The Lord Advocate (who, as well as being head of the Scottish public prosecution system, is legal adviser to the Scottish devolved Government) lodged answers basically saying no more than that, for reasons that she did not see fit to vouchsafe, the document in question was not disclosable. The Advocate General's answers objected to disclosure on the basis of Public Interest Immunity (PII), but did not deign to disclose what aspects of the public interest would be prejudiced by the document's being handed to the appellant (it already, of course, having been seen by the SCCRC); nor had the Advocate General had the courtesy to lodge a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which would have provided at least some enlightenment.
Maggie Scott QC for Mr Megrahi argued that the Advocate General's PII objection should be dismissed without further argument given that he had not produced in his written answers any material to support it and because it had not been adopted by the Lord Advocate who, in the Scottish criminal justice system is the officer in whose hands alone rests the responsibility for protecting the wider public interest (subject, of course, to ultimate supervision by the High Court). Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, however, stated that although no mention of any public interest objection to disclosure was made in the Lord Advocate's answers, this was simply because she had decided that, on this issue, she should defer to the UK Government and the Advocate General since responsibility for foreign relations is non-devolved and rests with the UK Government and so that aspect of the public interest (ie preserving good relations with the foreign government that supplied the document and which has refused to consent to its being disclosed) should be ceded to the Advocate General.
The court, "with great reluctance" allowed the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General six weeks to provide full written reasons for their claim to PII and appointed all parties to lodge by that date a note of their legal arguments and the authorities supporting them on the PII issue. It then fixed a one day hearing for 20 February 2008 for the issue to be fully debated in open court. The Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, made it abundantly plain that the court regarded the conduct of both the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General in failing, within the generous period of six weeks allowed them on 11 October, to provide written answers that set out the substance of their objection to disclosure, with full supporting reasons, as highly unsatisfactory.
Two other matters were discussed at the hearing. The first was the scope of the appeal. The Crown had earlier stated that it would consider asking the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to allow to be argued all (or some) of the Grounds of Appeal that related to matters that had been investigated by the SCCRC but rejected by that body. Today Mr Clancy went considerably further: the Crown now wished to argue that, as a matter of law, the Appeal Court was not permitted to hear Grounds of Appeal that had not been accepted by the SCCRC. That is a legal issue that has already been decided by a three-judge bench who held in 2004 (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC956.html) that there was no such restriction on the Grounds of Appeal that could be heard. Nothing daunted, Mr Clancy asked for a five-judge court to be convened to reconsider the matter. The court ordered the Lord Advocate to submit within one month a written note setting out her legal arguments and appointed the appellant to submit written answers within one month thereafter. A five-judge court would then be convened to hear oral argument.
The final issue raised was the problem the appellant's legal advisers have been encountering in gaining access to the productions used in the original trial. Dumfries and Galloway Police (who are the custodians of most of them) had apparently been advised by the Crown that the appellant could not have access without an order of the court. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown did not wish to be obstructive and that he was sure that the matter could be resolved amicably. Ms Scott's rejoinder was that the Crown had been nothing but obstructive. The court indicated that if any further problems were encountered in this regard the matter should be brought back before the court.
Observers of the appeal process have speculated that one of the Crown's principal tactics would be to seek to delay the proceedings at every turn. If corroborative evidence of this were needed, today's hearing has supplied it in abundance.
Once again, there was a good attendance on the public benches. Among the relatives present was Dr Jim Swire and Ms Marina Larracoechea Azumendi. Also in attendance was Edwin Bollier, principal of MeBo, the Zürich company that manufactured the timer that is alleged to have detonated the bomb on board Pan Am 103. The acoustics of the courtroom were somewhat better than on the previous occasion. But they still leave a lot to be desired.
Thursday 11 October 2007
The procedural hearing
The hearing at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh this morning lasted just under one hour. The judges were the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton), Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie. (For brief biographies, see http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/judges.asp.) Mr Megrahi was represented by a team headed by Maggie Scott QC and the Crown by a team headed by Ronnie Clancy QC. For technical reasons of no particular interest in the overall scheme of the Lockerbie case, the Advocate General for Scotland was also represented; as also was the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway (because copies of the documents that Megrahi's lawyers are seeking to have disclosed to them are in that police force's possession).
