Showing posts sorted by date for query David McLetchie. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query David McLetchie. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday 5 November 2014

Justice for Megrahi secretary's report on Justice Committee meeting

[What follows is a message sent out today by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, to JFM members and supporters:]

Some may well feel frustrated by what might seem to be a lack of progress regarding PE1370, however, bear in mind that it remains open with unanimous cross-party support. It took a matter of seconds, with no discussion or questioning from members of the Justice Committee to deal with our submission and supplement.

JFM has only been in existence for some six years, Others have been slogging away at this for twenty-five years.

I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to keep 1370 on the table before Holyrood's Justice Committee. It is a device which produces results. I may have differences of opinion with some; nevertheless, a man whom I regarded as a foe, David McLetchie MSP, came up trumps in the end and made a difference. That, I respect, as I do other brave supporters of the redemption of the Scottish criminal justice system on the JC.

I must formally say that I apologise for any embarrassment caused by my  spontaneous 'clapping' at the end of the brief hearing. The convener, quite rightfully, reprimanded me. Having said that though, I, in my defence, would like to say that I was applauding all members of the JC, not clapping.

This is going to take time. It's politics. But we are moving in the right direction.

[Robert clearly allowed his well-known enthusiasm to get the better of parliamentary decorum. However, he copied the above message to the Justice Committee clerk and received a response which included this:]

I was about to email you with formal notification that the Committee agreed to monitor the progress being made between JFM and Police Scotland and to consider the petition again at a future meeting.
Apologies that we didn’t have time to chat yesterday. As you saw, the Convener was keen to get through business as timeously as possible.
Regarding your very kind message, I shall show it to the Convener tomorrow and we shall endeavour to convey it to members as well. I can assure you that no embarrassment was caused!
We will be in touch, and every good wish.

Sunday 23 February 2014

Conservative Party contortions over Megrahi petition

[What follows is the text of an article by Justice for Megrahi's secretary, Robert Forrester, that was due to appear in the the Scottish edition of today's Sunday Express. I cannot find it on the newspaper's website (which is pretty selective in its coverage) but it probably does appear in the print edition:]

The Justice Committee's consideration of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) petition, calling for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie/Zeist affair, held on Tuesday 18th February, was by far the most animated session yet on the subject. Reaching almost operatic proportions, it generated valiant, bravura performances from both Christine Grahame MSP (SNP Convener of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament) and John Finnie MSP (Independent) in the teeth of determined pressure to close the petition: this opposition emanated largely from Margaret Mitchell MSP (Conservative).

The principal argument used against maintaining the JFM petition, PE 1370, open was the feeling that the Justice Committee was wandering away from its strict remit with regard to the petition proper by conflating it with JFM's allegations of criminality against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials.

Margaret Mitchell's position is an interesting development in that the principal Conservative Party member on the Justice Committee when JFM received its first unanimous vote by the committee to keep 1370 open (11th December 2012) was the late David McLetchie MSP. JFM had, up until that moment, rather regarded Mr McLetchie an arch foe. However, he was most vocal in his support of the petition: backing up earlier statements made by John Finnie. The catalyst behind his change of heart was in fact that he had been attracted by the new dynamic brought to the petition not only by the lodging with the then Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary of the JFM allegations themselves but also by the manner in which the JFM allegations were being treated by the authorities. This referred to the Justice Directorate's release of our private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice MacAskill to the Crown Office and the ensuing media attacks on JFM launched by Chambers Street, culminating in Lord Advocate Mulholland's outbursts to Magnus Linklater on the anniversary of the 103 tragedy in 2012.

It is now, therefore, most curious that the Conservative Party appears to doing a complete volte-face on essentially the same principle that encouraged Mr McLetchie to support 1370. In the current situation, both JFM and the Justice Committee are being confronted by an outrageously dismissive attitude by Police Scotland and the Crown Office with respect to the JFM allegations. As Mr Mcletchie recognised at the time, the petition and the allegations had become inextricably entwined as a result of the attitudes of the authorities to the allegations.

