Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colin Boyd. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colin Boyd. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday 4 October 2015

Colin Boyd resigns as Lord Advocate

[On this date in 2006, Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC (Colin Boyd) resigned as Lord Advocate, an office he had held since 24 February 2000, some seven weeks before the Lockerbie trial started at Camp Zeist. An article by Steven Raeburn headed A private life was published some time later on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

There are many polarising figures in the Scottish legal profession. Take Donald Findlay for instance – many adore him while others dislike everything he stands for. Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd is another such figure. some consider his time as Lord Advocate as one of great leadership while others think quite the opposite. Steven Raeburn speaks to Boyd to talk about his time in charge and his return to private practice.
You could almost be forgiven for believing Colin Boyd had retired. Or emigrated. Or died. Such is the contrast in his public profile since stepping down as Lord Advocate in 2006, after a six year tenure that saw him dodging bullets on an almost daily basis, as the twin firestorms of the Lockerbie debacle and the Shirley McKie fingerprints fiasco unfolded in the glare of the public arena. His stint in the Lord Advocate’s role had been the longest in modern times, and instead of stepping down and onto the bench, suitably bewigged as a High Court judge – the traditional destination of retiring senior law officers – Boyd instead went into private practice as a solicitor with Scotland’s largest firm, Dundas and Wilson.
Such was the character of Boyd’s time as Lord Advocate that both the timing of his departure and his destination were themselves subject to criticism and accusation. Nowadays, away from the public gaze he can be found shepherding conferences on his preferred area of practice, public law, or quietly ensconced in his Edinburgh office. As the first former Lord Advocate to make this transition – precisely reversing the path of his successor into the role – how is he adjusting to ordinary life behind a desk?
“There are two shifts,” he says. “One is from being a law officer, Lord Advocate, and then from being an advocate to being a solicitor. Occasionally I think “What is happening”, and I used to enjoy some of the perks that went with the job. But I don’t miss being Lord Advocate.”
Unless you are a masochist with a particular love of front page criticism, it is easy to see his point. Six years in the role had given him ownership and responsibility for some of the most significant state legal decisions that any incumbent is likely to see, with the ripple effect still likely to be felt for years to come.
“I had done long enough as Lord Advocate. I would have gone earlier had it not been for certain events, and it was time for me to move on and change.”
“Certain events” is an interesting euphemism for the cumulative stains on Scottish justice left by events such as the outcome of the Surjit Singh Chokhar trial – following which two independent reports identified failings in the way the case was handled by the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; the Lockerbie trial, returned to the High Court after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission adjudged that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place; and the Shirley McKie crisis, which questioned not only the efficacy of the Scottish Criminal Records Office, but the integrity of the police and the entire Crown Office administration of justice, that seemed unable to admit the possibility of a mistake, whilst failing to bring in a solid conviction in the murder of Marion Ross. The disturbing links between the evidential processes in both cases raised deeper, more disturbing questions about accountability and decision making in the heart of the Scottish Justice system. Boyd was not in office at the genesis of these events, but was responsible for many of the key decisions and most of the execution as they unfolded.
Less noticed during his six years were the introduction of the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) Act 2002, which aimed to minimise the distress caused to victims of rape testifying against their attackers, and the Bonomy reforms to the High Court, which have largely been welcomed as their effects have filtered through the judicial process. The reforms to the administration of justice appear to be the aspects of his tenure he is most keen to reflect upon.
“When I took over in 2000, I was faced almost immediately with the Lockerbie trial, and that really consumed my first year or so as Lord Advocate,” he says.
“Thereafter, there was a clear need to set about restructuring and modernising the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That took a period of time. Once we embarked, we saw it is an on going process. There will never be a time when you can sit back and say it is fixed.”
Notwithstanding the scale of progress achieved in this area, Boyd nevertheless raised a few eyebrows by choosing to enter private practice, rather than the traditional route to the bench at the expiry of his term. The move was perceived by some as an attempt to find a safe harbour while the twin storms of Lockerbie and McKie blew. Boyd acknowledges that the level of press interest was a prominent factor at this time.
“I was the longest serving Lord Advocate for over 100 years. The workload for the Lord Advocate had gone up markedly, and the degree of scrutiny to which I was subject had increased very considerably.”
