THE RECUSED: Scotland’s £30.6m a year judges refuse to declare financial links in first year of recusal register as new details reveal former Lord Advocate who prosecuted Lockerbie case steps down in court hearing

Questions of judicial integrity as former top prosecutor steps aside in case THE FORMER Lord Advocate who prosecuted two Libyans for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 now features among a list of judges who have been required to step aside (recuse) in cases where conflicts of interest have come to light.

Lord Colin Boyd – who was Scotland’s top law officer from February 2000 to October 2006 and is now a Court of Session judge – recused – or- stood down from a civil case earlier this month due to the fact one of the respondents involved was convicted of offences while Lord Boyd was Lord Advocate.

The term “recusal” relates to where a judge can or should be disqualified from participation in the decision in a case, for reasons such as a conflict of interest such as a link to any party involved in a court hearing, or a financial or personal interest in the outcome of a court case.

The details – minus any actual reference to the case itself - came to light in recent additions to the ‘recusal register’ – now required to be published by the Scottish judiciary after undertakings were given by outgoing top judge Lord Gill to msps who are investigating calls for a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

The proposals under investigation by the Scottish Parliament call for the creation of a single independently regulated register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

However - despite the fact Scotland’s judges take home a whopping £30.6 million pounds a year in judicial salaries and other perks - not one judge has revealed or declared a financial related conflict of interest.

The lack of financial related recusals has raised questions as to whether judges are telling the truth in court after details have emerged over the past two years of staggering wealth, secretive links to big business, judicial participation in offshore tax avoidance schemes and property empires – all leading back to the judiciary.

Among those in the judiciary snared on the year old list of recusals  - outgoing Lord President Lord Brian Gill was forced to step aside in a case after his own son – Brian Gill junior appeared in the Court of Session representing one side in a civil case.

An example of where a failure by a judge to recuse himself from a miscarriage of justice appeal reported Mr William Beck - who was convicted of an armed robbery in 1982 and has been fighting a long battle to clear his name since, had his appeal against conviction thrown out by Lord Osborne.

Lord Osborne failed to declare in court he prosecuted him in the original cases all those years ago while working for the Crown Office.

A letter containing evidence provided by Mr William Beck to the Scottish Parliament reveals how one judge, Lord Johnston, failed to declare any interest or recuse himself from an appeal by Mr Beck against a wrongful conviction & sentence handed down by Lord Dunpark - who was Lord Johnston’s father.

Mr Beck’s submission to MSPs also revealed, Lord Osborne, who sat with two other judges and rejected another appeal by Mr Beck against his wrongful conviction, failed to disclose that he was the prosecutor in the original trial of Mr Beck.

When asked by the Sunday Mail newspaper why he did not recuse himself at the time, Lord Osborne claimed he forgot.

No action has been taken against Lord Osborne over his failure to recuse in the Beck case, and a number of other cases in Scotland’s courts are now coming under suspicion of being ruled upon by judges with vested interests in the outcomes of cases.

And, earlier this year, a sheriff was suspended by Scotland's top judge after the Scottish Sun newspaper reported details of a multi million pound writ against Glasgow law firm Levy & Mcrae in connection with the collapse of a £400 million hedge fund.

However, it emerged the suspension of Sheriff Peter Black Watson – formerly of Glasgow based law firm Levy and McRae - only came about after journalists from the Sun newspaper contacted the Lord President Lord Gill’s office and queried him about the writ – which Gill had allegedly not heard of until the media drew it to his attention.

A few days later, Lord Gill suspended Sheriff Peter Watson after concluding Watson’s offer to voluntarily step aside was “not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary”.

The full statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland on Watson’s suspension announced:

Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.

The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings.

Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February.

On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter.  Having been shown the summons, the Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”

The Scottish Sun previously reported on a dossier handed to prosecutors which focussed on Glasgow-based Mathon Ltd – which Watson was a director of - from 2007 to 2011.

Mathon was linked to the failed £400m Heather Capital hedge fund run by Gregory King.

