The Megrahi dossier: why he was set free

[The above is the headline over the main article on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi in The Herald. The following are excerpts.]

[O]n even the most controversial aspect of the process, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's visit to Greenock Prison, there appeared to be no real hostages to fortune, while minutes and reports of the prison governor, the Parole Board, the police and medical examiners, as well as correspondence with the Westminster Government and the Libyans, appeared to leave Mr MacAskill unscathed by the process.

And while the Scottish Government appears to have emerged as having at least followed due process, the real question marks remain over the US Government for its refusal to sanction release of material yesterday and the UK Government for continuing to say little. (...)

The Greenock visit
One question mark that remains relates to Mr MacAskill's decision to visit Megrahi in Greenock Prison. An eight-page document by a senior civil servant in the justice department advises the minister: "Mr Megrahi, as a subject of the transfer request, should be given opportunity to make his own representation on the proposal."

That advice concludes with the recommendation: "The groups and individuals identified should be offered short meetings with you to present their representations."

That Mr MacAskill inferred from this that he should go to meet the prisoner at Greenock is still being challenged by opponents, but the advice appears sufficiently robust to entitle him to say he was acting on advice.

There are then two documents relating to the meeting at HMP Greenock on August 6 - the official minute from the government side and Mr Megrahi's own handwritten note of his presentation to the meeting. (...)

The minute records, in dry official language, the prisoner's insistence that he had been unjustly convicted and his sympathy for the "terrible loss" of the victims' families. The minute adds, as Megrahi told The Herald in Tripoli last week: "He feels there is little prospect that his appeal will be concluded before his death, and that his dreams of returning home cleared no longer exist."

While the minute records Mr MacAskill advising Megrahi that prison transfer could only take place if there were no court proceedings ongoing, there is no specific mention that compassionate release would not require this. However, aides pointed out last night that the meeting was specifically about prisoner transfer, not compassionate release.

The handwritten note from Megrahi states: "I'm a very ill person. The disease that I have is incurable. All the personnel are agreed that I have little chance of living into next year. The last report which I received some weeks ago from consultant reaches the view that I have a short time left. I have a burning desire to clear my name. I think now that I will not witness that ultimate conclusion."

And in words that echoed Mr MacAskill's later reference to a "higher authority", he stated: "As I turn now to face my God, to stand before him, I have nothing to fear."

The prison reports
The release of Megrahi almost a fortnight ago was accompanied by part of a section of official prison paperwork, involving the report by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.

But yesterday most of the rest of that document was released and it fully backs Mr MacAskill's version of events.

Most emphatically, the document requires Prison Governor Malcolm McLennan to answer a straight question: "Do you consider that the prisoner should be released early? YES.

"Please state your reasons: The prognosis for Mr Megrahi is extremely bleak. Clinical advice would confirm that his death is likely to occur within a very short period. At present he is visibly displaying signs of ageing and pain during normal daily routine.

"He regularly refers to himself as a dying man and his mood can be described at times as extremely low. Release of Mr Megrahi will offer him and his family the opportunity to spend his remaining time in his country. This will mean he will have access to his close family at a time when his health is deteriorating." (...)

The police advice
There was much controversy over the course of last week over what advice had been received from Strathclyde Police about the possibility of releasing Megrahi to live in the family house in Newton Mearns, as had been pushed for by Conservatives.

Among yesterday's documents was a minute of a discussion between justice department civil servants and Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson on Friday, August 14, six days before the decision was announced and the day on which the final pieces of expert advice were received.

Assuming Megrahi would be deemed to be a "protected person," that note states: "Bluntly: the implication would be of extreme significance to the police force," and adding: "Simply to remain in house, with no movement or family staying (basic level) would require a total of 48 officers to sustain close protection. Cost of maintaining this level of protection would be around £100,000 per week.

"The police numbers and cost would be ramped up for trips to hospital requiring convoys, and would be higher still if his extended family stayed at the house where, the minute adds: "Children in particular could pose a kidnap threat." (...)

Holyrood-Westminster relations
The big question for UK ministers arising from documents released yesterday is simply this: Did UK ministers tell the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail?