This situation has not altered one jot. In fact, the attitude of Police Scotland and the Crown Office towards JFM is now even more parlous than it ever has been following the freezing of the investigation into three highly contentious allegations, so why has the position of the Conservative Party changed? Something of a mystery. Or, perhaps Margaret Mitchell’s viewpoint is simply her own and not necessarily her party’s. Perhaps she sees herself as a champion of the Crown Office and Police Scotland where Mr Mcletchie wisely spied a political opportunity in supporting the JFM’s mutually complementary petition and allegations. Perhaps he saw JFM as an irritant to First Minister Salmond and his longstanding Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill. They can hardly be overjoyed today by the fact that Petition PE 1370 has now entered it’s fourth year on the parliamentary books on top of the results of a public opinion poll in the Scottish Sunday Express of 4th September 2011 (Sample: 500. 52% expressed the view that there ought to be an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, 34% disagreed and 14% were unsure).

Ultimately though, the strength of Christine Grahame's anger at the behaviour of Police Scotland, and John Finnie's reasoned presentation of the current, developing environment vis-à-vis JFM’s petition and the now 9 JFM allegations won the day: with the Justice Committee decision that letters would be sent to the Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House and Detective Superintendent Johnstone asking them, amongst other things, to account for the seemingly blasé and dismissive conduct of Police Scotland.

It now remains to be seen whether or not Margaret Mitchell will, before her next consideration of this petition, experience the same political epiphany that David McLetchie did.

Thursday 20 February 2014

Justice for Megrahi: we live to fight another day

[What follows is the text of a message sent today by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, to JFM members and supporters following Tuesday’s meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee:]

The Justice Committee's consideration of JFM's petition 1370, calling on the Scottish Government to endorse for an independent inquriy into the investigation and legal processes involved in the Lockerbie/Zeist affair, held on Tuesday 18th February, was by far the most animated session of the Justice Committee that I have attended on the subject: reaching almost operatic proportions. It generated valiant, bravura performances from both Christine Grahame MSP (SNP Convener of the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament) and John Finnie MSP (Independent) in the teeth of determined pressure to close the petition: this opposition emanated largely from Margaret Mitchell MSP (Conservative).

The principal argument used against maintaining 1370 open was the feeling that the Justice Committee was wandering away from its strict remit with regard to the petition proper by conflating it with JFM's allegations of criminality against police officers, forensic investigators and legal officials. Margaret Mitchell's position is an interesting development in that the principal Conservative Party member on the Justice committee when JFM received its first unanimous vote by the committee to keep 1370 open (11th December 2012) was the late David McLetchie MSP. JFM had up until that moment rather regarded Mr McLetchie an arch foe. However, he was most vocal in his support of the petition: backing up earlier statements made by John Finnie. The catalyst behind his change of heart was in fact that he was attracted by the new dynamic brought to the petition not only by the lodging with the then Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary of the JFM allegations themselves but also by the manner in which the JFM allegations were being treated by the authorities. This referred to the Justice Directorate's release of our private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice MacAskill to the Crown Office and the ensuing media attacks on JFM launched by Chambers Street, culminating in Lord Advocate Mulholland's outbursts to Magnus Linklater on the anniversary of the 103 tragedy in 2012.

It is now, therefore, most curious that the Conservative Party appears to doing a complete volte-face on essentially the same principle that encouraged Mr McLetchie to support 1370. In the current situation, both JFM and the Justice Committee are being confronted by an outrageously dismissive attitude by Police Scotland and the Crown Office with respect to the JFM allegations (follow this link to our submission: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20140130_JFM_to_Committee.pdf, and this one to the email sent to myself by Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone, which was also sent as a last minute submission to the Justice Committee on Tuesday morning: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/General%20Documents/20140217_PS_to_JFM.pdf).

As Mr McLetchie recognised at the time, the petition and the allegations had become inextricably entwined  as a result of the attitudes of the authorities to the allegations. This situation has not altered one jot. In fact, the attitude of Police Scotland and the Crown Office towards JFM is now even more parlous than it ever has been, so why has the position of the Conservative Party changed? Something of a mystery, methinks.