“I didn’t want to become a judge at this stage, and I didn’t want to go back to the bar and start a practice again. It seemed to me to be a good move to revert to being what I started out in professional life, a solicitor.”
Boyd’s careful modifier suggests that a place on the bench may be an ambition of his that has been merely postponed, rather than cancelled, and it seems likely that a place amongst the elite of the High Court remains his most likely final berth.
“I have never ruled out being a judge as an option. For a variety of reasons – some of them personal and some of them to do with my public profile when I went – I didn’t think it was the right thing for me to do at this stage. [RB: Boyd’s appointment as a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary was announced on 1 June 2012.]
“The days when a Lord Advocate could appoint himself as a judge have gone, so I would have had to apply to the Judicial Appointments Board. One of the inhibiting features of that is that, with the best will in the word, it might have got out that I had made an application whilst Lord Advocate, and that might have undermined my position as Lord Advocate. I didn’t think that that would be good. I have no plans to make an application at the moment, and I am fully committed to Dundas and Wilson. I would never rule it out as a possible option for the future.”
Whatever his future plans, it is likely that Colin Boyd will never escape the three pronged shadows of Lockerbie, McKie and Chokhar which are likely to form his legacy, despite his body of achievement and efforts at reform. His successor, Elish Angiolini has firmly established herself as a Lord Advocate of considerable reach and power, although it is too early in her tenure to draw conclusions on her overall impact. In retrospect, Boyd remains positive about his time in the role.
“I do take some pride in the achievements of the restructuring and reforms that we have made, and I came to a point that I thought it was time now that somebody else took up the challenge.”
As others see him
Colin’s wealth of experience and his reputation for innovation were of huge appeal to Dundas & Wilson. His background in planning law and expertise in constitutional law have proved to be an excellent fit with what we were already doing with the public law initiative, and allowed us to pool a wide range of knowledge into a specialist public law practice, capable of tackling very complex, cross-disciplinary infrastructure projects. To move from the Bar into private practice was seen by some as an unexpected change of direction, but it makes perfect sense for D&W and our clients, as well as providing a new challenge for Colin’s considerable talents. Mike McAuley, Chairman of Dundas & Wilson
I always liked him, though. He seemed consistently courteous and reasonable. He was so softly spoken and self-effacing that when he was Solicitor General and we met at some Law Society do, I thought he said he was with the Solicitors Journal. I said, "Solicitors Journal?" and he said, "Solicitor-General" apologetically, as though it was his fault I hadn’t heard him, and not my fault for failing to recognise a senior law officer. This form of modesty is rare at the bar and endearing. Anonymous
Colin Boyd tried to balance what was known to his prosecution team of the famous ‘CIA telegrams’ in the court at Zeist, in the knowledge that the ‘star’ prosecution witness (Giaca) was also a worthless CIA quizzling. His struggles to meet his clear duty to truth and justice and fair dealing with the court and the defence, made a ‘rabbit in the headlights’ look cool and sagacious. Meantime his predecessor in office had made the wise choice of lolloping off to the safety of a secure burrow in the nick of time. Dr Jim Swire
Colin Boyd is a lawyer of the greatest intellect, ability and integrity. He is a man of principle. Despite his understated and modest demeanour he really is a very radical lawyer, a moderniser with a challenging vision for the future of the legal system and for the profession in Scotland. Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate
As far as Scotland is concerned, he might as well have had a Union Jack shell suit and bowler hat. When it came to the Skye Bridge, he maintained a false line by saying the tolling licence had been examined and found to be in order. It wasn’t found to be in order. He took us absolutely nowhere and didn’t penetrate my consciousness in any positive way. Robbie The Pict
Colin Boyd took a thoughtful approach to every part of his work, always seeking to uphold the fundamental principles of Scottish Justice while being prepared to promote radical changes to improve the day to day operation of the system. Colin was not one for self promotion, and his quiet manner sometimes hid a keen sense of humour. I am glad that I had the opportunity to work with him. Cathy Jamieson, Former Justice Minister
I believe that history will view Colin Boyd’s reign as Lord Advocate as a shameful period where the independence of the Lord Advocate was sacrificed to the will of his political masters.
Two cases dominated his tenure – the Lockerbie Bombing and the Shirley McKie case. In both cases he stands accused of weakness and vacillation in the face of political pressure and a complete failure to act as, ‘the watchdog for justice’ – the role assigned to him by Lord McCluskey.
His dramatic overnight resignation in October 2006 has been seen by some as the captain jumping ship to save his skin. I hope that this accusation will be thoroughly tested during the planned judicial enquiry into my daughter’s case and in any future enquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Iain A J McKie