According to the minute of a meeting in Glasgow with Libyans on March 12 this year, Abdulati Alobidi [RB: the normal English transliteration of this name is al-Obeidi], minister for Europe, spoke of a visit to Tripoli the previous month by Foreign Minister Bill Rammell at which it was pointed out that if Megrahi died in custody it would have "catastrophic effects" on Libyan-UK relations.

Mr Alobidi was minuted as saying: "Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish Ministers."

That remains a clearer statement of the Prime Minister's opinion than Mr Brown has since been prepared to offer in public.

[The accuracy of Mr al-Obeidi's statement has now been confirmed by David Miliband in a radio interview. According to a report on The Times website:

"The Foreign Secretary admitted that it was true that Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, had told his Libyan counterpart back in February that the Prime Minister did not want Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi to pass away in Greenock prison."]

Medical evidence
One area where no further detailed information has been released is in terms of medical evidence.

The main report remains that of Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service, who summarised the views of four Scottish consultants directly involved in the case, plus the prison doctor.

His report, released on the day Mr MacAskill announced the Megrahi decision, attracted ferocious criticism from Labour's Dr Richard Simpson, who insisted that a second opinion should have been sought from another cancer consultant on whether Megrahi definitely had less than three months to live.

Dr Fraser's original report had attached to it, in a sealed envelope, the relevant medical reports on which he had based his opinion and there was pressure from critics for these to be released.

But the government refused to bow to that pressure, insisting that these detailed medical reports remain private.

There are, however, scattered across other documents released yesterday, other references to Megrahi's condition, including one, dated March 12, which made clear that by then the prisoner was already "receiving treatment and visits from a palliative care specialist", adding: "A consultant oncologist monitors Mr Megrahi's condition and he is also receiving support from a nurse who is trained in counselling."

Palliative care and a nurse trained in counselling are strong indications that by then he was being treated as terminally ill.

[An editorial in the same newspaper contains the following paragraphs:]

Justice Secretary Jack Straw emerges from all this little better. Having sought to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, he then performed a U-turn on the basis of "the overwhelming interests" of the United Kingdom. The strict answer to the question "deal or no deal?" may be "no deal" but there now can be little doubt that the Labour government allowed the man convicted of Britain's worst mass murder to become a pawn in the much desired rapprochement with the Gaddafi regime. The U-turn coincided uncomfortably with a major oil exploration deal for BP.

It was always unlikely that there was any sort of deal between the Scottish and Westminster Governments on this case, and the correspondence supports the claims that proper procedures were followed. And while First Minister Alex Salmond's letters betray a distasteful and inappropriate point-scoring approach, it is hard to fault his Justice Secretary. Mr MacAskill's visit to Megrahi's cell was, frankly, a faux pas but his painstaking consultations with all the relevant authorities, as well as victims' relatives, do him credit. And, given that all the official advice pointed one way, release on compassionate grounds still seems the right and logical decision, despite the repulsive hero's welcome Megrahi received in Tripoli.

Pursuing the political minutiae of this case any further would be futile. However, Lockerbie is not history, as Colonel Gaddafi's son claimed last week. For those who lost loved ones, it remains a gaping wound and an unexplained mystery. Stabilising relations with Libya and allowing a dying man to return to his family must not come at the cost of finding out what happened on the night of December 21, 1988, over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

[The principal article on the subject in The Times is well worth reading. As far as I can discover it is the only media article that mentions the letter of 24 August 1998 which gives the lie to the UK Foreign Office assertion that no "definitive commitment" had been given that anyone convicted would serve his whole sentence in Britain.]

MacAskill in row over prison visit to Megrahi

[This is the headline over The Herald's report on reactions to the Justice Secretary's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]

Labour has been plunged into a row over the party's criticism of the Scottish Justice Secretary's visit to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Opposition politicians rounded on Kenny MacAskill after he met Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he considers a request for him to be transferred to Libya. Labour's justice spokesman, Richard Baker, accused Mr MacAskill of setting a "dangerous precedent" by visiting the Libyan in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence.

He said: "Does every convicted murderer get a chance to meet the Justice Minister if they fall ill? Megrahi's appeal is ongoing and Mr MacAskill should not be meeting this man."

But Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long argued Megrahi's innocence, told The Herald: "I feel very strongly that Mr MacAskill was right to have gone to see Mr Megrahi.

"He was my opponent and I have disagreed with Mr MacAskill on many matters, but on this, I strongly support him."

When asked if criticism of his visit was wrong, he replied "totally" before adding of the Justice Secretary's decision: "He has already seen the relatives of victims of the bombing. He has already seen the US law officers and frankly it's a unique case.

"I believe Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime and that he was a sanctions-buster for Libyan airlines.

"But on this particular point, I think it's totally unfair to criticise Mr MacAskill for going to see him. I wish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament had shown more interest in the whole Lockerbie saga and clearly Mr Baker knows little about it." (...)

In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. However, for the transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal.

Last month The Herald revealed that Megrahi had applied to return to Tripoli on "compassionate release" because he is terminally ill.

Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings. (...)

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the trial at Zeist, said the visit was a "first" in Scottish legal history, but expressed concerns about any pressure being placed on Megrahi to drop the appeal.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Justice Secretary is quite clear that he must have the fullest picture possible before making this important decision.

"To suggest he may do the same for any other convicted prisoner is just ridiculous. This is a unique situation."

[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. The Times's report contains the following:

'Yesterday, after a half-hour visit to the Libyan in Greenock Prison by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, it was revealed that a medical report on al-Megrahi's condition had been ordered by the Scottish government, and a spokeswoman said that it was expected soon. “The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she added.

'Clear signs that ministers are anxious to resolve the matter in the Libyan's favour if possible came when it was indicated that they intended to be “flexible” in interpreting the rules which govern the term “compassionate grounds”. Scottish Prison Service guidelines state that these mean that inmates with three months to live or less may be released. However, it emerged that these guidelines could be relaxed in al-Megrahi's case. (...)

'A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said he spent about half an hour with al-Megrahi during the visit, which had been arranged while the minister was considering the Libyan's application for a transfer. The Justice Secretary has already spoken to the US Attorney General and British and American victims' families as part of considering the request. The spokeswoman confirmed that the visit would be used, not only to consider the prisoner transfer issue, but al-Megrahi's subsequent plea for release on compassionate grounds.

'“We are seeking medical advice and medical reports which we would not have sought under the prisoner transfer application. We are hoping to get the reports as soon as we can. The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she said.

'When asked if the decision would be dependent on whether al-Megrahi had three months or less to live, the spokeswoman replied: “They are guidelines, they are flexible.” The Times understands that Mr MacAskill is aiming to make an announcement before the end of this month.

'Supporters are hoping the Libyan will be granted compassionate release in order to allow the continuation of his latest attempt to clear his name. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the courts two years ago on six points that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. The first stage of the appeal has been heard in Edinburgh, but no ruling is expected until the autumn as one of the presiding judges is recovering from heart surgery.

'Pursuing a prisoner transfer, on the other hand, would force al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The terms of the deal permit deliberations, but forbid a final decision on the request while legal proceedings are taking place.']

MacAskill in offer to meet Megrahi

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has offered to meet the Lockerbie bomber in prison as he decides if the convicted mass murderer ought to be allowed home to Libya.

The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.

The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.

The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.

A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."

Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.

Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.

Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.

Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.

If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.

But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:

'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.

'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.

'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”

'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)

'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.

'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”

'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”

'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]

I have a burning desire to clear my name

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined The Megrahi dossier: why he was set free that was published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

The Greenock visit

One question mark that remains relates to Mr MacAskill's decision to visit Megrahi in Greenock Prison. An eight-page document by a senior civil servant in the justice department advises the minister: "Mr Megrahi, as a subject of the transfer request, should be given opportunity to make his own representation on the proposal."

That advice concludes with the recommendation: "The groups and individuals identified should be offered short meetings with you to present their representations."

That Mr MacAskill inferred from this that he should go to meet the prisoner at Greenock is still being challenged by opponents, but the advice appears sufficiently robust to entitle him to say he was acting on advice.

There are then two documents relating to the meeting at HMP Greenock on August 6 - the official minute from the government side and Mr Megrahi's own handwritten note of his presentation to the meeting. (...)