Ultimately though, the strength of Christine Grahame's anger at the behaviour of Police Scotland, and John Finnie's reasoned presentation of the current, developing environment vis-à-vis JFM and the authorities, and 1370 and the now 9 JFM allegations, won the day. As  you will see from the reports below and from watching the recording of the session, it was decided that letters would be sent to Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House and Detective Superintendent Johnstone asking them, amongst other things, to account for the seemingly blasé, slipshod and dismissive conduct of Police Scotland. The Justice Committee also sanctioned a letter to the SCCRC to ask if the al-Megrahi family have made a referral for a third appeal against the Zeist conviction. For details, see the video link below.

We live to fight another day then. What is more, these new letters could well have the potential to be as significant as the one which the Public Petitions Committee sent to the Scottish Government which established that it did after all have the power to sanction an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act of 2005.

The transcript is not yet available but soon will be. In the meantime, you can watch the session by following this link to Parliament TV:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41409.aspx. The consideration of 1370 begins 1 hour, 8 minutes and 43 seconds into the session.  

See here below links to press reports:


The Committee of JFM would like to express its deep gratitude to its members who turned up in person to back 1370 on Tuesday, and, as ever, to thank all of you for your unqualified support of the campaign, and the invaluable ideas and advice you offer us.

Don't forget that you can follow daily developments as they relate to the Lockerbie/Zeist case on our indomitable Professor Black's blog (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/).

Monday 12 August 2013

Death of Conservative Party Holyrood justice spokesman

The death has been announced of David McLetchie MSP, former leader of the Conservative group in the Scottish Parliament and latterly his party's justice spokesman and a member of the Justice Committee.

Mr McLetchie and his party have not been noted for sympathy towards the Justice for Megrahi campaign. Mr McLetchie's contributions to the debate, as recorded on this blog, can be found here.  However, it should be mentioned in fairness that his last intervention on the subject in the Justice Committee was in support of keeping live JFM's petition for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.

Wednesday 19 December 2012

Official Report of Justice Committee's deliberations on Megrahi petition

[The Official Report of the session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on 11 December 2012 at which Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) was considered is now available.  The relevant section reads as follows:]

The Convener (Christine Grahame):  I do not use the bing-bong button very often, but I used it there. I will not name names, but members have had 10 minutes. Agenda item 4 is petition PE1370, from the Justice for Megrahi campaign. Members have a paper from the clerk, which sets out the background for our consideration of the petition and includes a submission from the petitioners. Members will note that paragraph 7 of the clerk’s paper says that the petitioners have asked that the committee keep the petition open while Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary considers their allegations. I declare that I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.Do members have any comments?

John Finnie: I hope that the committee agrees to keep the petition open. The papers that we have from the Justice for Megrahi committee mention significant issues.We should draw a distinction between complaints about service delivery by organisations such as the Crown Office and the police service, and serious accusations against individuals who work for those organisations. There are issues for others to speak about relating to confidential covers that are put on letters and what the expectations about them are from all sides. I certainly understand why the Justice for Megrahi people feel aggrieved about the manner in which the issue came into the public domain. I refer to the end of the first paragraph under the heading “Discussion” on page 5 of paper 3. It seems to me that there is a classic catch-22 situation. There is understandable frustration where there are serious allegations for the Crown Office, which may be expected to act in the roles of judge, jury and accused.There are a number of unresolved issues. For that reason, I sincerely hope that committee members will agree to keep the petition open. That would certainly be the public expectation.

Roderick Campbell:  It remains the case that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can consider a previously abandoned appeal. I think that Mr Megrahi died in May. That is not that long a period of time for his family, for example, to have reached a full view on the matter, particularly given the current position in Libya. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to take any formal step and, given the position and the on-going Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary investigation, it seems inappropriate to take a final view on the matter. We should therefore keep the petition open for the  time being.

Colin Keir: I agree.

David McLetchie:  I concur with what John Finnie and Roderick Campbell have said. We should keep the petition open until we get information back from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in response to the complaint.There is one thing that I query. As I understood the legislation that we passed in the Parliament earlier this year, it is open to a family member of one of the bereaved to trigger a process. In light of the political background, I understand why that might be difficult for Mr Megrahi’s family who are based in Libya, but I do not quite see why a family member of one of the Lockerbie victims cannot institute that process. We would then be on our way.