The collapsed hedge fund Heather Capital – run by lawyer Gregory King is now the subject of a Police Scotland investigation and reports to the Crown Office. Gregory King is named along with three others – lawyer Andrew Sobolewski, accountant Andrew Millar and property expert Scott Carmichael in a police report.

The Gibraltar-based investment scheme was launched in 2004 and some of the cash was loaned by Mathon to bankroll developments across Scotland. But many of the Mathon-funded plans did not happen — and some of the cash was never repaid.

A judge in the Isle of Man has said it is likely that "fraudulent conduct exists”.

Proposals currently under investigation by the Scottish Parliament call for the creation of a single independently regulated register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

The current list of recusals published by the Judiciary of Scotland website : Judicial-Recusals - Judiciary of Scotland

24.3.2014   Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Edington:

Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the process. The Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.

8.4.2014   Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Veal:

Sheriff personally known to a witness

10.4.2014  Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Paterson:

Sheriff had previously acted for a client in dispute against Pursuer

23.4.2014  High Court (Criminal)  Lady Wise:

Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused

16.4.2014  Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Cathcart:

Sheriff personally known to a witness

13.5.2014  Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil)  Sheriff Braid:

Known to pursuer's family

14.5.2014  High Court (Criminal Appeal)  Judge MacIver:

Conflict of Interest

20.5.2014   Court of Session (Civil)  Lord Matthews:

Senator personally known to a witness

19.6.2014   Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff McPartlin:

Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the new case relates was spoken to by a witness

20.6.2014     Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Raeburn QC:

Accused appeared before Sheriff as a witness in recent trial relating to same incident

24.6.2014  Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Crozier:

Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge

26.6.2014   Court of Session (Civil)  Lord President:

Relative of Senator acts for the respondent

27.8.2014   Court of Session (Civil)  Lord Brailsford:

Senator personally known to husband of the pursuer

28.8.2014  Oban Sheriff Court (Civil & Criminal)  Sheriff Small:

Sheriff personally known to a party

22.10.2014  Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Cowan:

Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.

8.12.2014  Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil)  Sheriff Mackie:

Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.

16.12.2014  Court of Session (Civil)  Lady Clark of Calton:

Senator personally known to parties of the action.

22.01.2015  Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Extradition)  Sheriff MacIver:

Sheriff involved in case at earlier stage of procedure

30.01.2015  Dumfries Sheriff Court (Civil)  Sheriff Jamieson:

Sheriff had previously dealt with the issue under dispute

06.02.2015  Greenock Sheriff Court (Civil)  Sheriff Fleming:

Previous professional relationship between Sheriff's former firm of solicitors and the defender

09.02.2015  Glasgow High Court (Criminal) Lady Scott:

Due to a previous ruling made by the Senator in relation to a separate indictment against the accused

10.02.2015  Court of Session (Civil)  Lord Jones:

Due to a previous finding by the Senator in relation to an expert witness whose evidence is crucial to the pursuer's case

13.03.2015  Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Cowan:

Accused known by the Sheriff as a regular observer of court proceedings from the public gallery

17.03.2015  Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal)  Sheriff Di Emidio:

Sheriff personally known to a witness

18.03.2015    Lerwick Sheriff Court (Criminal)   Sheriff Mann:

Circumstances may give rise to a suggestion of bias

16.04.2015   Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)   Sheriff Arthurson QC:

Personally known to a party of the action

12.05.2015   Court of Session (Civil)   Lord Boyd of Duncansby:

Senator was Lord Advocate when a successful prosecution was brought against one of the respondents

4.05.2015   Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)   Sheriff McColl:

Sheriff personally known to a party of the action

‘Fear of the front page’ provokes Crown Office condemnation over media’s publication of SCCRC Lockerbie miscarriage of justice report

Crown Office hit out at media publication of report alleging miscarriage of justice in Lockerbie trial. AS surely as night follows day, Scotland’s institutionally inept and always-willing-to-hide-a-judge’s-criminal-record Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have hit back today at the Sunday Herald’s publication (yesterday) of the Statement of Reasons issued by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in connection with the case of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, in which the SCCRC appear to have sided with the vast majority of legal and non legal minds over the conclusion Mr Al Megrahi may well have been unjustly convicted by an unjust Scottish pantomime court based in the Netherlands.