The minute records, in dry official language, the prisoner's insistence that he had been unjustly convicted and his sympathy for the "terrible loss" of the victims' families. The minute adds, as Megrahi told The Herald in Tripoli last week: "He feels there is little prospect that his appeal will be concluded before his death, and that his dreams of returning home cleared no longer exist."

While the minute records Mr MacAskill advising Megrahi that prison transfer could only take place if there were no court proceedings ongoing, there is no specific mention that compassionate release would not require this. However, aides pointed out last night that the meeting was specifically about prisoner transfer, not compassionate release.

The handwritten note from Megrahi states: "I'm a very ill person. The disease that I have is incurable. All the personnel are agreed that I have little chance of living into next year. The last report which I received some weeks ago from consultant reaches the view that I have a short time left. I have a burning desire to clear my name. I think now that I will not witness that ultimate conclusion."

And in words that echoed Mr MacAskill's later reference to a "higher authority", he stated: "As I turn now to face my God, to stand before him, I have nothing to fear." (...)

Holyrood-Westminster relations

The big question for UK ministers arising from documents released yesterday is simply this: Did UK ministers tell the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail?

According to the minute of a meeting in Glasgow with Libyans on March 12 this year, Abdulati Alobidi [RB: the normal English transliteration of this name is al-Obeidi], minister for Europe, spoke of a visit to Tripoli the previous month by Foreign Minister Bill Rammell at which it was pointed out that if Megrahi died in custody it would have "catastrophic effects" on Libyan-UK relations.

Mr Alobidi was minuted as saying: "Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish Ministers."

That remains a clearer statement of the Prime Minister's opinion than Mr Brown has since been prepared to offer in public.

[RB: The accuracy of Mr al-Obeidi's statement was confirmed by David Miliband in a radio interview. According to a report on The Times website:

"The Foreign Secretary admitted that it was true that Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, had told his Libyan counterpart back in February that the Prime Minister did not want Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi to pass away in Greenock prison."]

Anniversary of MacAskill visit to Megrahi

[What follows is the text of a report on the BBC News website on this date in 2009:]

Scotland's justice secretary has visited the Lockerbie bomber amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.

Kenny MacAskill met Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi in Greenock Prison as he considers a transfer request from the Libyan government.

The minister has already heard the views of others, including relatives of some of the 270 victims of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Terminally-ill Megrahi has also asked to be freed on compassionate grounds.

The transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.

Under the agreement, the country holding a prisoner should give its answer within 90 days.

Decisions about prisoners are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, in effect giving Mr MacAskill the final say.

Mr MacAskill said last week he would miss the 90-day deadline, which expired on 3 August, because he was waiting for more information.

No transfer can take place if criminal proceedings are active, meaning Megrahi would have to drop his latest appeal against his conviction in order to be sent home.

He was ordered to remain in prison for a minimum of 27 years having been found guilty of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103.

Mr MacAskill has embarked upon a series of consultations with interested parties, including relatives of American victims with whom he held a video conference.

While unusual for a minister to discuss a prisoner's case with him while he remains in jail, Mr MacAskill is understood to believe the visit is important to allow him to consider all of the facts.

Megrahi's legal team have also made a separate request for him to released from prison on compassionate grounds as he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

An earlier request, made in October 2008, was rejected by Appeal Court judges after they heard medical evidence that with adequate palliative care, Megrahi could live for several years.

The court heard that such requests are normally only granted where a prisoner has less than three months to live.

[RB: Following criticism directed towards Mr MacAskill for visiting Megrahi, I commented on this blog as follows:]

The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.

Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.

MacAskill prison visit absurd, says Lord Fraser

One of Scotland’s most respected legal figures has bitterly attacked Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, for his decision to visit the convicted Lockerbie bomber in prison.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as Lord Advocate was responsible for drawing up the indictment in 1991 against Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, described Mr MacAskill’s decision to go to Greenock Prison on August 5 as “absurd”.

Lord Fraser, who also led the public inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building cost scandal, said in a television interview that instead of going to see al-Megrahi, Mr MacAskill would have done better to have gone to the United States to explain his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.