The Convener: You may remember that there must be title and interest in pursuing a case. It would probably be a matter for the court to decide whether there was a close enough association, although I am not saying that a bereaved family member could not do that. Therefore, I think that it is not mandatory. I fully agree with keeping the matter open, but I would separate the possible appellate procedure—the resuscitation of it or somebody stepping into the appellant’s shoes—from allegations that are made about the way in which the case was handled. Those matters may collide at some point, but they are distinct from each other at the moment. I agree with John Finnie that, with both of those aspects still alive, there is a public interest issue, and people would expect the committee to allow this petition to continue to breathe oxygen.

Jenny Marra: I think that the petition should be kept open, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, but particularly because there seem to be unanswered questions with regard to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. I would like to see the conclusion of that investigation.

Sandra White: I concur.


Alison McInnes: I also concur.

Graeme Pearson: So do I.

The Convener: It is unanimous.

John Finnie:  It would be appropriate for the committee to keep a watching brief on the issue of the complaint against the Crown Office, which could have implications beyond this specific case. We would need to understand the position ofsomeone tendering such a complaint and how that would be responded to. I would hope, at the very least, that we would maintain an interest in the issue, even if we donot inquire further.

The Convener:  Can we think about what we might do in that regard on another occasion, rather than today? Rather than being proactive, we are keeping the petition open and allowing it to take its own course. The issue that you raise could be dealt with in more detail at another meeting.

John Finnie: Yes.

The Convener:  Thank you. We will keep the petition open, pro tem.

Thursday 15 March 2012

Crown's actions in Megrahi case face scrutiny

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of The Herald by Group Political Editor Brian Currie. It reads in part:]

The Crown Office's handling of the prosecution of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to be raised in the Scottish Parliament.
And the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland has been asked to initiate inquiries into allegations the Crown failed to disclose substantive evidence to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's defence team.
Both moves were instigated by Christine Grahame, an SNP MSP and member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
She warned: "While there is a suspicion the Crown Office has not behaved with propriety, this cannot be good for the Scottish justice system."
Ms Grahame, who is convener of Holyrood's Justice Committee, said the Scottish Government did not have the power to institute a far-reaching public inquiry – which would require evidence from former prime ministers, the FBI and others.
But it could, under the 2005 Inquiries Act, hold one into matters which were wholly devolved and the Crown Office would be subject to that.
As revealed in The Herald this week, there is material within the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report into Megrahi's conviction for the atrocity, in which 270 people died, to suggest he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice on six different grounds.
Ms Grahame said yesterday: "The Scottish Government already has the power to inquire into the activities and the actions of the Crown Office -and the allegations that evidence that should have been disclosed was not disclosed." (…)
Tory justice spokesman David McLetchie said an appeal by Megrahi would "have the merit of allowing the case to be determined in a Scottish court of law". But he added if there was no such appeal then there had to be a judicial public inquiry. [RB: Now there’s a surprise: support for an inquiry from David McLetchie! I suppose it demonstrates that even Scottish Conservatives can feel which way the wind is blowing if there’s a strong enough gale.]
Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said: "What The Herald's investigation has exposed is that a number of questions remain unanswered. However, it is our view these matters are best settled in Scotland's court of law – not a public inquiry."
Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Green Party, said: "There have long been doubts about Mr Megrahi's conviction and the best way to establish the truth is to hold a public inquiry."
A Scottish Government spokesman said Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had not seen the SCCRC report as "this would be inappropriate".
Mr MacAskill has written to UK Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke asking for an exemption under data protection laws to allow the SCCRC document to be made public. But a spokesman for Mr Clarke said last night that any decision on disclosure was for the SCCRC. [RB: As a post on this blog earlier this week pointed out,  "Clarke – or any other member of the coalition – cannot give the Scottish Government an exception from the DPA, because no such power exists."]

