Institutionally Corrupt : Crown Office, Police & Lord Advocate accused of criminality over Lockerbie trial injustice

Scotland’s Crown Office played a role in perverting the course of justice at Lockerbie trial, say many in Scots legal world. Scotland’s institutionally corrupt Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which is headed by the Lord Advocate, has been accused of criminality over their part in the trial of Abdelbasset al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

The Justice for Megrahi group have made the accusations in a letter to Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has been in the justice portfolio now for over five years, with little to show for any improvements in Scotland’s now notoriously “Victorian” justice system.

The letter from the Justice for Megrahi group is reprinted below, followed by coverage from BBC News. More on the story can also be read on Professor Robert Black’s Lockerbie Case blog Previous coverage on the Lockerbie case by Scottish Law Reporter can be viewed here Lockerbie Trial

Letter from Justice for Megrahi group to Kenny MacAskill :

Dear Mr MacAskill,

The Committee of Justice for Megrahi hereby formally lodge with you complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988.

These complaints are directed against the persons and bodies named below whom, for the reasons given, we believe may be guilty of the criminal offences specified.

1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A. B. and C. D.] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

2. Members of the Lockerbie prosecution team, including but not limited to [C. D.], devised and presented or allowed to be presented to the trial court a scenario regarding the placement of items in luggage container AVE4041 which was known to be false, in order to obfuscate and conceal compelling evidence that the bomb suitcase was introduced by a terrorist infiltration at Heathrow airport. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

3. Dumfries and Galloway Police, and those individuals employed by that force responsible for the recording, prioritising and submission to the Crown Office of evidence gathered in the investigation into the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, and the Crown Office, and those individuals in that organisation responsible for the analysis of said evidence and identifying what material required to be passed on to those acting for Megrahi and Fhimah, concealed the witness statement relating to the break-in to Heathrow airside giving access to the luggage loading shed used by Pan Am 103 in the early hours of 21 December 1988 which was provided by Heathrow Security Officer Raymond Manly to the Metropolitan Police shortly after Mr Manly’s discovery of the break-in. It is submitted that the concealment of this witness statement, which was or ought to have been known to Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Crown Office to be of the highest possible significance to the defence, constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

4. [In the course of his testimony at Camp Zeist, witness E. F.] told the Court that the materials and tracking analysis of fragment PT/35b, the sliver of printed circuit board said to have originated from a circuit board contained in one of the 20 MST-13 digital timer instruments supplied by MEBO AG to Libya (the boards for all these timers having been custom-made for MEBO by Thuring AG), were “similar in all respects” to the control samples of MST-13 circuit boards. [E. F.] consistently used this form of words to describe analyses of items which were identical or of common origin. This statement was false. While the tracking pattern was indeed identical, [E. F.] was aware that the coating on the circuitry of the control boards was the standard alloy of 70% tin and 30% lead, while the coating on the circuitry of fragment PT/35b (most unusually) lacked the 30% lead content. It is submitted that his statement to the Court was a deliberate falsehood designed to conceal a significant and material difference between the evidential fragment and the control items, and thus constituted both perjury and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

5. The Lockerbie investigation, and in particular [police officer G. H.], knew by 1990 that the coating on the circuitry of fragment PT/35b was composed of pure tin, and that this composition was highly unusual, being described as “by far the most interesting feature” of the fragment by all the experts who were consulted, “without exception”. By early 1992 [G. H.] and those in the Crown Office to whom he reported also knew that the metallurgy testing on the control MST-13 circuit boards showed the circuitry on these boards to be coated with the standard 70% tin / 30% lead alloy. [G. H.] and those in the Crown Office to whom he reported either failed to inquire with the manufacturer Thuring AG whether they had supplied any MST-13 timer boards with the unusual lead-free coating, or did make such inquiries and failed to disclose the results of these inquiries to the defence. It was discovered by the defence team in 2008 that Thuring AG did not manufacture printed circuit boards with a lead-free coating, and indeed lacked the manufacturing capacity to do so. If [G. H.] and/or those in the Crown Office to whom he reported failed to make the relevant inquiries with Thuring AG, it is submitted that this omission was grossly negligent. If [G. H.] and/or those in the Crown Office to whom he reported made such inquiries and failed to disclose the results to the defence, it is submitted that this failure constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

6. From our assessment of the ‘SCCRC Statement of Reasons’, relating to its referral of Mr. Megrahi’s case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2007, and the ‘Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2' documents prepared by his legal team in furtherance of that appeal, it is clear that a number of questions have been raised in relation to the process which led to the identification of Mr. Megrahi by witness Mr. Anthony Gauci. These include doubts about the legitimacy of the process by which Mr. Gauci’s identification evidence was obtained, assessed and delivered, and what prompted significant failures by the Crown to disclose related material information. From these documents it appears that [police officer I. J.] and other police officers who were involved in this identification process might well have been aware that a number of the aspects of the process they were following were flawed and did not accord with guidelines extant at the time or with any general principles of fairness to the accused. It is submitted that the omissions and failings referred to in the relevant reports indicate that [I. J.] and others have important questions to answer in connection with the identification process, and we believe, taken as a whole, that their conduct constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice and a breach of section 44 (2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (violation of duty by a constable).

The above numbered complaints simply constitute the basic allegations. Documents containing detailed supporting material have been prepared and will be made available to the investigating authorities as and when requested by them.

You above all will realise the seriousness of these allegations which strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present. Effectively, we are complaining about the actions of Crown Office officials, the prosecution and investigating authorities including the police, and certain other agencies and individuals. Given the controversy surrounding this whole affair we request that you give serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority you appoint. As a group we believe that you should appoint someone outwith Scotland who has no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications.

You will be aware of the disquiet we feel about the delay and obfuscation which have surrounded this whole affair since 1988. Nevertheless we understand you will require reasonable time to inquire into these allegations and decide how you wish to proceed.

We therefore propose to keep these matters private and confidential for a period of thirty days from the date of this letter to allow you to carry out the necessary enquiries, decide how you wish the matter to be investigated, and respond to us. We thereafter reserve the right to make the above matters public as and when we feel appropriate and reasonable. Furthermore, on the grounds that JFM’s petition PE1370 is due for consideration on 25 September, we also reserve the right to inform the Justice Committee of the fact that we have lodged this document with yourself, making reference (in general terms only) to the fact that it contains serious allegations relating to the Lockerbie/Zeist case.

In passing we would also note the recent publicity given to the perceived lack of independence in Scotland between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government by Mr. Andrew Tickell.

We also share this concern and would hope, for reasons that must be obvious from the foregoing, that your response to this letter will be free from Crown Office influence of any kind.

We thank you for your time and attention in this matter and look forward to an acknowledgment of receipt by return.