He added: “The idea that he [Mr MacAskill] goes to Greenock Prison and he doesn’t get on a plane and go to Washington and explain his position to those who are really important ... just seems to me to be quite extraordinary ... I just think that was absurd.”

Lord Fraser, in the interview, made clear that he supported the decision to release al-Megrahi. His criticism was directed at the way the affair had been handled.

Mr MacAskill’s defence of his prison visit is that he was “duty bound” to go because of a commitment given by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Minister. Under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. “Mr Al-Megrahi chose to do so in person,” Mr MacAskill said.

Mr Straw has denied this, saying that he only recommended that a prisoner make representations in writing.

[The above is the text of an article in today's edition of The Times.

The description of Peter Fraser as "one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures" will be causing unbridled mirth in the Scottish legal profession. He may be a respected figure, but it certainly is not for his eminence as a lawyer.

The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.

Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.]

MacAskill under pressure over Megrahi appeal claim

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

Scotland's Justice Secretary is under pressure to explain claims he advised the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to drop his appeal against conviction to smooth the way for his compassionate release.

The allegation levelled against Kenny MacAskill – and denied by the Scottish Government – is contained in a new book, entitled Megrahi: You Are My Jury, in which Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi says he was "the innocent victim of dirty politics, a flawed investigation and judicial folly". It also makes claims about new evidence it says could have cleared the Libyan, but which the Crown Office failed to disclose to the defence.

Mr MacAskill is claimed to have made the offer to Megrahi through a Libyan official.

Scottish LibDem leader Willie Rennie called for Mr MacAskill and Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland to make a statement to Holyrood. He said: "Allegations of suppression of evidence and a Greenock Prison release deal between the Justice Secretary and Megrahi make it essential for a statement to be made to Parliament - it is important the Justice Secretary answers serious questions."

Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "This is a staggering claim and implies the Scottish Justice Minister was offering legal advice to help a convicted killer escape prison."

Scottish Labour's justice spokesman, Lewis Macdonald, said Mr MacAskill may have "knowingly misled Parliament".

The new book details previously unseen evidence not disclosed to the defence, including forensics reports that suggest the fragment of circuit board found in the Lockerbie debris did not match those sold to the Libyans – as per the prosecution case at trial.

The book claims that the metal content did not match – but reports referring to this were not shared with the defence until 2009.

Megrahi dropped his appeal shortly before Mr MacAskill said he would be released on "compassionate grounds" on August 20, 2009. The book states that Mr MacAskill met Libyan officials, including Foreign Minister Abdulati al Obeidi, 10 days earlier.

Megrahi claimed: "After the meeting, the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private.

"Once the others had withdrawn, he stated that MacAskill gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal.

"He said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me clear.

"I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so."

Mr MacAskill has categorically denied the claim. A Scottish Government spokesman branded the book, as "third-hand hearsay".

The spokesman added: "These claims are wrong – and officials were present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all times. The minutes of this meeting and indeed all other meetings, including with Mr Megrahi in Greenock Prison, were published by the Scottish Government and have been in the public domain since September 2009.

"We can say categorically that neither did the Scottish Government have any involvement of any kind in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal, or indeed any interest in it. That was entirely a matter for Mr Megrahi and his legal team."

The Crown Office said the decision was taken by Megrahi and his lawyers.

The book's author, John Ashton, who spent three years as a researcher with Megrahi's legal team, described the Crown's failure to disclose key information as a "scandal".

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial, said the book appeared to have "put the final nail in the coffin of the conviction."

Prime Minister David Cameron described the book as "an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered".

[In today's edition of the Daily Express there is another report on this issue.]

Minister visits Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

Scotland's justice secretary has visited the Lockerbie bomber amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.

Kenny MacAskill met Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi in Greenock Prison as he considers a transfer request from the Libyan government.

The minister has already heard the views of others, including relatives of some of the 270 victims of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Terminally-ill Megrahi has also asked to be freed on compassionate grounds.

The transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.

Under the agreement, the country holding a prisoner should give its answer within 90 days.

Decisions about prisoners are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, in effect giving Mr MacAskill the final say.