[Christine Grahame has tabled a written question which reads as follows:]

Question S4W-06179: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/03/2012
To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of recent allegations that the Crown Office did not act with propriety in the disclosure of evidence to the defence team in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, whether the Scottish Government (a) has the power under the Inquiries Act 2005 to establish an inquiry into the actions of the Crown Office and (b) can refer the matter to the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 29/03/2012



[At First Minister's questions today the following question was asked and answered:]

  • Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP): There have been allegations in the recent Megrahi biography and in the press regarding the Crown’s actions throughout the prosecution appeal process. Is it possible, through the Inquiries Act 2005, to instruct an independent examination of those allegations, and might that fall within the remit of the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland?
  • The First Minister: The appropriate body for declaring guilt or innocence is, of course, a court of law, but I think that the recent media coverage indicates that it is absolutely imperative that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission be given the powers that it needs to release the full statement of reasons in this case. I obviously welcome disclosure: we are trying to get disclosure of the full SCCRC report, which is imperative. I do not think that partial disclosure, especially when it is done selectively, is assisting the debate. I cannot see any possible reason for there being obstacles in the way of full disclosure and publication of the complete SCCRC report. I hope that the chamber will unite to ensure, as far as is possible within our powers, that that happens.

Sunday 12 February 2012

McLetchie makes it political and insults the Lockerbie dead

[This is the headline over an item posted today on Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph’s blog Lockerbie Truth. It reads as follows:]

Scottish Conservatives justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP has become the front-man for those who wish to conceal the truth about the Lockerbie trial. In doing so the Scottish Conservatives have politicised the Lockerbie disaster.

Is Mr McLetchie really aware that he is defending the following? -

1. Secret offers of huge rewards to the prosecution's main witnesses Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci and CIA double agent Majid Giaka were made throughout the two year police investigation. The records of these offers were concealed from the defence and judges by the combined actions of senior policemen, Crown officials, and members of the FBI.

2. Many of these policemen and FBI officers are named in the SCCRC report. 

3. The importance of keeping these offers secret was made clear in a memo dated 15th May 2007 written by DI Dalgliesh (Dalgliesh now, apparently, heads the Lockerbie police team).  In the memo Dalgliesh tells his colleagues of the danger of the information becoming public: "[there is] a real danger that if [the] SCCRC’s statement of reasons is leaked to the media, Anthony Gauci could be portrayed as having given flawed evidence for financial reward…”


4.  Flawed evidence for financial reward is exactly what Gauci did give.  

5.  At the height of the Lockerbie police enquiries, a new witness appeared.  David Wright gave a statement to the Dumfries and Galloway police suggesting that Gauci had been totally confused about the date of purchase of clothes, remnants of which had been found at Lockerbie. If Wright was correct, then Al-Megrahi could not have been the purchaser, since he was not in Malta when Wright had witnessed the actual purchase. 

6. If [Megrahi] was not the purchaser, then the main plank of the prosecution case would evaporate.  Al-Megrahi would most probably have walked free from the court. 

7.  The police quietly filed Wright's statement, and his existence was concealed from the Lockerbie trial. Both the investigating detectives and Crown lawyers knew of his existence but kept the information from the trial judges and defence.

8.  Wright and his statement were discovered only during a three-year inquiry by officers of the SCCRC.  He swore an affidavit reaffirming his original claims.  His evidence forms part of the so-far unpublished SCCRC report. 

9.  The existence of Wright and his statement and affidavit are another reason that the Scottish police, Crown office, and certain members of the FBI are afraid of publication of the SCCRC's report. 

10.  There were other important matters concealed from the judges and the defence, and we will comment on these at an appropriate time. 

This latest merging of attempts at concealment by the police and Crown office with the Scottish Conservative party is an insult to the dead of Lockerbie.

Friday 10 February 2012

Further Ashton-McLetchie correspondence

A further exchange of letters between Megrahi biographer John Ashton and Scottish Conservatives justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP can be read here.
 
The Megrahi: You are my Jury website now contains downloadable versions of documents relevant to the appeal which was abandoned when Abdelbaset Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds. These were previously available only on the Megrahi: My Story website.  The advertisement for John Ashton's book on the publisher's website can be read here.