Within the Crown Office statement, issued earlier today, it was stated “It is not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone.”

Shooting the messenger is a favourite tactic of the Crown Office, particularly when any resulting publicity portrays Scotland’s prosecution service as anything less than perfect.

Therefore, news reports of the Crown Office being institutionally racist, instructionally corrupt, institutionally vindictive, or just plain paying themselves tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses, or covering up millions of pounds of legal aid theft by solicitors and seeing to it no one is prosecuted, and of course, more recently, concealing the criminal records of members of the judiciary, some of whom seem to have been giving the Lord Advocate’s PF’s their desired verdicts in trials, are not welcome in Chambers Street, and certainly not welcome in four feet high headlines in the press.

Clearly in the case of the Lockerbie Trial, the media, and campaigners are more interested & motivated at getting to the truth of what happened over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 than the Crown Office, or indeed the same discredited justice system which originally convicted Abdelbaset Al Megrahi in 2001, and which, we are now told by the Crown Office, should be relied upon once more to determine guilt or innocence.

Of course, it is a given that any appeal in connection with Mr Megrahi’s conviction must be decided by a Scottish court. However, as we have seen time & time again in Scottish courts, a very prejudicial venue where the Crown Office & their Procurators Fiscals seem to have the run of the playground, the question Scots may now wish to ask themselves is, can any of our judges now be trusted to come clean over the growing feeling their colleagues brought about a serious miscarriage of justice in the original Lockerbie Trial, and went on to cause many more miscarriages of justice to cover it up ?

The Crown Office Press Release attacking Scotland’s Sunday Herald :

LOCKERBIE STATEMENT OF REASONS

The Crown notes the publication today by the Sunday Herald of the Statement of Reasons of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the case against Megrahi.

The Commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights [articles 2 and 8] and issues of confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law.

We have become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the Statement of Reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.

Persons referred to in the Statement of Reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the Commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored. In fact the Commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.

Other matters of significance are:

1. The SCCRC found nothing to undermine the trial court’s conclusions about the timer fragment, namely that it was part of a timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence services.

2. The SCCRC report confirms that Tony Gauci was paid a reward by US authorities only after the first appeal.

3. No inducements or promises of reward were made by US and Scottish Law enforcement prior to his evidence being given.

4. At no stage was he offered any inducement or reward by Scottish authorities who acted with complete propriety throughout the case

5. The SCCRC recognised that Tony Gauci was not motivated by money and that he had allegedly been made an offer to go to Tripoli and be rewarded “by Libyan Government officials”

With regard to the differing accounts by Megrahi the Commission noted that:

i. There were inconsistencies and differences in account between his statements to an investigative journalist, his defence team and the SCCRC in matters of significance.

ii. He had “personal relationships” with various members of the Libyan intelligence services, including Senussi and accepted that he had been seconded to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) and that Said Rashid was his superior in the JSO.

iii. Senussi was involved in his secondment to Libyan intelligence services (JSO).

iv. He had travelled with a Colonel in the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) on a false passport in 1987

v. Megrahi gave the Commission conflicting accounts of his connection to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO)

vi. Megrahi confirmed he had knowledge of a man in Spain who was assassinated because he was allegedly an American spy

vii. Megrahi has given a number of different explanations to his lawyers and the Commission about his presence in Malta and use of a false passport on 21 December 1988

viii. The SCCRC believed “there was a real risk that the trial court would have viewed his explanations … as weak or unconvincing” “In particular, the Commission notes the unsatisfactory nature of aspects of their (Megrahi and Fhimah) explanations and the various contradictions which are apparent both within and between their accounts.

Although it is possible there are innocent reasons for these deficiencies, they do lead the Commission to have reservations about the credibility and reliability of both as witnesses.”