On behalf of the Committee of Justice for Megrahi

BBC News reports :

Lockerbie group accuse Lord Advocate Colin Boyd

By Reevel Alderson Home affairs correspondent, BBC Scotland

Scotland's former chief prosecutor Lord Boyd has been accused by campaigners for the Lockerbie bomber of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) also claim police, forensic scientists and Crown Office personnel broke the law.

The Scottish government said JFM should send any evidence to Dumfries and Galloway police which carried out the original investigation into Lockerbie.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity.

Three judges heard the evidence without a jury at a special court in the Netherlands in 2001, when Lord Boyd was lord advocate.

They sentenced Megrahi to life imprisonment for the murder of the 270 people who died when Pan Am 103 was blown up over the Scottish town.

Megrahi died in May this year of inoperable prostate cancer.

Justice for Megrahi

The convicted bomber had abandoned a second appeal against his conviction in 2009 shortly being sent from a Scottish prison to Libya on compassionate grounds.

But campaigners, who want Megrahi's conviction overturned, have kept up their demands for a public inquiry into the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case.

On Tuesday, JFM published a letter it had sent to Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill detailing its complaints about the legal process.

It claimed the lord advocate at the time, Lord Boyd, who led the Lockerbie prosecution, gave information to the trial judges which members of his team knew to be false.

It concerned the contents of American CIA cables relating to the prosecution witness, Abdul Majid Giaka.

In its letter, JFM said: "It is submitted this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice."

It makes similar claims about members of the prosecution team at the trial at Kamp Zeist in the Netherlands, and about police and forensic officers.
convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in May

JFM said its allegations "strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present".

It said it had documents of supporting material - but gave no details.

The campaign group repeated its call for an independent inquiry to be held by someone outwith Scotland.

Mr MacAskill has not replied to the letter, but asked Neil Rennick, deputy director of the Scottish government's justice directorate to do so.

Mr Rennick repeated the government's view that only a court had the power to uphold or overturn Megrahi's conviction.

He said: "Scottish ministers take exceptionally seriously any suggestion of inappropriate or criminal activity by individuals with key responsibilities with Scotland's justice system.

"Such allegations should be reported and investigated through the appropriate procedures."

He said it was not for the government to investigate allegations of criminality; it was for the lord advocate who is independent of government.

Mr Rennick told JFM it should provide evidence of its allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary which carried out the Lockerbie investigation.

Lord Boyd, who is now a judge, has made no comment.

But the Crown Office said it considered the allegations to be defamatory.

It added: "These allegations have been addressed and rejected in a combination of court hearings, an inquiry by Lothian and Borders police and the investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

"The SCCRC was satisfied after full and proper investigation that there was no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies."

Appeal against conviction ‘must be pursued in interests of justice’ as man convicted of Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli

Abdelbasset al Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in December 1988 in what became known as the Lockerbie Trial has died at his home in Tripoli after a long battle with prostate cancer. Mr Megrahi was released from detention in Scotland after a decision was taken by Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in 2009 to free him on compassionate grounds after medical reports confirmed Mr Megrahi’s cancer was at an advanced stage, giving him only three months to live.

Mr Al-Megrahi was tried at a special court set up under Scottish jurisdiction in the Netherlands in 2001, Camp Zeist, by a panel of Scottish judges without any jury. Many questions remain about the safety of the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi, given the sheer amount of evidence withheld by Scotland’s Lord Advocate & Crown Office, and admissions testimony from witnesses against Mr Megrahi were bribed paid for their appearances & testimony at the trial.

While there are those within the justice system & legal establishment who hope any chances of a potential appeal against the unsafe conviction will now disappear, many legal observers feel an appeal must be pursued in the interests of justice, given the impact the Lockerbie case has had on the credibility of the Scots justice system, raising significant questions as to whether Scots justice can ever be trusted again.

UPDATE 23 May 2012 :
Further coverage of reaction to the death of Mr Al Megrahi can be viewed at the following links and on Professor Robert Black’s Lockerbie Case website The Lockerbie Case

In a selection of articles, Scotland’s Herald Newspaper reports further reaction including calls for an inquiry into the case : Dalyell supports Megrahi inquiry demands, Lockerbie families vow to force public inquiry, One of the longest live investigations, Megrahi: The Herald dossier, The holes in the case: Six grounds for a potential miscarriage of justice, So many questions are still to be answered after Megrahi's death

BBC News reports :

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in Libya.

Megrahi, 60, was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2001.

He was freed from Scottish jail in 2009 on compassionate grounds because of cancer, stirring controversy when he outlived doctors' expectations.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said it was a day to remember the 270 victims of "an appalling terrorist act".

Mr Cameron, who is in Chicago for a Nato summit, said Megrahi should never have been freed,

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond also said Megrahi's death was an occasion to remember the victims of Lockerbie.

He said Lockerbie was still a live investigation and that Scottish prosecutors had never believed Megrahi was the only person responsible.
Relatives' anger

Megrahi's release sparked the fury of many of the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The US - whose citizens accounted for 189 of the dead - also criticised the move.

But others believed he was not guilty of the bombing.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died at Lockerbie, called Megrahi's death a "very sad event".

"Right up to the end he was determined, for his family's sake... [that] the verdict against him should be overturned," said Dr Swire, who is a member of the Justice for Megrahi group.

Died at home

His brother Abdulhakim said on Sunday that Megrahi's health had deteriorated quickly and he died at home in Tripoli.

He told the AFP news agency that Megrahi died at 13:00 local time (11:00 GMT).

Megrahi's sister told the Libyan Wal news agency that his funeral would take place at Tripoli's main cemetery on Monday, following early afternoon prayers.

The BBC's Rana Jawad says Libyans have mixed views on Megrahi's guilt

Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, always denied any responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.

It remains the deadliest terrorist incident ever to have taken place on British soil.

All 259 people aboard the plane, which was travelling from London to New York, were killed, along with 11 others on the ground.

Investigators tracing the origins of scraps of clothes wrapped around the bomb followed a trail to a shop in Malta which led them, eventually, to Megrahi.

He and another Libyan, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were indicted by the Scottish and US courts in November 1991.

But Libya refused to extradite them. In 1999, after protracted negotiations, Libya handed the two men over for trial, under Scottish law but on neutral ground, the former US airbase at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

Cameron: "Today is a day to remember the 270 people who lost their lives in an appalling terrorist act"

Their trial began in May 2000. Fhimah was acquitted of all charges, but Megrahi was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison.

He served the first part of his sentence at the maximum-security prison at Barlinnie, in Glasgow, but was transferred in 2005 to Greenock prison.

He lost his first appeal against conviction in 2002 but in 2007, his case was referred back to senior Scottish judges. He dropped that second case two days before he was released.
No extradition

Last August, after the fall of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi was reported to be "in and out of a coma" at his home in Tripoli.

