Justice for Megrahi

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) is a single issue justice campaign group comprising the committee and the signatories. It maintains that on the basis of the evidence laid by the Crown before the three judges of the High Court of Justiciary at Kamp van Zeist (Netherlands), the 2001 conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie (Scotland) was a miscarriage of justice. Although the central plank of JFM’s position is concerned with the contention that no reasonable court could have convicted on the basis of the evidence as presented to the court, it also acknowledges other factors beyond this relating to, amongst other things, the fact that whilst the Crown was aware of evidence of value to the defence case before the trial, this evidence did not become public knowledge until after the verdict had been passed. JFM exists to address issues surrounding the investigation of the destruction of the aircraft and the subsequent trial of Mr al-Megrahi and Mr Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. Its main objective is to campaign to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed.

History

Justice for Megrahi was founded in November 2008 following the judicial hearing which set out the arrangements for Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal. The appeal had been referred back to the Court of Appeal on a total of six grounds (largely concerned with the quality of evidence provided by the Crown’s star witness at Kamp van Zeist, Maltese shopkeeper Mr Tony Gauci) by Scotland’s expert and independent legal authority, which has responsibility for referring cases to the Court of Appeal: the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The initial aim of JFM was to campaign, by means of a public petition to be submitted to Scottish Government ministers, for the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi in light of his terminal medical condition. In September 2009, following the prisoner’s release, JFM began its campaign to have the 2001 verdict overturned via a comprehensive independent inquiry, or other judicial means, into the Lockerbie case. JFM contends that the reputation of Scotland’s justice system has suffered a severe blow because of the Zeist verdict and that only through testing the validity of the verdict can this reputation be redeemed.

Structure

Justice for Megrahi comprises the committee, made up of its founding members, and the signatories who endorse the JFM campaign. The current (August 2010) committee members:

Professor Robert Black QC

Mr Robert Forrester

Father Pat Keegans

Mr Iain McKie

Doctor Jim Swire

The original signatories:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News)

Mr John Ashton (Co-author of: "Cover-up of Convenience")

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play "Lockerbie: Unfinished Business")

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103)

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher)

Prof Robert Black QC ("Architect" of the Kamp van Zeist Trial)

Prof Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator)

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005)

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of: "Cover Up of Convenience")

Mr Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi Committee)

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament)

Mr Patrick Haseldine (HM Diplomatic Service - retired)

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of Private Eye)

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988)

Ms A L Kennedy (Author)

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar)

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of The Lockerbie Divide)

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Police Superintendent)

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for Private Eye)

Rev John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103)

Mr Charles Norrie (Brother of Tony Norrie: victim of UT 772)

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert)

Mr [[John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist)

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of The Firm)

Mr James Robertson (Author)

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103)

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland)

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Text of Petition PE1370

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.

Name of Petitioner

Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of Justice for Megrahi.

Prior Action

In support of Justice for Megrahi’s (JFM’s) call for a full and open public inquiry, the group has lobbied the following bodies and individuals:

• the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation
• all missions with a seat at the General Assembly of the UN
• the African Union
• the League of Arab States
• the Non-Aligned Movement
• the President of Egypt
• the governments of Libya, Malta, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, United States of America and Scotland

With the exception of the Maltese and Scottish governments, none of the above has responded to our advances.

In September 2010, JFM made representations to the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MSP, in the hope that the Scottish Government would establish an inquiry into the affair under its auspices citing the following reasons:

• the event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
• the case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
• the trial was conducted under Scots Law.
• Mr al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
• Mr al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
• the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
• Mr al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

In declining JFM's submission, a Scottish Government spokesman stated the following as justification for the decision not to endorse the campaign's request that Edinburgh set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case:

"The Scottish Government do not doubt the safety of the conviction of al-Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature."

JFM continues to maintain that more than adequate evidence required to establish whether there was a miscarriage of justice at Kamp van Zeist falls well within the jurisdiction of Scotland. Amongst other things, JFM points to all documents and testimony pertaining to the investigation, the trial and the referral of Mr al-Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal, on no fewer than six grounds, bt the SCCRC. Moreover, JFM asserts that in accordance with "current UK legislation as expressed by the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), which indicates, in sections 1, 27 and 32, that the Scottish Government possesses more than agequate powers to open an inquiry into the Lockerbie case under its own auspices." (see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/contents)

For the above reasons, JFM now wishes to petition the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support its call for an inquiry through an e-petition to allow the general public at home and abroad to become signatories to that petition.

Background Information

We invite the Scottish Parliament to request the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into all those matters pertaining to the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 as lie within the jurisdiction of Scotland, and those pertaining to the Scottish criminal conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist in January 2001 for the following reasons:

• the event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
• the case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
• the trial was conducted under Scots Law.
• the Zeist trial site itself was designated 'Scottish territory' throughout the trial and first appeal, patrolled and protected by armed Scottish police.
• Mr al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
• Mr al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
• the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Scottish Criminal Appeal Court on the basis that, on six grounds, the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice and there is widespread public concern about the safety of the conviction.
• Mr al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Such an inquiry should be open, transparent, comprehensive, conducted under the auspices of the Scottish Government and take cognisance of the powers invested in the government under current UK legislation as expressed by the Inquiries Act 2005 and, furthermore, ought to cover:

• the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103
• the police investigation of the tragedy
• the subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial
• the acqittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi
• the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal
• the dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi

We contend that the Scottish criminal justice system has suffered a severe blow to its reputation because of a number of factors resultant from what has come to be known generally as the 'Lockerbie case'. Given that Mr al-Megrahi's second appeal has been dropped, it appears unlikely that the concerns voiced by the SCCRC when referring Mr al-Megrahi's conviction back to the Court of Appeal will now be heard in a court of law. It is, therefore, imperative that an inquiry be established in order to restore public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system both at home and abroad. Whilst we accept the Scottish Government's position that some of the international facets to the case are problematic, in that they may not fall under Scottish jurisdiction, we entirely reject this as being the reason to refuse to open an inquiry. If sufficient evidence was available under Scottish jurisdiction for the SCCRC to conclude that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, it follows that the same sources would be available to an inquiry to arrive at the same conclusion. It is the duty of the Scottish Government to try its utmost to establish the truth of this highly contentious issue.

The petitioner and the JFM committee believe that the Scottish Government did not take all the facts into account when refusing their request to open an independent inquiry into all matters surrounding the Lockerbie tragedy. It is petitioning the Scottish Parliament to support the contention that even although that inquiry might not receive the co-operation of the UK and other governments, and therefore might be limited in scope, the government of Scotland has a duty to the people of Scotland and its justice system to do everything in its power to uncover the truth behind this unspeakable crime which has so damaged the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system at home and abroad. JFM feels that it is vitally important that the people of Scotland and beyond are given the opportunity, by becoming signatories to this petition, to demonstrate to the Scottish Government that establishing the truth about Lockerbie is essential to re-establishing confidence in Scotland's institutions of justice.

Online

Petition PE1370 went online at the Scottish Government's website on 8 October 2010 and should have been available to sign for twenty days until 28 October 2010. However, the website crashed on 21 October 2010. Nonetheless, the JFM e-petition was signed by 1,646 people by its closure date.

"Shame" says Dr Jim Swire

My first and personal reaction to the Scottish Government's (SG's) reply to the Holyrood Petitions Committee's presentation of JFM's petition to the SG is to feel shame.

Shame that we in Scotland should have been reduced to listening to reasoning which seems not to have any merit other than a blatant desire by deep and powerful groups within our body politic to try to protect themselves against exposure of the monstrous mistakes which seem to have been made in the past, chiefly surrounding the Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

The SG claims to have total faith in the verdict reached at Zeist despite our own SCCRC having no such confidence.

They seek to lay responsibility for the present impasse upon the shoulders of the man who they proclaim unquestioningly to believe to be the most brutal mass murderer ever to inflict his deeds upon our nation.

They even seek to blame the absence of successful appeals thus far, not upon the quality of the evidence and proceedings, but upon the decisions which the alleged mass murderer himself made, namely the decision not to speak for himself in court at Zeist, and later, in the face of a lingering and painful death (as well as subsequent representations by his own dictatorial government and a visit by the SG's own Justice Minister), to withdraw his second appeal.

How could a defendant from an alien culture be expected to ignore the advice of his own expert defence team of the day at Zeist, steeped as they supposedly were in the antecedents of Scottish law, and working as they must be presumed to have been for his advantage? The performance of his then defence team, and thus the advice not to speak in court, must itself be part of any inquiry into how this man came to be convicted, and the verdict reached, on such evidence.

As for the decision to withdraw his second appeal, this was reached following disgraceful and deliberate delaying tactics in the High Court by the Crown Office team, which knew that the appellant's time was running out in the face of an inexorable, painful and terminal medical condition. The Crown Office conduct of the second appeal, far from being a secure tool in justification of the validity of the original verdict is another aspect of the despicable way in which our nation has treated this man's case: it too should be added to any full inquiry into the verdict and its consequences.

Despicable!

The SG's Justice Secretary had responsibility for the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The SG cannot for one moment argue against the desperate situation he and they knew him to be in.

And what have they done to bolster this whole dishonest process? They have sought to isolate the material used by the SCCRC when evaluating the safety of the verdict, by introducing secondary legislation in February 2010, clearly designed to keep that material out of the reach of all who would challenge the propriety of their own position.

Through the SCCRC, the legal arm of government has told the political arm of Government and the rest of us as clearly as its constitution allows, that this verdict is considered unsafe. The SG knows that, yet in its desperation to conceal what looks like the failure of many of the servants of this State, the best it can do is to claim that the actions taken by a frightened and dying human being from a different culture justify it's own actions.

The SG has also now admitted that its original claim that it lacked the powers to mount an inquiry (such as that requested through petition by JFM), was untrue. Multiple 'reasons' seeking to justify avoiding taking an action inevitably become just excuses. When some of those 'reasons' turn out to have been untrue, any claim to integrity is also lost.

Whence then stems the SG's belief that the verdict is safe? Does it stem from Westminster? Or from Washington? It simply cannot stem from our own legal system. So much for Scotland's integrity and independence.

Oh! Shame.

If ever there could be further reason to seek review of this case, it lies within this SG document. Any attempt to ascribe motivation for such behaviour points down the very same road as the McKie case and a number of others: the objective of Scotland's Government and some of those who work for it seems to have become to conceal the depths of failure into which we the electorate have, thus far, allowed them to sink.