The commission's role is to conduct an investigation and determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. It does not follow that there was a miscarriage of justice, only the Appeal Court can decide that. It should be noted that not all referrals by the SCCRC result in convictions being overturned; less than half of convictions referred to the Appeal are overturned.

In preparing for Megrahi’s second appeal [which followed the Commission's report] the Crown had considered all the information in the Statement of Reasons and had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time. Although it is entirely a matter for the Commission if the case is referred again to the Appeal court the Crown will defend the conviction.

It is not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone.

Investigations will continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice. As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the case and on the Statement of Reasons.

Notably, the First Minister welcomed the Sunday Herald’s publication of the SCCRC’s statement, more on which can be read at Scottish Law Reporter Crown Office ‘misled court’ : SCCRC statement on Lockerbie Trial reveals possible miscarriage of justice over conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi

Row over Lockerbie bomber’s release & Ministerial attendance to Washington hearings leave questions over trial & justice in the shadows

The Scottish Government refused invite to senate investigation. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT have, as we all now know, refused an invitation to attend a US Senate investigation of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was tried & convicted under Scots Law of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. Mr Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and allegedly given three months to live after his release in August 2009.

While there is considerable furore on Scottish Minister’s refusal to attend the US investigation into the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, it shouldn’t come as much surprise that Ministers of State of one nation refuse to be questioned on live television over their own decisions by politicians of another nation’s elected assembly, no matter what the case at hand is. Would any other Scottish Government have done different ? I think not .. but then again, perhaps any other Scottish Government may not have released Mr Megrahi … or would they ?

However, while the Scottish Government say they will not attend the Washington Senate investigation, the Scottish Parliament could send over a team, as Holyrood has already investigated the Justice Secretary’s decision to release Mr Al-Megrahi.

To this end, Bill Aitken, the Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee for one, could travel across to the US and give testimony over the Justice Committee’s investigation into the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. Another MSP, Christine Grahame, who has questioned the validity of Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction and the evidence it was based on, could also follow across the Atlantic to give her public account of issues she believes must be ‘put right’.

Viewers in the UK may be familiar with BBC Newsnight Scotland, who ran one of the most informative reports on the recent row over the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, and highlighted issues surrounding the actual conviction & trial, earlier this week. You can watch that show if you are in the UK, by clicking on the image below.

BBC Newsnight Scotland’s Wednesday 21 July 2010 report on the Lockerbie case (click on image to view video)

The Scottish Government have made two media releases this week, reporting a letter from Alex Salmond to US Senator John Kerry and an offer to answer any more questions which senators may ask

Readers can visit the Scottish Government’s information on the Lockerbie bomber’s release here : Lockerbie - Information relating to decision on Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi

Missing from all of the public arguments between politicians over the decision to release Mr Al-Megrahi however, is the question over the way in which the Lockerbie Trial was conducted, and the safety of Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction, which was due to be tested in an appeal, backed up by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which was as we all know, suddenly dropped by Mr Al-Megrahi, and apparently to the great relief of the Scottish legal establishment, thus enabling Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to decide swiftly on Mr Megrahi’s release, apparently ensuring no further repercussions which may have resulted in the Scots Justice system being made to look even more corrupt than it actually is, if indeed such a conclusion is possible these days …

Of course, while Mr Salmond & Mr MacAskill wont go to Washington, this shouldn’t prevent us having our own independent inquiry to establish the true facts of the Lockerbie trial because make no mistake, Scots deserve an inquiry into the Lockerbie case to establish just how honest the investigation & trial actually was, given the many questions over the evidence, testimony and how the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was arrived at by a jury-less Scottish courtroom set up at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

The only problems we have to overcome for such a project, would be finding someone independent enough to chair it, and of course, trying to reach an independent, fully transparent unqualified conclusion which honestly, I don't think any UK or Scottish public enquiry ever in existence has ever managed to do in any matter being investigated to the present day … especially when it comes to issues of justice …

There is little on the subject I can write more than what has already been covered by the mass media, and Scottish Law Reporter in their coverage of the Lockerbie case, here : The Lockerbie Trial

Twenty years on : Lockerbie, justice and injustice in Scotland - a time for reflection

Twenty years today, Pam Am flight 103 while flying over the small town of Lockerbie in Scotland was blown up by a bomb, Scotland's worst incident of mass murder and as it would turn out possibly the longest and most complicated case of injustice for the victims, their bereaved families and those accused of the bombing.