There have been calls for him to be returned to jail in the UK or tried in the US.

But shortly after they toppled Col Gaddafi, Libyan rebel leaders said they would not extradite Megrahi or any other Libyan.

The BBC's Scotland correspondent James Cook says Scottish and American officials have been to Tripoli, trying to persuade the new Libyan government to grant visas to detectives from Dumfriesshire.

They are still searching for the answers to the questions of who ordered the bombing and who else was involved, our correspondent says, but it is not clear whether the Libyans will co-operate.

However, a spokesman for the interim government in Tripoli, the National Transitional Council (NTC), told Reuters that that Megrahi's death would not end its investigations into Lockerbie.

"The Libyan government will continue to investigate the crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime using other witnesses," NTC spokesman Mohamed al-Harizy was quoted as saying.

Last September, it emerged that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had raised Megrahi's case in talks with Gaddafi in 2008 and 2009 in Libya, shortly before Megrahi was freed.

At the time, Libya was threatening to sever commercial links with Britain if Megrahi was not released.

But Mr Blair's spokesman told Col Gaddafi it was a case for the Scottish authorities and no business deals were discussed.

In his last interview, filmed in December 2011, Megrahi said: "I am an innocent man. I am about to die and I ask now to be left in peace with my family."

He had previously claimed he would release new information about the atrocity but little new has emerged.

Megrahi had rarely been seen since his return to Tripoli, but he was spotted on Libyan television at what appeared to be a pro-government rally in July 2011.

Crown Office ‘misled court’ : SCCRC statement on Lockerbie Trial reveals possible miscarriage of justice over conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi

SCCRC Statement of Reasons casts doubt over conviction of Lockerbie bomber. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s ‘Statement of Reasons’ in the case of the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi over the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 has been published by the Sunday Herald newspaper been published by the Sunday Herald newspaper, beating all ‘official’ moves by the Scottish Government, Crown Office & even the SCCRC itself to publish the report in full, which indicates there may well have been a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi in 2001 at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. The SCCRC’s report can be read here : SCCRC Statement of Reasons - Lockerbie Trial & Conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi

The Sunday Herald’s publication of the SCCRC report follows a media release from the Crown Office on Friday, indicating the SCCRC would not face criminal prosecution if they chose to publish the report. The Crown Office move only came about as a result of being told the Sunday Herald would be publishing the report in it’s next edition.

The Crown Office statement on Friday : SCCRC WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR PUBLISHING MEGRAHI STATEMENT OF REASONS said : The Crown Office today confirmed that no current member or employee of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) would be prosecuted if its Statement of Reasons in the case of Abdelbaset al Megrahi is formally published. Whilst it is currently an offence for the Commission to disclose information obtained in its investigations, the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, considers it would not be in the public interest to prosecute, given the selective publication of the Statement of Reasons in the media. The Crown Office has today written to the SCCRC to clarify the position.

A Crown Office spokesperson said : “The Crown has repeatedly made it clear that it has no objection in principle to the publication of the SCCRC Statement of Reasons in the Megrahi case. Following the recent selective and misleading reporting of the Statement of Reasons - which would have been properly argued in Court had Megrahi not chosen to abandon his second appeal - the Lord Advocate wishes to ensure that there are no perceived barriers to publication, beyond the proper legal requirements which the Commission must take into account in publishing the document.

“Accordingly, the Lord Advocate has today confirmed that it would not be in the public interest for current members and employees of the Commission to be prosecuted in terms of the offence of disclosure in section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to any official publication of the Statement of Reasons.”

However, after the Sunday Herald’s publication of the SCCRC statement of reasons, the Crown Office issued a further statement (not yet published on the Crown Office website), attacking the media’s ‘intrusion’ into the debate and the Sunday Herald’s publication of the SCCRC report, stating : "The Commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights [articles 2 and 8] and issues of confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law.

"We have become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the statement of reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.

"Persons referred to in the statement of reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the Commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored. In fact the Commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies."

Meanwhile First Minister Alex Salmond welcomed the Sunday Herald’s publication on 25 March of the SCCRC statement of reasons, releasing the following statement yesterday (Sunday) : Lockerbie case

Commenting following the online publication by the Sunday Herald of the full statement of reasons by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission in the Megrahi case, First minister Alex Salmond said: "I welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the Scottish Government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate. I especially welcome the fact that it offers a full account of the SCCRC’s deliberations rather than the partial accounts which have appeared in the media in recent weeks.”

Mr Salmond continued : "While the report shows that there were six grounds on which it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it also rejected 45 of the 48 grounds submitted by Megrahi, and in particular it upheld the forensic basis of the case leading to Malta and to Libyan involvement. This report provides valuable information, from an independent body acting without fear or favour, and while we can not expect it to resolve all the issues in the Lockerbie case, it does however lay the basis for narrowing the areas of dispute and in many ways is far more comprehensive than any inquiry could ever hope to be. The Lockerbie case of course remains an open criminal investigation, and while the only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law, the SCCRC is a valuable body which is itself part of the Scottish criminal justice system."

Christine Grahame MSP, the Chair of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has now called for an inquiry into the Crown Office, amid allegations a former Lord Advocate misled the court which convicted Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

More analysis of the Lockerbie case and recent developments can be found on Professor Robert Black’s blog The Lockerbie Case

'Justice for Megrahi' Petition calling for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie Bomber’s conviction has second hearing at Scottish Parliament

PETITION PE1370 by the Justice for Megrahi group, calling 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, has had its second hearing at the Petitions Committee today.

After a discussion on the petition, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.

Written submissions on Petition PE1370 can be found HERE and our earlier coverage of the Petition can be found HERE

Justice for Megrahi Petition PE1370 Scottish Parliament 25 January 2011 (Click image below to view video)

The minutes of the Petitions Committee’s deliberations during its 25 January 2011 meeting follow :

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee consideration of Petition PE1370 25 January 2011

Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)

The Convener: The next petition is by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie, on behalf of Justice for Megrahi. Christine Grahame is here. Christine, would you like to address the committee and then we can go to questions?

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): Thank you, convener. I commend the members of the committee for their stamina in these late sittings. I do not know if I have it.

I refer to point 2 of the Scottish Government's letter of 7 January, which states:

"A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors."

The letter goes on to say that the petitioners invite the Government to do something that falls properly within the criminal justice system and that there are routes available within that system, so that should be an end of the matter.

If I may say so—and I am quite ready to challenge my own Government—those are not the facts. First, we know why Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal, because Maggie Scott QC told the court why he did so. I will paraphrase, but she said words to the effect that her client, Mr Megrahi, believed that doing so would assist with his applications—plural—meaning his applications for prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. Prisoner transfer, of course, required abandonment of appeal and compassionate release did not. We can struggle over why he abandoned it and who said what to whom, but that is a fact and what he believed, so these are extraordinary circumstances.