Thursday 5 April 2012

Megrahi prosecutor to become Scottish judge

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

Four high-profile QCs, including the former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd and Tommy Sheridan's former defence counsel, Maggie Scott, are about to become high court judges.

Mr Boyd, now Lord Boyd, who led the prosecution of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, was recently criticised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for failing to disclose crucial information to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's defence. He rejected the claim. [RB: An account of Colin Boyd QC's conduct at one stage of the Lockerbie trial can be read here.]
Ms Scott, who was sacked by Mr Sheridan during his perjury trial in 2010, and led Megrahi's recent appeal case and the defence in many high-profile cases, including Ice Cream War murderer Thomas "TC" Campbell and more recently Nat Fraser, as well as Luke Mitchell, who was convicted of murdering teenager Jodi Jones in January 2005.
The Herald understands Michael Jones and David Burns have also been recommended for the appointments.
A source close to the process said: "Colin Boyd and Maggie Scott are two of the people the Judicial Appointments Board has recommended to the First Minister. It would be highly unusual for ministers to reject such a recommendation. Their appointments are expected to be confirmed shortly."
Lord Boyd resigned as Lord Advocate in 2006. His decision was seen as unusual and triggered speculation he was concerned about the inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, in which a police officer was wrongly accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene and lying about it.
Another potential reason raised was the imminent decision on whether the Lockerbie case would be referred back for a fresh appeal.
Lord Boyd denied he was leaving because of the McKie fingerprint investigation or any other case and said it was simply "time to move on".
Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing, said: "I understand the limited personnel and resources of the Scottish criminal justice system but I am surprised that Colin Boyd would have been put forward as a potential judge.
"In support of his colleagues on the prosecution team, it seemed to me that Boyd made a statement to the court [at Zeist] which was later shown by the revelations in the CIA cables to be untrue. It was over a matter of extreme importance because it concerned the credibility of the prosecution's star witness." (…)
Maggie Scott has described herself as "relatively rebellious". Following her sacking by Sheridan in 2010, the former MSP represented himself and was convicted of perjury in his defamation action against the News of the World in 2006.
Mr Jones, QC, acted for the News of the World in the Sheridan case and the owners of the Rosepark care home in South Lanarkshire after 14 residents died in a fire. Mr Burns recently acted for Craig Roy, who was convicted of murdering Jack Frew. [RB: David Burns QC was second senior counsel for Abdelbaset Megrahi at the Zeist trial and at the first appeal.]
Maggie Scott, QC, said last night that she could not comment. Lord Boyd could not be contacted.
[Two other members of the prosecution team, Alastair Campbell QC and Alan Turnbull QC have already become High Court judges. The principal procurator fiscal at the trial, Norman McFadyen, has become a sheriff.  A commentary by Lucy Adams in the same newspaper headlined Judges are no strangers to controversy focuses particularly on Colin Boyd’s controversial role in the Lockerbie trial.]

Saturday 1 January 2022

Divergent views on Colin Boyd as Lord Advocate

[The following are excerpts from a report published today in The Herald:]

Jack McConnell tactlessly told his elected colleagues in the Scottish cabinet that he valued the advice of an unelected minister more than theirs.

The then Labour First Minister somewhat ungraciously rated the input from the Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd, above that of his fellow politicians.

The admission came at the Scottish cabinet of October 4, 2006, when Lord Boyd announced he was standing down after six years in post as “the longest serving Lord Advocate for more than a century”.

He said that the trial of the Lockerbie bombing suspects in 2000 and 2001 at the special court in the Netherlands had been a major achievement for the Scottish justice system.

Lord Boyd led the prosecution of the two Libyans accused of the 1988 atrocity. (...)

Mr McConnelll said it was “impossible to overstate the importance” of Lord Boyd’s role in the Lockerbie trial and conviction, and also saluted his court reforms.