While some believe justice was served by conviction of Abdel baset al-Megrahi who was convicted under Scots Law of the bombing, there are many who believe otherwise - both inside & outside the legal fraternity, and over the years, 'evidence' has come to light the prosecution and the trial of Al Megrahi under Scots Law at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands was more politically motivated than truth motivated.

Whatever the outcome of Abdel baset al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal for release, one thing can be sure - the interests of justice and the interests of Scotland have not been served by the Lockerbie Trial and its failings, many of which are yet to be (if ever) resolved.

Noticeably today (Sunday), some of the politicians involved in the original case have felt the need to invoke highly personalised & distasteful attacks on even bereaved family members of the victims of the Pan Am bombing, the authors of these views, which you can read HERE no doubt believing their public stance serves the purpose for what they are intended .. the self preservation of the ailing and discredited justice system we are forced to live with in Scotland.

I speak of course of Lord Fraser of Carmyle's broadside against Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Fiona was on board the fateful flight. Lord Fraser, who today accuses Dr Swire of being a hostage to “Stockholm syndrome” over his continued involvement in the case, does himself no favour in his ill chosen words for a victim's parent, nor do Fraser’s words serve to engender any respect for Scots justice, for justice is gained & supported on the foundations of truth & honesty, not on the backs of victims, their families left behind, and falsehoods.

What these words of criticism for those who seek to defeat the ends of injustice show, is there are still many in the legal & political establishment who are intent on holding back such ideas as Truth & Reconciliation, for fear developments could hold themselves accountable for wrongdoings, some of which we are yet to discover ..

Fortunately there are many more cooler and more respected heads among us, who admire Dr Swire for his tireless efforts to get to the truth of the Lockerbie disaster, whatever that truth may be, and give Scotland back a sense of justice which itself has been robbed by motivations which can certainly not be in the interests of the public or the country.

Let us pause for a moment then, and reflect along with Father Patrick Keegans, the Parish Priest of the town of Lockerbie who along with other townsfolk saw the sheer devastation on that December night twenty years ago.

Father Patrick Keegans address to Holyrood last week :

The following report from the Scotsman newspaper :

Lockerbie remembered: Priest tells MSPs of night Pan Am 103 fell

TWENTY years on, Fr Patrick Keegans, who narrowly escaped death in Lockerbie, reflected yesterday in the Scottish Parliament
on the disaster

"AND I will lead the blind in a way they know not; in paths they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, and rough places into level ground" (Is. 42, 16).

These words from the Prophet Isaiah have great significance in my life. When I was the parish priest of Holy Trinity Catholic Church, Lockerbie, I was in my house at 1 Sherwood Crescent on the evening of 21 December, 1988. My mother, Mary Keegans, was with me.

The darkness came. At 7:04pm Pan Am flight 103, destroyed by a bomb on board the aircraft, crashed into the town of Lockerbie. The darkness came. The lights went out. The house shook violently. An almighty explosion tore Sherwood Crescent apart; and then there was a silence and stillness, and still the darkness.

Then another kind of darkness took over: the thick, suffocating darkness that comes from extreme grief: the darkness that invades the human spirit, that threatens to crush and destroy – 270 people had been murdered: 11 residents of Sherwood Crescent and 259 passengers on Pan Am 103.

And into that darkness there came light. That light came from the people of Lockerbie. It was the light of genuine love, care and concern for all who were suffering. The people of Lockerbie, shocked to the core, looked not to themselves but to others. They are a shining jewel in the Crown of Scotland.

The words of John's Gospel speaking about Christ come to mind: "A light shines in the darkness, a light that darkness could not overpower" (John 1, 5). The love, light and compassion of Christ were shining through the people of Lockerbie, as it does to this very day.