We must then challenge whether there is a route open to Mr Megrahi within the criminal justice system other than a public inquiry. If members will bear with me, I will refer, I hope in a rather lawyerly way, to the legislation that was brought in recently to deal with people who were not being represented when they were charged. I will get the name of it in a moment—bear with me. I will just make my submission, then I will tell you the name of the act. Here we are. It is the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. If members recall, we dealt with the legislation all in one day, from stage 1 through to stage 3. There is a section in it that I tried to have deleted because it did something radical to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which you will know is an independent body that was set up in 1999 to deal with miscarriages of justice independently of the courts and independently of us, thankfully. Section 7(3)(2) of the act does something strange in relation to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made, the Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

For the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is an independent body, to say that there might have been a miscarriage of justice is no longer good enough. It has to say, "We think there might have been a miscarriage of justice, but nevertheless, because of the need for finality and certainty, we are not going to refer it to the High Court."

However, say a case did pass the test and the commission referred it to the High Court. Previously, the High Court had to accept a referral with no ifs and no buts, but that also changed under the emergency legislation. The act states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

So we have the first hurdle, and if the SCCRC says that the case passes the test of finality and certainty and passes it to the High Court, it sets the test again—the very High Court that heard the case in the first place. To me, that is not a just system.

Going to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is no shoe-in. Many people apply but few get to the stage of a referral. However, referrals can be very successful. If we look at the commission's success rate, we see that it made four referrals on sentencing in 2010, two of which were successful and two of which are still being determined. For sentencing alone—obviously, if someone's conviction has gone, they have no sentence—there were four referrals, two of which were successful, one of which failed and one of which is still being determined. The commission does not make referrals willy-nilly, and they are quite successful.

My concern is that that route will no longer be open, not just to Megrahi but to others. My understanding is that, in certain circumstances, the SCCRC can make a referral even though an appeal has been abandoned.

The circumstances of the case are very strange and there are so many unanswered questions, whether for people who believe he is guilty, people who believe he is innocent or the victims' families. No line has been drawn in the sand on the matter.

The route that I mentioned has now been blocked. To give the cabinet secretary his due, he said when I raised the matter that he would review it. A panel of judges is reviewing the legislation and he will review how it operates.

I have taken the time to say that because, first of all, the Government is saying that Megrahi closed the appeal himself—well, we know why.

Secondly, the Government is saying that the criminal justice system has a route, but I think that the SCCRC has been neutered in many respects.

I wish the committee to continue to pursue the inquiry route, and not to close the petition. Convener, I suggest that you confirm with the SCCRC whether it can re-open an abandoned appeal on its own and I would also like to know the SCCRC's views on that limiting of its powers—if any—and when the review panel will report on the functioning of the legislation.

The committee may feel that that is not pertinent to the petition, but I feel that it really is. If members do not know about that bit, they do not know why people are pressing so hard for a public inquiry; it is because they have concerns that everything else is being shut down.

The statement of reasons has not been published, because the subordinate legislation says that if any third party has given evidence—even indirectly—and they do not want it published, it will not be published, so we will pretty well not get anything. This is the final court.

On the mace, it says that we will have justice, integrity and compassion. No wonder the petitioners call themselves Justice for Megrahi—frankly, at the moment, there has not been justice for anybody in this particular case.

The Convener: Okay, thank you.

Bill Butler: I suggest to colleagues that we continue, and I will delimit the way in which we do so. I was going to say that this committee had no further locus, because we have been told that the Scottish Government has again stated that it has no plans to initiate an inquiry on the issue and has clarified why it does not consider an inquiry to be necessary. Christine Grahame referred to that statement in the letter from the Scottish Government that we received.

We have to realise that this is simply a public petitions committee, and we certainly cannot make a judgment in a formal way. However, it would be at least worth while—I am not sure how colleagues feel about this—if we did two things.

First, we could, as Christine Grahame suggests, write to the cabinet secretary to ask whether he will review the application of the emergency legislation as he has promised. If that is his intention—which I do not doubt, because he told Christine Grahame, a member of the Parliament, that that was his intention—when will his review take place, and when and how will his decision in that respect be made known? Secondly, on another point that Christine Grahame raised, can the SCCRC open an abandoned appeal?

Those are the two questions. On the first, we hope that we know the answer, or part of it. On the second, we really do not. We can continue on those two specific points.

I must say this, however. Once we ask those questions, unless someone is ingenious enough to come up with other ways in which we could legitimately continue the matter as a public petitions committee—because the arguments and the controversy will continue—we will have to close the petition. However, I suggest to colleagues that it is worth while for us to continue by asking the fairly narrow questions that Christine Grahame has suggested we ask.

17:30

Cathie Craigie: I support what Bill Butler has said, particularly in his final summary. We must go back and ask for a further couple of points to be clarified. If we do not get anywhere, it is difficult to see where the committee can go.

Point 3 of the Government's letter refers to the Inquiries Act 2005. The Government's reason for saying that it cannot conduct a public inquiry is weak—I will not use the same words as the petitioners used in their submission. The Government is hiding behind an excuse. Every time the Government touches the Megrahi case, it seems to do something wrong and to move the goalposts.

I support my colleague Bill Butler's suggestions. We should see whether we can get responses before the next session.

I note the length of time that the Government took to respond to our previous letter on a Megrahi inquiry. I know that the convener has written to the First Minister about that. I am sure that a whole load of civil servants are familiar with every detail of the Megrahi case and could put their hands quickly to writing the response that we will request.

I do not know whether the clerk or the convener will write the further letter to the Government, but I suggest that we ask for a quick response, because we want to deal with the petition in this session.

Nigel Don: Once we have a response from the Government, there is little prospect that another response will be different, but banging on the door will do no harm. It occurs to me that—as far as I can recall—we have not yet written to the Lord Advocate. As the senior independent law officer, does she have from somewhere in the mists of time residual powers to investigate this, that and the other? That might be clutching at straws, but it is one sack of straws that we need to consider. Do the law officers have a residual power to investigate or reconsider a case in such circumstances? I would not even define the circumstances; we should just ask the Lord Advocate to think about what she might be able to do.

Robin Harper: Considering that the petition is extremely limited—it asks us

"to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry"—

and that we have been told at least twice that the Government has no intention of so doing, we have every right to close the petition. However, I have listened to Christine Grahame's arguments and I feel that, for the petitioners' sake, it is worth writing to ask the SCCRC for its opinion, which can be forwarded to the Government for a response. As it is seven weeks to dissolution, that process is extremely unlikely to be completed before dissolution, so we must think of the matter as part of our legacy to the next session's Public Petitions Committee.

The Convener: Do we agree to continue the petition in those terms?

