US Lockerbie bomber investigation

[MMI]

The Scottish Executive did not amend Westminster's Act, it changed its own name to one which most Scots recognised and preferred. That Westminster proposes to recognise this de facto change of name must surely close this discussion: the change of name is effective.

I have no knowledge of the enquiry you mention. No doubt the response given was due to the fact that the FCO has the most convenient translation facilities. I daresay a similar response would have been given if the same question had been posed about enquiries in Welsh, Irish or Manx. But, in case you argue that the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland and Wales are all foreign places too, what about Cornish? Would the answer be the same in that case? I expect so.

The answer would also have to be the same, I imagine, if British speakers of Urdu or Polish sent in an enquiry.

The inability of Westminster to function in any language other than English (since it forsook Norman French and Latin) is its own shortcoming, born of its Anglo-centric arrogance.

Gaelic came to Britain long before Scotland came into being - at a time when (probably) Pictish or Cumbric was spoken. It descends from Irish, agreed, and has probably only separated from that language in the past few hundred years, but it is a language that has been native to modern Scotland for at least as long as Scots, English and the original Anglo-Saxon, and for much, much longer than Urdu or Polish. That, I believe, is the key.

I do not for a moment overlook the SNP's aims, and my heart, if not my head, supports them. I certainly believe Gaelic is entitled to the same recognition as Welsh. As the SNP are the party in power at the moment, and all of the unionist parties are in opposition, does that not suggest something to you? Instead of cavilling about what they choose to call themselves, and the language they choose to do it in, offer a better alternative, or watch Salmond woo the electorate away from England. Probably with England's fond blessing too.

As for Megrahi, the Scottish Government did nothing it had no power to do, and what it did do was within its powers, regardless of who was or was not watching. If you're blaming Salmond for seeking political attention, there are hundreds of other reasons to attack him for that, just as there are for attacking Goldie, Gray or Rennie.

[IAN 2411]

SCCRC 'queried Lockerbie verdict'

Press Association – 1300 March 13th

New details of the legal grounds that could have cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction have been disclosed, according to a newspaper report.

The six grounds for referral back to the appeal court are contained in a document by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), the body which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, with extracts printed in the Herald newspaper.

The Scottish Government has brought forward legislation to bring about the publication of the full report but data protection rules still bar its formal publication.

On claims the verdict was unreasonable, the SCCRC report quoted in the Herald states: "The commission has reached the view that the trial court's verdict is at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned."

The six grounds for referral were previously published by the SCCRC in summary. Four of the reasons refer to undisclosed evidence from the Crown to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's defence team.

Those grounds cover evidence about a positive identification of Megrahi by Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who said he sold clothes to a Libyan man. The clothes were linked to a suitcase loaded onto the plane, which was then linked to the bomb and eventually to Megrahi.

The SCCRC raised concerns that evidence suggesting Mr Gauci had seen a magazine article linking Megrahi to the bomb was not passed to the defence.

Contradictions about the day Megrahi was said to have bought the clothes were also highlighted. The court was told the purchase was on December 7 but the SCCRC said Mr Gauci also thought it might have been November 29.

"In the commission's view, by withholding this information the Crown deprived the defence of the opportunity to take such steps as it might have deemed necessary," the report in the Herald adds.

Also of concern to the SCCRC was undisclosed evidence about Mr Gauci's interest in rewards. A fifth reason covered "secret" intelligence documents not seen by Megrahi's legal team while the sixth referred to new evidence on the date of clothes purchased in Malta.
...........................................

Well there you have it, I did say in an earlier post his conviction was unsafe, and that he was set up by blundering police and secret services both sides of the pond.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Yeah, with the number of people being released from prison after DNA testing refutes the guilty verdicts, and with the number of prosecutors who are fighting to keep cases from being reopened, it's becoming quite evident that prosecutors and police are far more interested in closing a case quickly than in catching the actual criminals. Apparently it's more important to swiftly railroad an innocent person and show the public how great you are than it is to actually do the fucking work to catch the guilty party!