Approaching the 20th anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster, our thoughts and our prayers turn to those who died; and we remember our friends in the USA, our UK families, all other nationalities, and all who, in some form or another, are victims of the disaster.

At a time of great sorrow I was asked by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died on the plane, to conduct a service for the UK families. The words of Isaiah came to me. I pray and reflect on these words every day: "And I will lead the blind in a way they know not; in paths they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, and rough places into level ground" (Is. 42, 16). I pray that each day God will lead us and guide us.

I am honoured to be with you in a very special place and to speak these words to you. Thank you."

Holyrood moved by survivor's reflections

HEADS bowed in silent reflection, MSPs yesterday contemplated the powerful words of a Catholic priest who narrowly escaped death in the Lockerbie tragedy.

The Very Rev Patrick Keegans, just days before the 20th anniversary of the tragedy this Sunday, told the Scottish Parliament how an "almighty explosion" tore apart the street in which he lived.

He also described the "thick, suffocating darkness" of the grief that followed the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which resulted in the deaths of 270 people, including 11 neighbours from Sherwood Crescent.

At the time, Father Keegans was the parish priest of Lockerbie's Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church. Now the administrator of Ayr Cathedral, he came to Holyrood to address MSPs at the Time for Reflection slot, which starts each week's parliamentary business.

Fr Keegans told MSPs that he was at home in Sherwood Crescent with his mother when the plane came down at 7:04pm on 21 December, 1988. He then went on to praise the response of the people of Lockerbie, describing them as "a shining jewel in the Crown of Scotland".

It was a short sermon that moved all in the chamber. For David Whitton, the deputy Labour Party spokesman on finance, the words took him back to when he worked for Scottish Television and covered the disaster.

"I remember interviewing Fr Keegans, as well as the terrible destruction of Sherwood Crescent. There was almost nothing left, just a hole in the ground. I thought he spoke brilliantly. At a time, just before a debate when we would be taking pops at each other, it was important to put things into perspective."

Alex Neil, SNP MSP, added: "There could not have been a more apt person to speak in the parliament as we approach the 20th anniversary. Lockerbie will be in the thoughts of many people over the next week."

A Conservative MSP, Derek Brownlee, was pleased by the sermon's balance.

He said: "Fr Keegans managed to capture the horror of what happened on that terrible night, while still managing to look to the future. Lockerbie remains a vibrant town and, while for many it remains tied to a disaster, it is so much more, and I thought Fr Keegans managed to get that point across," he said.

Lockerbie ruling on disclosure may see Scots stripped of their lawyers in controversial court cases.

Its not often I cover aspects of criminal law but the care of the Lockerbie bombing as it was held under Scots Law has once again reared its head to affect the rest of us five million Scots who also have to depend on the law and live with it.

Yesterday in the Herald newspaper, there was a report of an alarming development in the Lockerbie case, where the Lord Advocate will go to Court to have special "security vetted' advocates represent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in the hearing to decide if confidential documents are to be made public which may have a significant bearing on Mr Megrahi's conviction for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

From the Herald story :

"The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.

If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case"

Such a move does indeed appear to be a first in Scots Law ... but all things being equal these days, such a power granted to the Crown to remove an accused's legal representation in favour of one it feels 'comfortable with' could so easily be used at will in attempts to stall or simply close down cases which involve serious injustice.

It boils down to this - If the Lord Advocate gains the power to strip a defendant's lawyers in favour of Crown "vetted" or appointed legal agents, any defendant in a case subsequently before the court in a criminal matter could face the possibility to lose their legal team simply on the basis that issues contained in their case are not in the public or Crown's interest to be examined with any regard to a person's right to a fair hearing and once that power is granted, it is there to be used any time, as the Lord Advocate feels applicable.

So ... Crown doesn't like your lawyer, but you might stand a chance of winning a case or perhaps an appeal against a wrongful conviction, showing the Crown case up or proving evidence is withheld ... Crown applies the procedure to you, you lose your own lawyer and one, perhaps less willing to push your case is appointed.