Members indicated agreement.

Wikileaks on Lockerbie : US Embassy cables reveal trade worries, deals & 'thuggish threats' which led to Lockerbie bomber release

US EMBASSY CABLES released by the whistleblowing website Wikileaks appear to show the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1998 was down to business deals and veiled threats, rather than some of the varying explanations offered by British & American politicians.

However, the cables, at least those leaked so far on the Lockerbie case appear to put the Scottish Government somwhat in the clear (at least for now) over Mr Al Megrahi’s release.

The cables, published by the Guardian newspaper here : US embassy cables: Scottish government 'shocked' by Megrahi outcry & here : US embassy cables: Britain 'between a rock and a hard place' over Megrahi.

Analysis of the cables can be found, again at the Guardian, here : WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats with continuing coverage from Professor Robert Black’s Lockerbie case blog here : THE LOCKERBIE CASE

More on what else has been revealed by Wikileaks can be found on BBC News, here : At a glance: Wikileaks cables. As links to the Wikileaks website go up and down, readers may find it easier to check Wikileaks entry on Wikipedia to find still-working links.

Further analysis & opinion from the Herald newspaper, here :

WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release

Published on 10 Dec 2010

We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.

But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.

The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.

It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.

While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.

Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda.

The thuggish nature of the Libyan Government under Gaddafi is well documented in dispatches from Tripoli. The repugnant antics of the regime and the extended Gaddafi family are made clear. Much is, indeed, tittle-tattle such as references to Gadaffi’s preference for his “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse and “legendary female guard force”. Three sons fought over the rights to the representative licence for Coca-Cola’s Tripoli plant – it may surprise some that this company has a plant in Libya’s capital, given US hostility to the regime. But Gaddafi has not been a dictator for more than 40 years without guile. The public display of support for Megrahi on his return to Libya was as much about playing to his domestic audience as annoying the west. Even dictators seek to legitimise their rule in the eyes of their public. Negotiations with London had led Libyan authorities to expect the Libya PTA would result in the imminent release of Megrahi. Libyan media reports had built up expectations that, if unfulfilled, would harm the regime internally.

UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.

Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.

He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks’ founder, would wish us to conclude that all governments are cynical. The evidence suggests otherwise. The Scottish Government and judicial processes emerge well. It stands accused of failing to appreciate the reaction to its decision, essentially of lacking cynicism. There should be no place for cynicism where matters as grave as those involved in this case are concerned. Cynicism is no substitute for good government.

Professor James Mitchell is head of the School of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University.

WIKILEAKS CABLES :

US embassy cables: Scottish government 'shocked' by Megrahi outcry

Monday, 24 August 2009, 14:05
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 001946
NOFORN
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/WE AND NEA/MAG
EO 12958 DECL: 08/24/2019
TAGS PREF, PTER, UK, LY
SUBJECT: SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT HOLDS EMERGENCY SESSION AS
DEBATE OVER MEGRAHI DECISION REACHES FEVER PITCH
REF: A. LONDON 1925 AND PREVIOUS B. STATE 80743
Classified By: Ambassador Louis B. Susman, reasons 1.4 (b/d).

1. (C/NF) Summary. The Scottish Government severely underestimated the both USG and UK public reaction to its decision to grant compassionate release to convicted Pan Am 103 bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on August 20. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was "shocked" by FBI Director Mueller's public letter. The media continue to report U.S. anger over the decision, and concern Scotland will be targeted economically, through reduced U.S. tourism and whiskey boycotts. The media speculate that the UK Government had a hand in the deal to maintain good diplomatic relations with Libya and secure oil and gas deals, which the UK Government has denied as "completely wrong" and "offensive." Today (August 24), the Scottish Parliament meets to hear Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill's explanation of his decision. The media speculates that Scottish opposition parties, all of which are on record condemning the decision, may move against the Scottish National Party's (SNP) minority government in a vote of no confidence, though the two-thirds majority required to secure such a move would be very difficult to obtain. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not yet made a statement on Megrahi's release, with other Cabinet members maintaining that it was a decision for the devolved Scottish Government. Given growing discontent and speculation about a UK Government hand in the deal, Brown may have to make a statement soon. Meanwhile, local Scottish opposition politicians are using the issue to call into question the SNP government's credibility and competence. End summary.

Reaction to USG Statements

--------------------------

2. (C/NF) The UK media have widely reported on FBI Director Mueller's letter to MacAskill and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen's comments on the Scottish Government's decision to grant compassionate release to convicted Pan Am 103 bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi. Washington-based Scottish Government Representative Robin Naysmith told CG Edinburgh Sunday, August 24 that Scottish First Minister Salmond was "shocked" by Mueller's comments, which were "over the top" given that President Obama had already commented on the decision. Naysmith underscored that Scotland received "nothing" for releasing Megrahi (as has been widely suggested in the UK and U.S. media), while the UK Government has gotten everything - a chance to stick it to Salmond's Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya. (NOTE: We expect Naysmith to be engaging heavily in Washington on these issues. END NOTE.)

3. (C/NF) The media have also reported growing concerns that American anger over the decision will translate into a boycott of Scottish whiskey and reduced American tourism in Scotland, an approximately USD 416 million business annually. In a previous meeting with CG Edinburgh on Friday, August 21, Salmond reiterated that he and his government "had played straight" with both the USG and UK Government, but implied that the UK Government had not. During the meeting, which occurred before the Mueller and Mullen statements, he said he wanted to move beyond the Megrahi issue and deepen Scotland's relationship with the USG. He said the Libyan Government had offered the Scottish Government "a parade of treats," all of which were turned down. (NOTE: Roughly fifty percent of Scottish exports go to the U.S., and over 450 U.S. businesses employ over 100,000 Scots in Scotland. END NOTE.)

4. (SBU) Scottish Government statements, including those from Salmond, have acknowledged the "strongly-held views of the American families," but underscored that those views are not shared by all of the victims' families (referring primarily to the British families). Salmond defended the decision, saying it was "right in terms of (the Scottish) legal system" and "what (they) are duty-bound to do." Salmond is also reported in the media to have said that the USG had made clear that, while it opposed Megrahi's release, it regarded freeing him on compassionate grounds "far preferable" to a transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). (NOTE: While indicating the USG's preference for compassionate release over a PTA transfer, as described in reftel B, Salmond's statement does not mention the USG's strong opposition to any release, particularly one that would allow Megrahi to travel outside of Scotland. END NOTE.)

Scottish Parliament Holds Emergency Session

-------------------------------------------

5. (SBU) The Scottish Parliament holds an emergency session Monday at 1430 local time (August 24), calling on Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to explain his decision. All three opposition parties in Scotland (Labour, Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats) have condemned the minority Scottish National Party (SNP) government's decision to release Megrahi. The media openly speculate that a vote of no confidence will occur if MacAskill does not resign, but it would be difficult for opposition parties to garner the two-thirds majority required (87 of the 129 seats), if the SNP is able to maintain control of its 47 Members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs).