Mr MacAskill said last week he would miss the 90-day deadline, which expired on 3 August, because he was waiting for more information.

No transfer can take place if criminal proceedings are active, meaning Megrahi would have to drop his latest appeal against his conviction in order to be sent home.

He was ordered to remain in prison for a minimum of 27 years having been found guilty of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103.

Mr MacAskill has embarked upon a series of consultations with interested parties, including relatives of American victims with whom he held a video conference.

While unusual for a minister to discuss a prisoner's case with him while he remains in jail, Mr MacAskill is understood to believe the visit is important to allow him to consider all of the facts.

Megrahi's legal team have also made a separate request for him to released from prison on compassionate grounds as he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

An earlier request, made in October 2008, was rejected by Appeal Court judges after they heard medical evidence that with adequate palliative care, Megrahi could live for several years.

The court heard that such requests are normally only granted where a prisoner has less than three months to live.

[RB: Following criticism directed towards Mr MacAskill for visiting Megrahi, I commented on this blog as follows:]

The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.

Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.

[Abdelbaset Megrahi’s own account of this meeting (Megrahi: You are my Jury, page 354) reads as follows:]

… MacAskill visited me in Greenock Prison. It was a controversial decision which drew much criticism from the media and the relatives of the American victims. I reiterated what I’d said in my application and again emphasised my innocence. He was courteous throughout and gave the impression of being strong-minded yet gentle. Prior to the meeting I’d obtained a copy of his book Building a Nation, as I wanted to know more about his political views. He was no doubt surprised when I asked him to sign it, but he agreed to do so. I promised him jokingly that I would not run off and tell the media.

He’s dying: does it matter where?

[This is the headline over an article in The Sunday Herald by their distinguished columnist Ian Bell. It reads in part:]

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is dying in a Scottish jail because of his conviction for the mass murder of Pan Am Flight 103's 259 passengers in 1988 and for the deaths of 11 people in Lockerbie. Many - and I am one - do not believe he is guilty. For once, that is not the point. Why is it impossible for the dying prisoner to end his days confined in Libya, his homeland?

Because the worst mass murder "in British legal history" deserves no leeway? Because Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not to be trusted, even if Britain's government these days says otherwise? Or just because, under the tendentious terms of a "prisoner transfer agreement" between Libya and the United Kingdom, al-Megrahi must first drop his latest appeal? Which is to say that he must accept his guilt and the flawed (at best) process that led to his conviction, if he hopes to die at home? (...)

Chile's Augusto Pinochet was responsible for many thousands of murders: no serious doubt exists. But when England ceased to be his favourite shopping destination, and when a trial in Madrid seemed likely, Mrs Thatcher's chum was suddenly transformed into a poor, infirm, senile old man. Straw chose to believe it, officially, and to exercise compassion. Safely across the Atlantic, Pinochet hopped instantly from his wheelchair. Justice, if such is the yardstick, was denied.

What does the yardstick amount to, in any case? If British citizens are convicted abroad for crimes large or small the first priority, it seems, is repatriation. We find it cruel that foreign jurisdictions sometimes hesitate to release callow drug smugglers to the British penal system. There were those, indeed, who thought that even Gary Glitter deserved better than an Asian clink. But al-Megrahi? That's too much, apparently.

Perhaps it is. Some of the friends and relatives of those lost in the bombing of Clipper Maid Of The Seas, the Americans in particular, are horrified by the transfer agreement, far less by the notion the prisoner in HMP Greenock deserves consideration. If guilty, al-Megrahi exhibited not a shred of humanity in plotting mass murder. His rights, you might say, are forfeited. But the fact remains the principle of transfer has been agreed. The law, Scots law, seems only to demand its own reputation be protected in the process.

So al-Megrahi could die of prostate cancer in Greenock. Equally, the Scottish government could decide the absence of compassion amounts to cruelty, and that cruelty has no place in a justice system: a line of thinking that seems to have occurred to Jack Straw, who last week granted the "compassionate release" of terminally ill train robber Ronnie Biggs. Kenny MacAskill, our own justice minister, has visited the prisoner and seems inclined to interpret the rules flexibly. These say a terminally ill inmate should have no more than three months to live. And why should that guideline be sacrosanct, exactly?