“There was no one whose judgment as a Cabinet colleague he had valued more.”

[RB: Lockerbie campaigners did not share Jack McConnell's views about Colin Boyd. Here are some comments published on the occasion of his resignation:]

"Colin Boyd tried to balance what was known to his prosecution team of the famous ‘CIA telegrams’ in the court at Zeist, in the knowledge that the ‘star’ prosecution witness (Giaca) was also a worthless CIA quisling. His struggles to meet his clear duty to truth and justice and fair dealing with the court and the defence, made a ‘rabbit in the headlights’ look cool and sagacious. Meantime his predecessor in office had made the wise choice of lolloping off to the safety of a secure burrow in the nick of time." Dr Jim Swire

"I believe that history will view Colin Boyd’s reign as Lord Advocate as a shameful period where the independence of the Lord Advocate was sacrificed to the will of his political masters. 

"Two cases dominated his tenure – the Lockerbie Bombing and the Shirley McKie case. In both cases he stands accused of weakness and vacillation in the face of political pressure and a complete failure to act as, ‘the watchdog for justice’ – the role assigned to him by Lord McCluskey. 

"His dramatic overnight resignation in October 2006 has been seen by some as the captain jumping ship to save his skin. I hope that this accusation will be thoroughly tested during the planned judicial enquiry into my daughter’s case and in any future enquiry into the Lockerbie disaster." Iain A J McKie

[RB: Further, largely critical, accounts of Colin Boyd's performance in the Lockerbie case can be found herehere, and here.]

Wednesday 26 March 2014

One of the most disgraceful episodes in the Crown Office’s recent history

Two years ago today, I posted on this blog an item headed Former Lord Advocate ... seriously misled the Megrahi Court claims book author.  It bears repeating:

[This is the headline over a report published today on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads in part:]

Former Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, [now Court of Session judge, Lord Boyd] has been accused of misleading the Court during the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

The claim, contained in the book Megrahi – You are my Jury, relates to the QC’s intervention in a matter involving secret CIA cables that contained details of discussions between the US agency and a Libyan ‘supergrass’ named Majid Giaka.

Giaka was a former work colleague of Mr Megrahi who had contacted the CIA claiming to have evidence linking the Libyan and his co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhima to the Lockerbie bombing.

Giaka was scheduled to give evidence to the Court in August 2000, but was delayed due to legal wrangling over the telex cables.

Demands by the Libyan’s defence team to see the cables in full led to the intervention by then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, an episode described by book author John Ashton as “one of the most disgraceful episodes in the Crown Office’s recent history”.

Mr Megrahi’s defence team had requested full disclosure of the secret cables which had been heavily redacted for apparent security reasons.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the two Libyans were informed that the twenty five cables were all that existed and that the redacted areas covered general areas not relevant to the Lockerbie incident.

According to the book, Procurator Fiscal Norman McFadyen [now a sheriff in Ayr] claimed that no-one from the Crown had seen the unedited cables and that the redacted material was irrelevant.

However it subsequently emerged that weeks earlier on 1st June 2000, members of the Crown Office had indeed seen the unedited cables, one of whom was Norman McFadyen and the other Alan Turnbull QC [now a Court of Session judge].

On 22 August on learning of this, Mr Megrahi’s legal team raised the issue with the Court, describing it as “a matter of some considerable importance”.

According to Ashton’s book, Bill Taylor QC argued that without access to the full cables, the defendants would be denied a fair trial, and said: “I emphatically do not accept that what lies behind the blanked out sections is of no interest to a cross examiner … Further, I challenge the right of the Crown to determine for the defence what is or is not of relevance to the defence case.”

Mr Taylor urged the Court to ask the Crown to obtain the complete copies of the cables from the CIA.

In a move, described as unusual by author John Ashton, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd then attended the Court in person and admitted that McFadyen and Turnbull had indeed seen the cables but repeated the Crown’s earlier assertions that the redacted areas had no bearing on the cables themselves or the case.

“While they may have been of significance to the Central Intelligence Agency, they had no significance whatsoever to the case” he said.

Mr Boyd explained that according to Crown QC Alan Turnbull: “that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special case.”

Mr Boyd also explained that he had no control over the documents that they resided in the USA under the control of US authorities.