6. (SBU) Scottish opposition political figures, like Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray and former Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell, have condemned the decision to release Megrahi, calling it a "grave error of judgment." Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavis Scott said, "The SNP's credibility at home and abroad is in tatters. Scotland's must not be allowed to follow with it."

Compassionate Release for Oil and Gas?

--------------------------------------

7. (SBU) The UK media widely speculates that the UK Government had a hand in the decision to release Megrahi in order to maintain good diplomatic relations with the Libyans and to secure oil and gas deals, citing the now infamous 2004 "deal in the desert" between former PM Blair and Libyan leader Qaddafi, recent meetings and correspondence between PM Brown and "Muammar," a recent meeting between Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and Qaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, and other high-level trade delegations. Qaddafi's personal thanks to Brown, the Queen, and the British Government after embracing Megrahi in a televised statement have fanned the flames and increased calls for Brown to explain the UK's involvement in the decision-making process. Mandelson insisted to the media that it is "completely wrong" and "offensive" to suggest that Megrahi's release was linked to trade deals. A Foreign Office contact reiterated to Poloff August 24 that such speculation is "completely absurd." He acknowledged that the Libyans had raised Megrahi at every turn in their burgeoning diplomatic relationship, but said that Megrahi's release was "never directly or implicitly" linked to any deal.

UK Government Reaction

----------------------

8. (C/NF) Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is currently on holiday in Scotland, has refrained from comment. Acting PM Chancellor Alistair Darling has said, "you either devolve the responsibility for criminal justice or you don't," a position that Foreign Secretary Miliband supported in interviews on Friday, August 21. Miliband affirmed that "the sight of a a mass-murderer getting a hero's welcome in Tripoli is deeply upsetting, deeply distressing." Conservative leader David Cameron has sent Brown a public message condemning the decision and calling on Brown to "make clear his own views" on the decision.

UK-Libya

--------

9. (C/NF) Foreign Office North Africa team leader Rob Dixon told Poloff August 24 that the UK has been telling the Libyan Government, through Saif al-Islam and the Foreign Ministry, that the Libyan Government's handling of its September 1 national day festivities will determine the future of the UK-Libya bilateral relationship. Dixon explained that the UK has explicitly told the Libyans that Megrahi should not be featured in any high-profile way. He said that the UK has also told the Libyans that Qaddafi's personal thanks to PM Brown and the Queen were "unhelpful" and the UK Government's "unhappiness" had been communicated "in clear terms." Dixon said the Foreign Office will take stock after the September 1 festivities.

UK-Scotland

-----------

10. (C/NF) Dixon termed "absurd" MacAskill's comment (in his original August 20 statement about Megrahi's release) that the UK Government's refusal to make representations was "highly regrettable." Referring to MacAskill's welcoming of a public inquiry into the case, Dixon said such an undertaking would be "nearly impossible" given the way devolution works. Dixon implied that the comments were designed to blame the UK Government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision. Dixon told Poloff on August 24 that the Foreign Office had had no contact with the Scottish Government since the decision was announced.

Comment

-------

11. (C/NF) It is clear that the Scottish Government underestimated the blow-back it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim. It seems likely, especially given the increasing speculation that the UK Government had a hand in the decision, that Prime Minister Brown will have to address the issue publicly. Meanwhile, local Scottish opposition politicians are trying to undercut the SNP minority government's credibility as much as possible.

12. (U) Tripoli minimize considered.

Visit London's Classified Website: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:United_Kingdom

SUSMAN

_________________________________________________________________

US embassy cables: Britain 'between a rock and a hard place' over Megrahi

Friday, 24 October 2008, 06:45
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 002673
NOFORN
STATE FOR NEA/MAG AND L/LEI
EO 12958 DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS PREL, PGOV, PTER, LY, UK
SUBJECT: PAN AM 103 BOMBER HAS INCURABLE CANCER; LIBYANS
SEEK HIS RELEASE
REF: A. TSOU-NEA EMAILS/TELCONS B. TSOU-L EMAILS/TELCONS
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Richard LeBaron, reasons 1.4 b, d

1. (C/NF) Summary. Convicted Pam Am 103 bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has inoperable, incurable cancer, but it is not clear how long he has to live, according to two separate medical opinions obtained by officials at Greenock prison near Glasgow, where Megrahi is currently serving a life sentence. Preparatory hearings for the second appeal of Megrahi's conviction, meanwhile, are continuing, but the appeal itself will probably not begin until late 2009, according to the Scottish Crown. The Libyan government is therefore pursuing Megrahi's early release through two other channels, the FCO reports: compassionate release under Scottish law, and the as-yet unsigned UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). HMG has made clear to the Libyans, to Embassy London and to the media that it will take no official position on Megrahi's early release, but will leave the decision - whether through compassionate release or the PTA - to the devolved Scottish government. At the same time, FCO contacts tell us that HMG is adamant that, despite devolution, London controls foreign policy for the UK, not the Scottish. Embassy London is working with the FCO and the Cabinet Office to find a way to represent USG views on the matter to the Scottish government, should we wish to, without making any implicit statement about UK national foreign policy prerogatives.

2. (C/NF) Summary cont. The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release for Megrahi, but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between Scottish First Minister (PM-equivalent) Alex Salmond and UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner rather than later. End summary.

Megrahi's Diagnosis

-------------------

3. (C/NF) Megrahi was first diagnosed on September 23 at Inverclyde Royal Hospital, both the FCO and the Scottish Crown office have told us; the second diagnosis was on October 10. The two diagnoses match: he has prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, the cancer has advanced rapidly, and it is inoperable and incurable. Megrahi could have as long as five years to live, but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is eighteen months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale, and therefore, how much longer he has to live. He has visibly deteriorated in recent weeks, according to those who have visited him. His visitors have included a Libyan oncologist, who expressed satisfaction with the medical treatment Megrahi has been receiving. FCO North Africa Group Head Rob Dixon told us October 22 that Qadhafi apparently complained about the Scots' treatment of Megrahi, but that complaint was unspecific and hasn't been repeated. Megrahi has told his family he is dying, and is receiving regular visits from a imam.