Thursday 9 February 2012

Official Report of Justice Committee evidence hearing

The Official Report (Hansard) of the session of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee held on Tuesday, 7 February 2012, at which evidence was taken (from Justice for Megrahi representatives amongst others) has now been published and can be read here.

[Following the Justice Committee session, the Scottish Conservatives issued a press release which reads as follows:]

Evidence given to the Justice Committee this morning has raised doubts over the effectiveness of the SNP Government's planned legislation to release documents detailing the reasons behind the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.

Sir Gerald Gordon QC, a member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), said that the publication of details would be hampered by data protection laws. Meanwhile, founding member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, Dr. Jim Swire, confirmed that Megrahi would not consent to the release of certain information during his lifetime.

Scottish Conservative Justice Spokesman, David McLetchie MSP said:

"Sir Gerald Gordon's comments underline that this Bill will prove ineffective and the SNP Government should stop wasting parliamentary time in pandering to the Megrahi lobbyists.

"The fact is that Megrahi himself would block the release of all the evidence by refusing his consent, as was acknowledged by Dr. Swire and other campaigners today.

"Accordingly, having dropped his appeal in order to get out of jail courtesy of Kenny MacAskill, it appears he now only wants a partial release of information at least so as long as he is still alive. That is not my idea of justice."

[On the issue of Megrahi’s consent to disclosure, here is the statement that he issued on 30 June 2010:]

It has recently been wrongly reported that Mr Al-Megrahi refused to give his consent for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to release documents relating to him, referred to in the Commission’s Statement of Reasons on his case, and its appendices, that he and his lawyers provided, either directly or indirectly, to the Commission. 

The true position is that Mr Al Megrahi, through his Libyan lawyer, made it clear to the Commission in a meeting on April 12th 2010 that he was happy for the documents to be released, providing all the official bodies that provided documents to the Commission agreed to the release of all of those documents. These bodies include the police, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, and the intelligence service, or services, which provided the secret documents referred to in Chapter 25 sources of the Statement of Reasons. 

Mr Al Megrahi’s position has always been, and remains, that all information relating to the case should be made public.



[An exchange of correspondence on this issue between David McLetchie MSP and Megrahi's biographer John Ashton can be found here on the Megrahi: You are my Jury website.]

Monday 30 January 2012

Tory justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP on Megrahi

[Holyrood magazine today publishes a long article about the views of recently-appointed Scottish Conservative Party justice spokesman (and former leader) David McLetchie MSP.  It reads in part:]


The government last month published a bill that could permit publication of information about the case against the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. It has been said the Criminal Cases Bill would let the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decide whether information it gathered and referred to the Appeal Court should be published.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi abandoned his second appeal days before he was sent home to Libya on compassionate grounds.

Campaigners want case papers released, but that has so far been prohibited by law. For the documents to be released, the SCCRC needed the consent of the main parties involved, which include the Crown Office, the police and the Foreign Office.

McLetchie said: “I think it is interesting that the Scottish Government’s official position is that it doesn’t doubt the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. We have this obsession about Megrahi and although they say they don’t doubt the conviction, clearly they do as they are playing to that gallery.

“It would appear there are barriers in terms of the release of statements of reasons to do with data protection, which is reserved, and also issues over official secrets, so there are quite a lot of barriers over which the Scottish Parliament can do nothing.

“To my mind it is quite simply grandstanding, it is pandering to a view that Megrahi is innocent, it is pandering to all the conspiracy theorists and if they [the Government] really don’t doubt the safety of the conviction then what are they wasting our time for?

“I would be surprised if all of this ends up being released into the public domain at the end of the day and I think it’s time to draw a line under this but suspect it won’t be until Megrahi passes away.” It is not a view that will deter Megrahi campaigners. In recent years, there has been growing support for the idea that the Libyan may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It is one of several issues that convince McLetchie his new job will be far from dull.

He added: “We are at a time when the police is about to go through major reform and there is some important legislation coming through the parliament. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the justice brief plays a significant role in terms of politics and policy and I expect that very much to continue throughout this parliament too.”