I don't ask these questions simply because I doubt al-Megrahi's guilt. This has more to do with the point and the purpose of retribution generally. I could point out the Crown continues to be devious, suspiciously so, in its efforts to counter the Libyan's second appeal. I could also note that an entirely safe conviction does not have to be protected by attempts to limit the grounds for such an appeal, as we witnessed from the Crown in 2008.

But with the Scottish system demanding an effective admission of guilt in exchange for repatriation, and American relatives threatening to seek judicial review to block any exchange, ensuring al-Megrahi will die at Greenock, I fail to envy MacAskill's task. Even his prison visit was condemned by Labour and supportive lawyers. It was "shameful", supposedly, and likely to undermine the legal process. It was in fact perfectly proper, well within his rights and, arguably, his duty. In a Britain that proposes to extradite diagnosed Asperger's victims to satisfy US paranoia over computer hacking, with no hope of reciprocity, MacAskill is a small beacon of sanity. What difference does it make if al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli rather than Greenock? What need is served? And must I add that Western allies who conspire in extraordinary rendition and franchised torture do not hold much moral high ground?

Al-Megrahi is a pawn. He is a pawn for governments, a pawn for investigators and prosecutors, most of all, a pawn in the grief and unresolved anger of the bereaved. He could be repatriated, if he drops his appeal. He could, conceivably, continue his appeal, if he is released on compassionate grounds. So ask yourself this: when a dying man denies guilt for a crime that still beggars belief, why should any avenue ever be blocked?

Justice, idealised justice, is meant, above all, to reflect our moral worth as a society. By that measure alone the al-Megrahi case is, as lawyers like to say, unsatisfactory. Deeply unsatisfactory.

[There is an editorial on the subject in the same newspaper. The following are extracts:]

This weekend two old men, long resident in different British jails, are being treated very differently and for very different reasons. One of them, the great train robber Ronnie Biggs, was released from his 30-year prison sentence, though such is the gravity of his physical condition that the 80-year-old will probably live out the rest of his life in hospital. In making the decision, the justice secretary finally agreed that he had come to the conclusion that the risk posed by the old boy was "manageable", hence the decision to grant "compassionate release on medical grounds". (...)

Compare this to the treatment meted out to Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who is incarcerated in Greenock Prison for his role in the destruction of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in December 1988.

In the incident, 259 passengers lost their lives while 11 other innocents were killed on the ground. Almost from the start, the Lockerbie bombing was destined to be a cause celebre. Then as now, it came during a period of heightened tensions between the West and the Arab world and although it predated the so-called war against terrorism, the incident was still regarded as a challenge to Western values.

Twenty years later, it is still impossible to claim with absolute certainty - surely the cornerstone of any decent criminal justice system - that al-Megrahi was the only instigator of that dreadful crime. Others, too, must have been involved and it is even possible that he was an innocent caught up in a hall of mirrors and that he was left to take the rap. There are certainly those who think so and the opinion is given weight by the fact that these include a number of the families who lost loved ones on board Pan Am Flight 103. Of course, there are also those who believe that al-Megrahi is irredeemably guilty and they, too, include victims' families, proving that there is no freehold on grief and suffering.

Whatever else the Scottish prison system has done to al-Megrahi, he is no longer the man that he once was. Age has caught up with him and he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer. As with the case of Biggs, there are reasonable grounds for showing compassion and allowing him to be released from prison, although in his case this would not keep him in hospital, but allow him to return to his native Libya.

Two months ago the Libyan authorities made just such an application under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK and then followed it last week with a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.

So far the good sense shown in Biggs's case has been lacking in the dealings with al-Megrahi - a result no doubt of the outrage expressed by some of the victims' families - but last week there was a sudden outbreak of objective thinking. Justice minister Kenny MacAskill met al-Megrahi at Greenock - the first minister to do such a thing - and that visit will do much to concentrate his mind in the days ahead when the Libyan government's request is given due consideration.

It was right and proper that MacAskill took this step, not because of any doubts about al-Megrahi's sentence, but because justice should always go the extra mile to convince itself - and us - that the right thing is being done.

