Pan Am 103 relative questions MacAskill's evidence to MSPs

[This is the headline over an exclusive report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Matt Berkley, whose brother died on Pan Am 103 in 1988 has questioned the accuracy of evidence Kenny MacAskill gave to MSPs in Parliament and to the Justice Committee.

Berkley says evidence about the prison visit and the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement question the propriety of Mr MacAskill's choice to delay the transfer decision until Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

He also asks how the Lord Advocate failed to give correct legal advice.

"Contrary to Mr MacAskill's statements, there appears to be no evidence supporting a claim by Mr MacAskill to two parliamentary inquiries that Jack Straw committed Mr MacAskill to taking representations from this prisoner on transfer,” Berkely told The Firm.

“A question arises as to whether Mr MacAskill followed due process in what he described as a 'quasi-judicial' decision. The problem may bolster concerns that Mr MacAskill was negligent in failing to deal with the decision promptly. He might reasonably have been expected to take care to avoid tempting a prisoner to abandon his appeal, especially when the prisoner was in such obviously political circumstances."

MacAskill told the Justice Committee on 1 December 2009 that: "Jack Straw made it clear that, because this was the first situation in which a Government made an application, the prisoner should be given the opportunity to make representations."

Those statements, says Mr Berkley, appears to have no support, and that Mr Straw did not make those claims.

"What Mr Straw committed the UK to does not appear to be what Mr MacAskill followed,” Berkley said.

“Mr MacAskill made an invitation to the prisoner without advising him of an intention to transfer. Mr MacAskill never reached the stage of having any such intention, let alone telling the prisoner. More importantly, perhaps, the context of Mr Straw's commitment appears to be about something else: human rights of prisoners about to be transferred against their will, not those who had already said they wanted to go.

"Mr MacAskill repeated similar claims to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee and Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee."

Mr MacAskill has been asked to repond to Berkley's claims.

[I do not know what, if any, advice about procedure Jack Straw gave to Kenny MacAskill. But it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that if, in reaching his decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill proposed to hear representations from Lockerbie relatives, natural justice required him also to hear representations from Abdelbaset Megrahi. And if the relatives were to be allowed to make representations in person and not merely in writing, Megrahi would need to be accorded the same opportunity. Any other approach would have made a decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to refuse either prisoner transfer or compassionate release gravely vulnerable to judicial review. Nothing said or not said by Jack Straw affects this crucial point.

It is, of course, true that there was absolutely no legal reason why Kenny MacAskill should have decided to deal with the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer concurrently with Megrahi's application for compassionate release. This was a grave blunder and the unnecessary linkage gave rise to the problems over abandonment of the appeal and what MacAskill said about abandonment (or was understood by Megrahi to have conveyed) during their meeting in HM Prison Greenock.]

'I don't want £6m, I want the truth'

[This is part of the headline over a report published in The Guardian on this date in 2003. It reads as follows:]

The brother of a victim of the Lockerbie disaster has vowed to reject a multi-million pound compensation deal from Libya because he does not believe it has been proved guilty of the attack.

Law lecturer Alistair Berkley was a 29-year-old passenger on the New York-bound Boeing 747 which was blown up over the Scottish town on 21 December 1988, killing all 259 on board plus 11 on the ground.

A £1.7 billion compensation agreement was revealed on Friday as part of a package which also included a letter from the Libyan government to the United Nations which has been widely interpreted as an admission of guilt.

The deal amounts to a possible £6.3 million for each of the 270 victims' families, to be paid in stages. About £2.5m will go to each family when the UN lifts sanctions - which could happen as early as next week.

But Matt Berkley, from Hexham, Northumberland, is refusing his share because he does not believe the whole story has been told. He said there was no 'credible evidence' Libya was to blame.

Like many other relatives of those who died, he maintains that the truth about Pan Am Flight 103 is still shrouded in mystery and called on the Government to hold a full public inquiry. There is a strong suspicion among British relatives that the deal was brokered to allow Libya back into the international community and open its markets to Western companies. Colonel Muammar Gadaffi's government has stipulated that the rest of the compensation will be paid when the US lifts its own sanctions and Libya is taken off its list of terror states.

However, Berkley fears that acceptance of the idea that Libya carried out the attack could stifle attempts to launch further investigations into the tragedy which might turn up evidence pointing to the real culprits.

'I went through a process of trying to work out what to do, and it became clear that I would feel bad if I took the money and good if I refused it,' he said. 'I haven't seen what I would consider credible evidence that Libya did it or that any admission by the Libyans would be truthful, rather than simply the result of them being put under enormous pressure by the international community.

'If I sign up, there is a long list of organisations and people that I can't subsequently sue. I don't want to give up my right to sue.'

Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is serving a life sentence in a unit - known as the Gadaffi Cafe - within Glasgow's Barlinnie prison. In January 2001 at a purpose-built Scottish court in the Netherlands he was found guilty of planting the bomb, but his co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, was acquitted.