Boyd ended by stating categorically: “there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters.”

Mr Ashton’s book though now reveals that the reason the Lord Advocate had no control over the documents was that Norman McFadyen had signed a non-disclosure agreement before viewing them.

According to Mr Ashton, the Crown had “secretly, ceded to the CIA the right to determine what information should, or should not, be disclosed in a Scottish Court”.

Also, further revelations contained in Mr Ashton’s book show that far from being of no significance to the case, the redacted sections of the cables were in fact highly significant.

The defence team eventually forced the Crown to hand over less redacted versions of the cables that contained, contrary to Boyd’s claims, crucial information about Giaka – including doubts about the value of his intelligence information.

Further sections detailed meetings with Giaka not included in the original documents.

Acting for the defence, Richard Keen QC, questioned claims by the Crown that the redacted sections were of no consequence

Pointing to their clear significance, he told the Court: “I frankly find it inconceivable that it could have been thought otherwise … Some of the material which is now disclosed goes to the very heart of material aspects of this case, not just to issues of credibility and reliability, but beyond”

According to author John Ashton, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd – now Lord Boyd – had “seriously misled the Court”.

[My own 2007 account in The Scotsman of this shameful and discreditable episode can be read here. What is surprising and deeply regrettable is that the trial judges in their judgement made no mention of this disgraceful Crown conduct.  Had it been a defence advocate who had been detected misleading the court in this way, the matter would certainly not have been overlooked and the consequences for the advocate in question would have been dire.]

Monday 26 March 2012

Former Lord Advocate ... seriously misled the Megrahi Court claims book author

[This is the headline over a report published today on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads in part:]
Former Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, has been accused of misleading the Court during the trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

The claim, contained in the book Megrahi – You are my Jury, relates to the QC’s intervention in a matter involving secret CIA cables that contained details of discussions between the US agency and a Libyan ‘supergrass’ named Majid Giaka.
Giaka was a former work colleague of Mr Megrahi who had contacted the CIA claiming to have evidence linking the Libyan and his co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhima to the Lockerbie bombing.
Giaka was scheduled to give evidence to the Court in August 2000, but was delayed due to legal wrangling over the telex cables.
Demands by the Libyan’s defence team to see the cables in full led to the intervention by then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, an episode described by book author John Ashton as “one of the most disgraceful episodes in the Crown Office’s recent history”.
Mr Megrahi’s defence team had requested full disclosure of the secret cables which had been heavily redacted for apparent security reasons.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the two Libyan’s were informed that the twenty five cables were all that existed and that the redacted areas covered general areas not relevant to the Lockerbie incident.
According to the book, Procurator Fiscal Norman McFadyen claimed that no-one from the Crown had seen the unedited cables and that the redacted material was irrelevant.
However it subsequently emerged that weeks earlier on 1st June 2000, members of the Crown Office had indeed seen the unedited cables, one of whom was Norman McFadyen and the other Alan Turnbull QC.
On 22 August on learning of this, Mr Megrahi’s legal team raised the issue with the Court, describing it as “a matter of some considerable importance”.
According to Ashton’s book, Bill Taylor QC argued that without access to the full cables, the defendants would be denied a fair trial, and said: “I emphatically do not accept that what lies behind the blanked out sections is of no interest to a cross examiner … Further, I challenge the right of the Crown to determine for the defence what is or is not of relevance to the defence case.”
Mr Taylor urged the Court to ask the Crown to obtain the complete copies of the cables from the CIA.
In a move, described as unusual by author John Ashcroft, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd then attended the Court in person and admitted that McFadyen and Turnbull had indeed seen the cables but repeated the Crown’s earlier assertions that the redacted areas had no bearing on the cables themselves or the case.
“While they may have been of significance to the Central Intelligence Agency, they had no significance whatsoever to the case” he said.
Mr Boyd explained that according to Crown QC Alan Turnbull: “that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special case.”
Mr Boyd also explained that he had no control over the documents that they resided in the USA under the control of US authorities.
Boyd ended by stating categorically: “there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters.”
Mr Ashton’s book though now reveals that the reason the Lord Advocate had no control over the documents was that Norman McFadyen had signed a non-disclosure agreement before viewing them.
According to Mr Ashton, the Crown had “secretly, ceded to the CIA the right to determine what information should, or should not, be disclosed in a Scottish Court”.
Also, further revelations contained in Mr Ashton’s book show that far from being of no significance to the case, the redacted sections of the cables were in fact highly significant.
The defence team eventually forced the Crown to hand over less redacted versions of the cables that contained, contrary to Boyd’s claims, crucial information about Giaka – including doubts about the value of his intelligence information.
Further sections detailed meetings with Giaka not included in the original documents.
Acting for the defence, Richard Keen QC, questioned claims by the Crown that the redacted sections were of no consequence
Pointing to their clear significance, he told the Court: “I frankly find it inconceivable that it could have been thought otherwise … Some of the material which is now disclosed goes to the very heart of material aspects of this case, not just to issues of credibility and reliability, but beyond”
According to author John Ashton, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd – now Lord Boyd – had “seriously misled the Court”.
[My own 2007 account in The Scotsman of this shameful and discreditable episode can be read here. What is surprising and deeply regrettable is that the trial judges in their judgement made no mention of this disgraceful Crown conduct.  Had it been a defence advocate who had been detected misleading the court in this way, the matter would certainly not have been overlooked and the consequences for the advocate in question would have been dire.]