Compassionate Release

---------------------

4. (C/NF) The Libyans are pursuing two tracks to obtain Megrahi's release, apart from the appeal, Dixon told us. The first is the possibility of early release on compassionate grounds. FCO Minister for the Middle East Bill Rammell sent Libyan Deputy FM Abdulati al-Obeidi a letter, which was cleared both by HMG and by the Scottish Executive, on October 17 outlining the procedure for obtaining compassionate release (text of letter sent to NEA and L). It cites Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 as the basis for release of prisoners, on license, on compassionate grounds. Although the Scottish Crown informed the families of the Pan Am 103 victims in an email October 21 that the time frame for compassionate release is normally three months from time of death, Dixon stressed to us that the three month time frame is not codified in the law. Although Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill would normally make the final decision, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told Jack Straw that he will make the final decision in this case. Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds; Dixon told us HMG has interpreted this to mean that Salmond is inclined to grant the request.

Publicly, Salmond has refused to speculate on what decision he might make.

5. (C/NF) The Libyans have not yet requested compassionate release, but have indicated to the FCO that they will. Libyan officials are currently seeking a meeting with the Scottish Executive to discuss the situation. If Megrahi were to be released on compassionate grounds, he would be released into Scotland, but could be transferred back to Libya. According to Dixon, Megrahi does not have to drop his appeal in order to be granted compassionate leave.

Prisoner Transfer Agreement

---------------------------

6. (C/NF) The second track that the Libyans are pursuing to obtain Megrahi's early release is the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement. The text of the PTA is not yet concluded between HMG and Libya, although the Libyans are now pushing for this process to be expedited, Dixon tells us. Once the two governments reach agreement on the text, HMG will proceed to clear it with the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Salmond publicly expressed his ire to then-PM Tony Blair for not consulting with Scotland beforehand when HMG announced its intention to pursue a PTA with Libya in 2007; nonetheless, Dixon says the current draft PTA contains standard language that the Scottish have cleared for other countries. Once the three devolved governments agree to the text, Libyan and British officials will sign it. Dixon says the signing will probably take place before Christmas. Once it is signed, under British law the PTA needs to sit for 21 days before the House of Commons and in the Lords before it is enacted, meaning that late January 2009 is the earliest the PTA could come into effect. Megrahi cannot be transferred under the PTA while he has an appeal pending. Dixon says that Megrahi is not specifically mentioned in the text; however, there are no other prisoners currently in the UK prison system to which the PTA would apply.

Status of Megrahi's Appeal

--------------------------

7. (C/NF) The Scottish High Court's October 15 decision to allow all grounds for appeal to be considered, including grounds that had been previously rejected by the Scottish Criminal Case Review commission (text sent to NEA/MAG and L/LEI), slows the whole appeal process down, according to Scottish Court Head of Policy John Logue. Logue and Dixon both estimate that the appeal itself probably won't begin until late 2009, and probably won't conclude until 2010, Dixon said. Under Scottish law, even if Megrahi dies before the appeal is completed, a third party "with a legitimate interest" can continue the appeal on his behalf. The Scottish Crown is therefore proceeding with the case, Logue said.

UK: Between a Rock and A Hard Place

------------------------------------

8. (C/NF) HMG is in an awkward position, Dixon and Cabinet Office North Africa officer Ben Lyons confided to us. The Libyans have told HMG flat out that there will be "enormous repercussions" for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly. At the same time, in keeping with the practice of devolution, HMG has made clear to the Libyans, to the media, and to us that it will take no official position on Megrahi's early release, but will leave the decision on early release - whether through compassionate release or the PTA - to the Scottish government, and the decision on the appeal to the Scottish courts. But HMG is also adamant that, despite devolution, London controls foreign policy for the UK, not Edinburgh. Added to the mix are Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party, whose stated goal is an independent Scotland, with a referendum on the issue to be held in 2010; Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage. This is the first time HMG has had to deal with a foreign policy issue under devolution, Dixon said, and HMG is feeling its way forward, as are the Scottish; Logue told us that Scotland, for example, has never before granted compassionate release to a foreign national. We noted that while we understand the complexities of the issue for HMG, we need to find a channel for consultation and representation of USG views on the matter to the Scottish government, should we wish to, while taking HMG equities into account. Our HMG interlocutors agreed to explore options with us.

Comment: Devolution and Foreign Policy

---------------------------------------

9. (C/NF) This is the first time that HMG - and the USG - will face a foreign policy decision made under the constraints of devolution, and the channels that we establish now will set a precedent for future cases. In creating these channels, we will need to take into account sensitivities on the sides of both HMG and the Scottish Executive, while ensuring that whatever position we may want to convey in the Megrahi case gets to the right officials in a timely manner.

10. (U) Tripoli minimize considered.

Visit London's Classified Website: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:United_Kingdom

LEBARON

Scottish Parliament hears Petition 1370 by “Justice for Megrahi” group calling for inquiry into Camp Zeist conviction of Lockerbie Bomber

TUESDAY of this week at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee saw the “Justice for Megrahi” group attend Holyrood, to give evidence on Petition PE1370, raised by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of 'Justice for Megrahi', calling 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.

The Committee took evidence from Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie and agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking responses to points raised in the petition and during the discussion.

The Petition can be viewed here : Petition PE1370, Direct link to Petition 1370, Scottish Parlaiment SPICe Briefing

Video footage of Petition 1370 Justice for Megrahi calling for inquiry into conviction of Lockerbie Bomber (click images below to view)

The Scottish Parliament has since published its written questions to the Scottish Government after taking evidence from the campaign group :

Written Questions for Petition 1370

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PE1370:
QUESTIONS ARISING FROM COMMITTEE MEETINGS
(See ‘Written submissions’ for responses)

TUESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2010—

Scottish Government

• Will you 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 as called for by the petitioner and for the reasons given in the petition?
  
• If not, will you provide a detailed explanation why not, specifying whether there is any legislation which would prevent you from holding such an inquiry, what this legislation is and how it prevents?
  
• Who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition?

Lockerbie Case : SNP’s Christine Grahame challenges QC Paul McBride over tampered bomb timer evidence

In an interesting report on last night’s BBC Newsnight Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party’s Christine Grahame MSP challenged QC Paul McBride over allegations that key evidence used to convict Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland was tampered with, and went on to travel around the globe on unlogged journeys, potentially contaminating the evidence’s credibility.

Newsnight Scotland investigates the key evidence of the Lockerbie bomb timer :

Christine Grahame MSP challenges Paul McBride over tampered evidence :

Christine Grahame MSP also issued the following Press Release :

Key Lockerbie evidence “unsafe” claims MSP

Scottish police investigators did not make the key piece of evidential material used to convict Abdelbaset al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, secure an SNP MSP has claimed. Christine Grahame MSP has said the Crown Office has now confirmed to her that the fragment was taken to Germany and then to the US by Scottish investigating officers without the knowledge of the Defence team and more crucially the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyle, the senior prosecutor at the time of the investigation.

In an interview for Dutch TV yet to be shown on UK television Lord Fraser was asked if the fragment, known as PT-35 (alleged to be part of the bomb’s timer) had always remained in the UK. Lord Fraser responded:

“As far as I’m aware it’s always been in the UK.”