Megrahi's conviction depended on an identification by a Maltese shopkeeper who said he sold the Libyan items of clothing that were found scattered near the bomb site. Megrahi's legal team is trying to have the verdict quashed and a file is expected to be submitted by Glasgow-based lawyer Eddie MacKechnie to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission within days.

The letter from the Libyan government to the UN states: 'Libya has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103 and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.'

Long-term Lockerbie campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, died, said: 'The agreement still leaves open the question of the truth behind Lockerbie.'

Lockerbie relative's doubts over Megrahi release

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

Fears have been raised that Kenny MacAskill unduly influenced the course of criminal proceedings by delaying key decisions over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

As Mr MacAskill faces MSPs today to answer questions about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Lockerbie relative said it was "unclear" whether the justice secretary acted responsibly.

In a submission to Holyrood's justice committee, Matt Berkley, who lost his brother in the bombing, highlighted delays he says put pressure on the bomber to drop his appeal.

These include a 43-day wait to contact the relatives after the transfer application was made and a three-week wait to respond to Megrahi's acceptance of Mr MacAskill's invitation for a meeting.

Mr Berkley also said it was not clear the Scottish Government had "provided accurate, fair and balanced information to the prisoner". He said Mr MacAskill appeared not to have told Megrahi the range of options he had in relation to the dropping of his appeal.

"Did the justice secretary take adequate care, through promptness of action and appropriate information to the appellant, to avoid influencing the court process?" asked Mr Berkley in his submission.

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Megrahi and his legal team chose to abandon their appeal … their decision bore no relation to the release."

Lockerbie relative's doubts over Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

Fears have been raised that Kenny MacAskill unduly influenced the course of criminal proceedings by delaying key decisions over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

As Mr MacAskill faces MSPs today to answer questions about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Lockerbie relative said it was "unclear" whether the justice secretary acted responsibly.

In a submission to Holyrood's justice committee, Matt Berkley, who lost his brother in the bombing, highlighted delays he says put pressure on the bomber to drop his appeal.

These include a 43-day wait to contact the relatives after the transfer application was made and a three-week wait to respond to Megrahi's acceptance of Mr MacAskill's invitation for a meeting.

Mr Berkley also said it was not clear the Scottish Government had "provided accurate, fair and balanced information to the prisoner". He said Mr MacAskill appeared not to have told Megrahi the range of options he had in relation to the dropping of his appeal.

"Did the justice secretary take adequate care, through promptness of action and appropriate information to the appellant, to avoid influencing the court process?" asked Mr Berkley in his submission.

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Megrahi and his legal team chose to abandon their appeal … their decision bore no relation to the release."

[This comment is somewhat disingenuous. Mr Megrahi and his legal team did not know whether repatriation would be granted (if at all) under prisoner transfer or compassionate release. To keep the first possibility open, the appeal had to be abandoned. How, therefore, can it seriously be said that their decision bore no relation to the release?]

Past sell-by date for Lockerbie justice?

[What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2011:]

No sell-by date on justice, promises Lord Advocate

This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. For a brief instant, it crossed my mind that the promise might have some relevance to the Lockerbie case, the miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi and the ongoing quest for truth and justice pursued by relatives of Lockerbie victims, such as Jim Swire, John Mosey, Matt Berkley and Marina Larracoechea. But no. The Lord Advocate's pledge is confined to "cold cases" where there has been no conviction.

In his press statement Frank Mulholland QC says:

“Justice will pursue down the years those who have so far evaded detection for their crimes. The passage of time should be no protection. No-one should escape the consequences of their criminality and the grief this brings to victims and their families.”

Would that that were true in the Lockerbie case.

[RB: And five years later, we are still waiting for justice. Perhaps the appointment of a new Lord Advocate will hasten its achievement.]

MacAskill blanks Pan Am 103 relative, but spin doctors come out swinging

This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, giving the response of the Scottish Government to yesterday's article in the magazine about Matt Berkley's concerns regarding Kenny MacAskill's evidence to Scottish and UK parliamentary committees about the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi.

There is an interesting post by David Macadam headed Lockerbie: Justice, Oil, Compassion? on The Oligarch Kings blog.

No sell-by date on justice, promises Lord Advocate

This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. For a brief instant, it crossed my mind that the promise might have some relevance to the Lockerbie case, the miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi and the ongoing quest for truth and justice pursued by relatives of Lockerbie victims, such as Jim Swire, John Mosey, Matt Berkley and Marina Larracoechea. But no. The Lord Advocate's pledge is confined to "cold cases" where there has been no conviction.

In his press statement Frank Mulholland QC says:

“Justice will pursue down the years those who have so far evaded detection for their crimes. The passage of time should be no protection. No-one should escape the consequences of their criminality and the grief this brings to victims and their families.”