Monday 11 April 2016

Elevation to peerage of Lord Advocate Colin Boyd

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Herald on this date in 2006:]

Colin Boyd, the lord advocate, was yesterday made a working peer in the House of Lords, fuelling the debate about the independence of his role as head of the prosecution service in Scotland.
Questions were also asked of his ability to carry out this new function while still retaining his other role as legal adviser within the Scottish Cabinet.
There was confusion over the status of Mr Boyd, with the Crown Office stating that he would become a Labour working peer, while Downing Street said that he would sit as a crossbencher.
Mr Boyd said: "It is a great honour, both personally and professionally, to be appointed to serve in the House of Lords. I look forward to playing an effective role in policy-making for the UK, especially in relation to Scottish affairs.
"In particular, I will be in a position to make a significant contribution to debate on reserved issues which affect Scotland. The ability to represent in the House views which are relevant to my duties as a Scottish law officer is welcome, and I will take all opportunities to make useful contribution to debate in this regard.
"I remain firmly committed to the full-time role of lord advocate, leading the Crown Office and procurator-fiscal service, and seeing through the programme of reform I initiated four years ago. I see the appointment to the House of Lords as a natural extension of my duties as lord advocate."
Nicola Sturgeon, SNP leader at Holyrood, said: "The role of lord advocate is already too political by being in Cabinet, I fear this may make it worse. The time has come for the lord advocate to become genuinely independent of politics and not a member of the Cabinet."
David Mundell, the Tories' shadow Scottish secretary, said: "This shows the complete contempt Labour has for the House of Lords and the institutions of democracy. Either Colin Boyd is a member of the government or he is a crossbencher - he can't be both."
[RB: It was Colin Boyd who as Lord Advocate, after consulting other members of the prosecution team, made to the Lockerbie trial court the false assertion that there was nothing in the CIA Giaka cables that could assist the defence in their cross-examination of the Libyan defector. This incident forms the basis of one of the allegations of criminality in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial that are currently under investigation by Police Scotland.]

Saturday 10 November 2012

A welcome, albeit grudging, change of tune

[On Tuesday, 6 November the following item appeared on this blog:]

In the (redacted) version of Justice for Megrahi’s letter alleging criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution that was released to the press on 23 October 2012, allegation no 1 reads as follows:

“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.”

A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality.  This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D,  supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court.  That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.

I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.

[In today’s edition of the Scottish Review Kenneth Roy’s article There is a greater tragedy this weekend than the disgrace of the BBC contains the following:]

Most recently, here in Scotland, we have had an allegation, published by the BBC, of criminal wrongdoing against a High Court judge; although the source of the allegation has assured this magazine that it did not intend to make any such allegation, and that it was based on a misunderstanding, we have seen no correction or clarification of it by BBC Scotland. How fruitily ironic that the man drafted in by George Entwistle to investigate the goings-on at Newsnight is none other than the director of BBC Scotland, who seems to be unaware of the need to correct an injustice on his own doorstep.