Person of the Week
James Clark
Profile by Barbara Millar
Gridlock
The Richard Wild series
SR Extra
The weekly space for longer reads
A conflict of integrities
Bruce Gardner on the crisis in the Church
of Scotland over the ministry of Scott Rennie, who is openly gay
For his essay Click here
The Cafe
I agree with almost everything that Kenneth Roy wrote about the Megrahi scandal (SR, 2 February) apart from the following:
‘Megrahi, long frustrated by the impediments put in his way, dropped his appeal – it is generally believed as a pre-condition of his release – and, true to form, Mrs Angiolini and her mates in the Crown Office put up their hands and declared to the world that it had nothing whatever to do with them, guv.’
I feel Megrahi was acting at all times under the orders of Tripoli and that’s why he dropped the appeal – there’s no logic to it otherwise. Libya (Gaddafi) was heavily involved with Blair and then all the way down the food chain to Angiolini – to and fro – to suit both camps. MacAskill didn’t need to be involved in any way to take the compassionate route as his own decision – but I am sure he was aware of all the goings on.
American ire thereafter was just completely false.
The main issue is the integrity of the Scottish system and the delivery of natural justice as we heard from Robert Black in Glasgow. I am pretty scunnered at what’s going on – reflecting as I can back onto Sheridan’s trial fiasco and earlier to Shirley McKie’s problems. Thank God there’s no death penalty now or Megrahi would surely have been long gone.
Ian McTurk
SR accepts no advertising or corporate backing. We depend entirely on the generosity of our individual supporters. Help SR to flourish by becoming a Friend. [click here]
Winter scene, Aberdeenshire
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
Leading article
Revealed: the fatal flaw that
will go on obscuring the
truth about Lockerbie
The Megrahi Scandal: Part 2
Kenneth Roy
This week’s political gamesmanship on the circumstances of Megrahi’s release is a distraction from the main question – whether he should have been convicted and imprisoned in the first place. Only the publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s massive report on the case can determine the strength of the possibility that there was a colossal miscarriage of justice. Will this report ever be made public?
The last week has seen some remarkable developments with SR at the heart of them.
After part 1 of ‘The Megrahi Scandal’ in this magazine last week, the Scottish government issued a statement:
We have always been as open and transparent as possible which is why, following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provision.
This will allow the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to publish a statement of reasons in cases where an appeal is abandoned, subject of course to legal restrictions applying to the commission such as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities.
A bit of background may be helpful. A year ago this month, on the initiative of the Scottish ministers, a new order came into force. Before then, it would have been a criminal offence for the commission to publish information provided to it in the course of an investigation. The new order removed that restriction. The justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said at the time that the order allowed the commission to disclose information it holds; according to Mr MacAskill it was up to the commission to decide what, if anything, it released.
This was an over-simplification of the position. The commission’s chief executive, Gerard Sinclair, pointed out that the order only permits the disclosure of such information with the consent of those who have, directly or indirectly, provided the information.
For nine months, Mr Sinclair attempted to obtain that consent from the main parties involved – including the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the police, Megrahi himself. ‘It became obvious,’ he said, ‘that there was no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required.’ Late last year, the commission’s board decided to discontinue the discussions.
But it added a potentially significant rider: ‘The commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.’
It is now 22 years since the Lockerbie disaster. It is now 10 years since the trial in the Netherlands produced a conviction for Megrahi that is widely believed to be suspect, if not downright unsafe.