Asked if it had ever been to the United States, Lord Fraser responds:

“Not that I’m aware of,” adding that he would have known if it had left the UK, telling Dutch reporters: “What would have gone through my mind is, I’m not accusing the FBI or anything… [but] could this evidence get lost, or damaged or tampered with? No, no I would want to keep everything so that there can be no accusations at a trial that in some way [the fragment] has been fiddled with.”

Now SNP MSP Christine Grahame has confirmed that the same fragment also went to Germany two months before being sent across the Atlantic to Washington without, it seems, the knowledge of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office. Ms Grahame herself a former lawyer, also claims Scottish police investigators did not record the fragment’s transportation across the world and in doing so broke the vital chain of evidence undermining the integrity of the fragment. She said:

“The Crown Office have confirmed to me that the fragment, PT-35, the piece of evidence that it was claimed by prosecutors linked Libya to the attack was also sent to Germany in April 1990 as well as the US.

“On the 22nd of June 1990 it was then taken to the FBI lab in Washington for examination by FBI officials there. Lord Fraser makes it clear he did not know and would not have allowed this evidence to be taken out of Scottish jurisdiction and control, but that is precisely what did happen. That leaves a very serious question mark over the central piece of evidence used to convict Mr Megrahi."

The senior Scottish police investigator involved in the case, retired Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson told Dutch journalists last December,

“We couldn’t afford to let something like that go. It has never been in their [US] control at all. It couldn’t be, because it was such an important point of evidence it wasn’t possible to release it. It had to be contained to be produced at the court therefore you couldn’t afford to have it waved around for everyone to see it because it could have got interfered with.”

“But that is precisely what appears to have happened,” Ms Grahame said and separately confirmed she has seen additional documents yet to be made public that showed DCS Henderson had told Crown prosecution officials in a formal legal statement that the fragment had indeed been to the US. Ms Grahame added:

“I am not sure why DCS Henderson’s statements made separately to Dutch TV and to the Crown Office contradict each other so starkly. That is a matter for Mr Henderson to explain. Either this fragment was in the US or it was not.

“I am deeply concerned that during the investigation and indeed leading all the way up to the Trial that neither the Crown nor Megrahi’s Defence were ever made aware that this crucial piece of evidence was being ‘waved around for everyone to see’ as DCS Henderson put it.

“Questions also need to be answered about the associated evidence log that was meant to accompany PT-35. It mysteriously does not record that the fragment went to the US or Germany, even though the Crown Office has confirmed in writing that it definitely went to Germany."

Lockerbie : Al Megrahi publishes appeal documents online

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi – My Story. A website set up for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, and recently released on compassionate grounds by the SNP controlled Scottish Government, has now published documents relating to his appeal, which it increasingly looks like no one in the Scottish justice system wanted to hear due to what would be uncovered.

The website can be found here : Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi – My Story

BBC News reports :

Bomber publishes appeal documents

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has published documents on the internet which he claims will prove his innocence.

Hundreds of pages relating to the appeal by Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi were put on a new website.

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was freed on compassionate grounds last month.

Before his release, he dropped his second appeal against conviction for killing 270 people in 1988.

His Scottish lawyers, Taylor and Kelly, said the documents published on the website related to that appeal.

In a statement, Megrahi said: "I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place.

"As a result of the abandonment of my appeal, I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process.

"I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name."

Megrahi was jailed in 2001 after being convicted by a Scottish Court in the Netherlands of the UK's worst terrorist atrocity.

A first appeal against that conviction failed and he dropped a second appeal last month.

Lockerbie : Al Megrahi says public inquiry must take place into bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

THE HERALD newspaper in an exclusive interview with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in December 1988 reveals today that Mr Megrahi supports calls for a full inquiry into the terrorist attack over 20 years ago that claimed 270 lives.

We at Scottish Law Reporter support the call for a far reaching, fully independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case.

The Herald newspaper reports :

The truth never dies

EXCLUSIVE: Megrahi demands Lockerbie inquiry

By Ian Ferguson and Lucy Adams in Tripoli

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has backed demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity, saying the international community owes that to the families of the 270 victims.

In his first full-length interview since being released last week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."

Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain.

The revelation comes in the wake of The Herald's exclusive interview with the son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Saif al Islam al Gaddafi claimed the proposed prisoner transfer deal with Britain had targeted Megrahi and was linked to talks on trade and oil, but that his release on compassionate grounds was completed unrelated to commerce.

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family. "It is all about my family," he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."

Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison. "I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."

Megrahi is still determined to clear his name, partly through an autobiography, and also backs a public inquiry. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has already called for such an investigation, but the UK Government seems firmly opposed.

"I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed. In my view, it is unfair to the victim's families that this has not been heard. It would help them to know the truth. As I said, the truth never dies.

"If the UK guaranteed it, I would be very supportive. I would want to help Dr Swire and the others with the documents I hold."

However, he added during an hour-long interview: "My feeling is that the UK Government will avoid a public inquiry because it would be a headache for them and the Americans and it would show how much the Americans have been involved and it would also cost them a lot of money which they may not want to spend because of the recession."

Megrahi was vitriolic about the Scottish police and legal system. "I was supposed to receive a fair trial and I was supposed to be subject to fair procedure. From day one of the trial there were delays and delays from the Crown Office. "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found at least six grounds of appeal and said there were six grounds on which it may have been a miscarriage of justice.

"From that point we asked the Crown for more documents and more papers. We received only some of them and they were still redacted. Most of the pages were black and I think this is shameful. They were supposed to give us everything."

Referring to the revelation seven years ago that some of the police notebooks recording the aftermath of the tragedy had been destroyed, Megrahi said: "It is very strange that the police forces that dealt with the case - and there were more than 400 officers - it is very strange that many of their notebooks went missing.

When one officer was asked about a notebook, he said it was destroyed. I find this very strange. Surely to destroy the notebooks of so many people is a decision that someone must have been made? This is not fair and is a big question mark about the case."

He said his priority now is to spend time with his five children, the youngest of whom is still of primary school age. "It was always my dream to come back to my family. It was in my prayers every day and when I received the diagnosis, even more so."

A new opinion poll for BBC Scotland has revealed most Scots think Megrahi should have died in jail. It also suggested more than two-thirds of Scots think Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been damaged by the release.

An even bigger majority believe it has had a detrimental effect on the Scottish Government, although more than half of those interviewed thought Mr MacAskill's should not resign. The poll findings emerged as opposition leaders at Westminster pledged to pursue Mr Brown because of his continuing silence.

Tory leader David Cameron said the Prime Minister had to be honest about any dealings with the Libyan government, while Nick Clegg, of the LibDems, demanded that he "come clean".

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW IN TODAY'S HERALD NEWSPAPER OR ONLINE HERE ...