Would that that were true in the Lockerbie case.

Europe "lost" Lockerbie observer's trial reports

[This is the headline over a news report on the website on the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The European Commission says all reports from their observer at the Lockerbie trial from August 2000 until the conviction in January 2001 cannot be traced.

The Secretary General of the UN sent Henk Beerenboom from the European Commission, together with representatives from the League of Arab States and the International Progress Organisation to observe the unique proceedings.

Marc Jorna, of the Directorate-General for Communication, wrote: “Unfortunately we have not been able to trace all of Mr Beereboom’s reports.”

Matt Berkley, who made the inquiry said: “I would have thought that a step in tracing the reports would be to ask the recipients. If this was done, then did staff in all the offices throw all the copies away? ”

“If so, was that in accordance with general EC policy on monitoring of justice, or with the original intentions in deciding to send an observer to this trial?” he asked.

“Of the four organisations which sent observers nominated by the Secretary-General of the UN, three have made adverse comments and the EC, for whatever reason, has been silent. It is not clear that any of the seven observers for the trial and first appeal are of the opinion that the trial was fair.”

Victims' families: worst possible outcome

[This is part of the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

Relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster said today they feared vital evidence that could shed more light on the attack would remain hidden after the courts in Scotland granted the bomber's request to drop his appeal.

The families of some of the people who were killed in the attack had hoped the hearings, granted by the Scottish authorities after a three-year investigation, would uncover new details about the bombing that killed 270 people.

"This is the worst possible decision for the relatives," said Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed on board Pan Am flight 103, which exploded as it flew over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. "There now seems little chance of this evidence being heard and scrutinised in public."

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murder for his part in the bombing, and who now has terminal prostate cancer, has hinted strongly that he was secretly offered a deal to secure his quick, early, release from prison.

Appeal judges in Edinburgh were told yesterday that the 57-year-old was convinced that abandoning his long-running appeal against his conviction would "assist in the early determination" of the application to be sent back to Libya.

Maggie Scott QC, the head of Megrahi's legal team, increased suspicion of an unofficial deal by saying her client, who is now very weak, in severe pain and distressed, believed he would get home quickly only if he gave up the appeal.

She hinted that Megrahi believed that keeping the appeal "alive" meant the Scottish government would either block or delay his applications for compassionate release, including a separate prisoner transfer bid to be sent home to continue his sentence in a Libyan jail.

"His absolute priority in the little time he has left is to spend it with his family in his homeland," she told the court. "It's the appellant's belief that instructions to abandon his appeal will assist in the early determination of these applications."

Alex Salmond, the first minister, denied the claims, saying his government had "no interest whatsoever" in Megrahi abandoning his appeal, adding that the decision would be made by the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, only on "the evidence received and the advice received".

He added: "There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else, it will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."

Scotland's government has come under increasing pressure not to release Megrahi in recent days. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has phoned MacAskill urging him not to release the Libyan, and yeserday it emerged that seven US senators – including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry – had written to the justice secretary outlining their concerns. But expectations were growing last night that MacAskill was likely to free Megrahi, on compassionate grounds within days, after telling colleagues he was "very close" to a decision. It appeared that MacAskill had already ruled out using the prisoner transfer treaty after it emerged that he had made no attempt to clear away one significant obstacle to Megrahi's transfer.

The lord advocate, Elish Angiolini, is pursuing a separate appeal to get Megrahi's 27-year minimum sentence increased, but under the treaty no transfer can take place if criminal proceedings, including any appeals, are live. However, the next court hearing for Angiolini's appeal will take place on 8 September – at least a week after MacAskill's self-imposed deadline for a decision.

Legal sources said Angiolini had repeatedly told the Scottish government she would make a much quicker decision on dropping her appeal if MacAskill asked, but this request had never been made.

Megrahi was convicted of mass murder in 2001 for the 1988 bombing over Lockerbie, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 people in the Scottish town.

After protracted international pressure he was put on trial with his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, under Scots law, at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. Megrahi was found guilty and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years. Fhimah was found not guilty and freed.

Relatives of the victims said that though dropping the appeal meant many questions would go unanswered they would not give up their campaign to uncover the truth.

The Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter, Helga, called the decision "incredibly frustrating" but not unexpected. "The relatives of those who died have been denied access to the evidence that was uncovered by a three-year investigation by the Scottish criminal cases review commission. Unfortunately it is what we expected from the beginning because the authorities – in Scotland, London and Washington – do not want any more information on this coming out."

Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair died in the bombing, agreed the decision was a blow but said the focus would now shift to getting a full independent inquiry. "The families are used to setbacks so we will continue the campaign, but this is difficult because people set lots of store by the appeal and now we are not going to hear the evidence that persuaded the [commission] to grant the hearing in the first place." Alistair's brother, Matt, said: "Many people with a deep understanding of this case have serious concerns about it which are unlikely to go away."