The principal subject of debate was Megrahi's application to have disclosed a document relating to timers that is in the possession of the Crown and that was seen by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the non-disclosure of which to the defence was one of the Commission's reasons for holding that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. The only major surprise in the hearing was the Crown's revelation that the foreign country from which the document in question emanated was not the United States of America. The general assumption amongst commentators (myself included) had been that the source of the document was the CIA or the FBI. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown was seeking the consent of the foreign country in question for the release of the document to the appellant's legal team He asked for, and was granted, a six week period to lodge written answers to Megrahi's application for an order for the document to be disclosed. His hope was that within that period the foreign country would agree to its release and that the court would not therefore have to consider whether to make a formal ruling on the matter.
The other issue ventilated at the hearing was the timetable for Megrahi's legal team to lodge his Grounds of Appeal (as distinct from the "outline of proposed grounds of appeal" that had already been provided to the court). Ms Scott indicated that a vast amount of new material had become available to Megrahi's team from the SCCRC and also from the Maltese authorities and that this had to be considered and assessed before grounds of appeal could be finalised. The court ordered that the Grounds of Appeal be lodged before the end of the legal term on 21 December 2007, but on the understanding that additions and amendments might be required thereafter. A separate set of grounds of appeal on the issue of inadequate representation by Megrahi's original legal team was ordered to be lodged in advance, so that the lawyers criticised in them should have the opportunity of commenting on the allegations without further delay to the proceedings as a whole.
The appeal proceedings will be held in Edinburgh, but Ms Scott indicated concerns about arrangements for Mr Megrahi's repatriation to Libya in the event of his release. It is to be expected that satisfactory arrangements will be evolved, perhaps involving the United Nations (as happened in respect of Mr Fhima, the co-accused who was acquitted at the original trial).
The public benches of the courtroom were by no means full, though a number of Lockerbie relatives did attend, along with a substantial contingent of representatives of the media. The most common complaint from those attending was the difficulty in hearing what was being said. The acoustics were appalling and this was not helped by the tendency of the speaking participants (with the honourable exceptions of Ms Scott and Mr Clancy) to whisper or mumble.
The principal subject of debate was Megrahi's application to have disclosed a document relating to timers that is in the possession of the Crown and that was seen by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the non-disclosure of which to the defence was one of the Commission's reasons for holding that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. The only major surprise in the hearing was the Crown's revelation that the foreign country from which the document in question emanated was not the United States of America. The general assumption amongst commentators (myself included) had been that the source of the document was the CIA or the FBI. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown was seeking the consent of the foreign country in question for the release of the document to the appellant's legal team He asked for, and was granted, a six week period to lodge written answers to Megrahi's application for an order for the document to be disclosed. His hope was that within that period the foreign country would agree to its release and that the court would not therefore have to consider whether to make a formal ruling on the matter.
The other issue ventilated at the hearing was the timetable for Megrahi's legal team to lodge his Grounds of Appeal (as distinct from the "outline of proposed grounds of appeal" that had already been provided to the court). Ms Scott indicated that a vast amount of new material had become available to Megrahi's team from the SCCRC and also from the Maltese authorities and that this had to be considered and assessed before grounds of appeal could be finalised. The court ordered that the Grounds of Appeal be lodged before the end of the legal term on 21 December 2007, but on the understanding that additions and amendments might be required thereafter. A separate set of grounds of appeal on the issue of inadequate representation by Megrahi's original legal team was ordered to be lodged in advance, so that the lawyers criticised in them should have the opportunity of commenting on the allegations without further delay to the proceedings as a whole.
The appeal proceedings will be held in Edinburgh, but Ms Scott indicated concerns about arrangements for Mr Megrahi's repatriation to Libya in the event of his release. It is to be expected that satisfactory arrangements will be evolved, perhaps involving the United Nations (as happened in respect of Mr Fhima, the co-accused who was acquitted at the original trial).
The public benches of the courtroom were by no means full, though a number of Lockerbie relatives did attend, along with a substantial contingent of representatives of the media. The most common complaint from those attending was the difficulty in hearing what was being said. The acoustics were appalling and this was not helped by the tendency of the speaking participants (with the honourable exceptions of Ms Scott and Mr Clancy) to whisper or mumble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)