[StrictMasterD]

Releasing him as they did when they did and why they did was Joke form day 1 of his release, not mention when I lannded and deplaned he as greeted as a Heroe

[IAN 2411]

Releasing him as they did when they did and why they did was Joke form day 1 of his release, not mention when I lannded and deplaned he as greeted as a Heroe

It was a stich up from day one of the trial because the USA's and UK's secret service hadn't a bloody clue. It was fabricated evidence...which bit of the case did you miss?

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

It was a stich up from day one of the trial because the USA's and UK's secret service hadn't a bloody clue. It was fabricated evidence...which bit of the case did you miss?

The bit where there was any doubt about his guilt, which both sets of judges apparently missed too?

[IAN 2411]

The bit where there was any doubt about his guilt, which both sets of judges apparently missed too?

How can you have a fair trial if the secret service are keeping the evidence secret from the Judges, and half the evidence is not made public?

[MMI]

If the report in The Herald is correct, there must be a question over the Judges' assessment of al-Megrahi's guilt ("The commission has reached the view that the trial court's verdict is at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned." - post 62 above.)

If the prosecution did not disclose the evidence it proposed to use against al-Megrahi, then that is surely a failure to observe standard procedure, don't you think?

It always strikes me as flagrantly unjust that a defendant might be unable to see evidence coming from the secret services on the grounds of national security: the words Show Trial spring to mind.

I have never felt the trial was a fair one, even if Megrahi was guilty, and it did Scottish justice no favours at all.

[js207]

If the report in The Herald is correct, there must be a question over the Judges' assessment of al-Megrahi's guilt ("The commission has reached the view that the trial court's verdict is at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned." - post 62 above.)

So, if the Herald is right, only 2 out of the 3 bodies to examine the evidence felt sure he was guilty. Megrahi himself refused to allow their report to be disclosed, by slightly circuitous means, and engaged in odd delaying tactics along the way ... odd if he were innocent and finally had something to show that, why not hurry up and show it?

Incidentally, while Megrahi blocked the release of the full Commission report, they indicate specifically that 'much of the information that has been written about the Commission’s investigations has been either inaccurate or incorrect' and that there was only one issue about which they felt there was a question, the timing of the purchase of the clothes in the suitcase. The Herald appear to be grossly misrepresenting the SCCRC's position: it was not the verdict itself they felt unreasonable, but one particular detail from the prosecution case - a very, very different situation.

With a little more digging, it seems the Herald have misinterpreted the wording of section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act - in reality, Megrahi's own defence team specifically conceded that the original verdict was not "a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned": exceedingly sloppy reporting at best. The so-called "quote" does not actually appear anywhere in the SCCRC release, nor is it at all compatible with what they actually say!

If the prosecution did not disclose the evidence it proposed to use against al-Megrahi, then that is surely a failure to observe standard procedure, don't you think?

This was not 'evidence it proposed to use against al-Megrahi' - it was a document Megrahi wanted to get his hands on. Given the nature of his previous employment - Libyan intelligence/security - and the nature of the document - classified European counter-terrorism information regarding their investigation of supplies to Libya - it is not a great leap to suspect he might have had another motive for wanting to get hold of that information, is it?

There was one unusual feature, but it's a matter of historical/legal trivia rather than relevant: being the first PII signed since Scottish devolution, it was signed by the Foreign Secretary and introduced by the Advocate General rather than by the Lord Advocate, because the latter was no longer a UK government post as it had been for all previous PIIs. I understand it's a long-established rule that defendants can be denied access to information which is important for law enforcement: informant identities, surveillance techniques and equipment - not normally controversial.

It always strikes me as flagrantly unjust that a defendant might be unable to see evidence coming from the secret services on the grounds of national security: the words Show Trial spring to mind.

It's not ideal, but that debate was over many, many years ago. It's important, though, to note this was not evidence: the prosecution were not showing something to the judge and refusing to allow it to be challenged or disputed, the government was refusing to allow it to be made available to the court at all.

I have never felt the trial was a fair one, even if Megrahi was guilty, and it did Scottish justice no favours at all.

The bizarre circus of shipping the court off to another country to hold precisely the same procedure they would normally have held in Scotland never made any sense, but making us jump through absurd hoops apparently pleased the Libyans as well as allowing the trial to proceed at last. It's no surprise that some counterterrorism documents are classified and not available to us or to the court, but it is a shame Megrahi himself chose not to allow the release of other material.