MacAskill’s statement to parliament – the key issues

[This is the heading over an item posted today by John Ashton on his website Megrahi: You are my Jury.  It reads as follows:]

The Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, will later today (29 February) make a statement to the Scottish Parliament. [RB: Mr MacAskill's statement is due very shortly after the commencement of today's session at 1430 GMT.]  The move is in response to – or, more accurately, in response to media reports and political statements relating to – the following passage of Megrahi: You are my Jury (which appears on p354):

On 10 August, MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister Al-Obedi, the Libyan Supreme Court Judge Azzam Eddeeb, and the London Chargé d’Affaires Omar Jelban. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day limit for considering the prisoner transfer application had passed and, although I had some vocal public supporters, MacAskill was coming under considerable pressure to reject both applications. After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obedi said that towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, he stated that MacAskill gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice.

It’s clear from this passage that Abdelbaset does NOT allege either that MacAskill said anything along those lines to him directly, or that MacAskill offered to grant compassionate release in return for Abdelbaset dropping his appeal.  It’s a common trick of politicians to deny allegations that have not been made. Let’s hope that MacAskill’s statement doesn’t.

MacAskill will also be facing questions from MSPs. There is only one question that he must answer: did he at any point indicate to Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant Abdelbaset’s compassionate release application if he dropped his appeal?

If the answer is a categorical no, then it is Obedi’s word against his and there, perhaps, the matter will rest. If it is anything less than a flat denial, then the question is unlikely to go away.

The Scottish Government has, of course, already made a statement about the matter.  Yesterday a spokesman claimed that the book is “third-hand hearsay” and stated:

These claims are wrong – and officials were present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all times. The minutes of this meeting and indeed all other meetings, including with Mr Megrahi in Greenock Prison, were published by the Scottish Government and have been in the public domain since September 2009.  We can say categorically that neither did the Scottish Government have any involvement of any kind in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal, or indeed any interest in it. That was entirely a matter for Mr Megrahi and his legal team.

MacAskill himself said: It was always a decision for Mr al-Megrahi whether he maintained or abandoned his appeal, the decision I made was not predicated in any case on that, but that was a matter for him and his legal team.

I’ll deal with these points in turn.

Third-hand hearsay. Abdelbaset is clear in this section of the book that the conversation was hearsay, albeit not third-hand.

These claims are wrong. It’s not clear exactly what claims the Government was responding to. It’s very unlikely that they had a copy of the book, so it’s probable that the spokesman was responding to a report – possibly an inaccurate one – of its contents. (A number of media reports claimed, wrongly, that the book alleges that a deal was done.)

 … officials were present at all meetings the Justice Secretary had on this matter at all times” If this is true, the question remains: did Mr MacAskill at any point, whether out of the earshot of others or not, say to Mr Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant Abdelbaset compassionate release if Abdelbaset dropped his appeal?

The minutes of this meeting and indeed all other meetings, including with Mr Megrahi in Greenock Prison, were published by the Scottish Government and have been in the public domain since September 2009. This is hardly relevant. If MacAskill asked to have a conversation in private, we might infer that he meant, inter alia, that it would not be minuted. It also raises the question, were the minutes contemporaneous?

We can say categorically that neither did the Scottish Government have any involvement of any kind in Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal, or indeed any interest in it.  This falls well short of a denial that the conversation reported by Obedi took place. It is disingenuous to claim that the Government had no interest in Abdelbaset’s decision. Had the appeal gone ahead, it would have cast the Scottish criminal justice, and the Crown Office in particular, in a very poor light.

That was entirely a matter for Mr Megrahi and his legal team. In fact it was entirely a matter for Abdelbaset. His legal team made clear to him that he was under no obligation to drop his appeal and did not advise him that it might help his application for compassionate release.

It was always a decision for Mr al-Megrahi whether he maintained or abandoned his appeal No one has claimed otherwise.

 … the decision I made was not predicated in any case on that, but that was a matter for him and his legal team. Abdelbaset quite clearly does not claim that MacAskill’s decision was predicated on whether or not he dropped the appeal.