Civil law could also be affected where perhaps you are suing the NHS, a local Council, perhaps a Chief Constable, or another arm of Government for negligence, damages, breach of human rights, etc...

When it looks like your legal team is about to win your case, or reveal embarrassing evidence in Court which proves your position, the other side comes along and applies successfully to remove your own lawyers with a selection of their own due to the nature or effect that embarrassing evidence' in your possession will have on public perception of the law or possible revelations the arm of Government you were taking to court was much less than honest to you and a great many others, like for example, in the contaminated blood products scandal which still has no resolution in sight ...

Oh yes, I've heard the excuse - 'It's only for this case ... don't worry, we won't apply it to anyone else..' but in these times where laws & powers are used for anything and a great many issues completely outwith their original intention, can anyone really be sure the temptation to use this 'great power' of removing a legal team from a controversial case may not be used again ?

I think all told the evidence from society in general suggests that rights to a fair hearing could certainly be in danger if on a whim, your lawyers are taken from you just because the other side fear you will win ...

Such is the strength of this issue, I would have expected a comment from the Justice Secretary given the fact there are another five million of us in Scotland who need to depend on the law other than just the Mr Megrahi, that the issue merits a statement on what exactly is going on and what impact it will have on the rest of us and our use & access to justice in Scotland.

Surely Mr MacAskill's 'hands-off & no comment' approach to such major issues affecting the Scots legal system is not in our national interest ? It is perhaps, the very distance the Justice Secretary is generating by his lack of comment & action which may very well be allowing the Crown Office to do as it pleases in case after case, not simply the issues affecting the Lockerbie trial.

I would also have expected a little bit more comment, dare I say .. protest ... from the likes of the Law Society of Scotland on this matter, who profess to be one of the great defenders of the public interest in Scotland, but who seem to go awfully quiet when it doesn't suit them to say or do something.

To save the day, we might have to rely on the judiciary themselves who have spent most of this year so far arguing for judicial independence.

Would a judge or judges agree it is in the best interests of the law and the rest of us that someone be deprived of their own lawyers if it looks like they are actually going to win their case ? ... Some may say that is a simplistic view of the situation perhaps, but it is accurate and to the point.

Remember, we all have to live with and depend on Scots Law. It cannot be twisted simply to suit the aims of some who do not wish their actions or inactions examined in the full glare of court which may have caused injustice or miscarriage of justice to one or a great many of us ordinary Scots ...

The Herald reports :

Bid to ban Lockerbie lawyers in secrets hearing

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter

Prosecutors will next week attempt to throw an unprecedented veil of secrecy over the appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.

If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case.

However, the tactic will fuel suspicions that the Crown is going to unusual lengths to preserve the UK's current diplomatic relations with other nations.

The paperwork, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in the skies over Lockerbie.

It is not known if political pressure has been exercised directly on the Crown, but there have been previous instances in the Megrahi case where Britain's changed attitudes to foreign states since 1988 have played a key role in the legal process.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has already said the document should remain confidential.

It was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer. The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose the document could constitute a miscarriage of justice. Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material, it has refused to disclose it to Megrahi's defence team.

The Crown's latest move is expected to anger further his lawyers, who believe the failure to disclose the document calls into question the ultimate right to a fair appeal.

The request will be made on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal when the decision on whether to grant the defence access to the document is to be debated.

The Crown is expected to ask for the hearing to be held behind closed doors in the absence of the defence, who would be represented by special advocates. Public Interest Immunity hearings of this kind in criminal cases have previously been held only south of the border, where there is a statutory system in place, and a list of special advocates.

Megrahi's defence team has made it clear that it needs to see the document in order to proceed with the appeal, and has accused the UK Government of "interference" in the appeal.

If the prosecution denies access to the paper, Megrahi's lawyers are expected to argue that the conviction should be quashed because, without it, their client's right to a fair trial would be breached.

One legal expert said: "This is entirely unprecedented in Scotland."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said the court hearing is to be from from May 27 to 29 in Edinburgh. "It is not possible to provide further comment," he said.

Scotland's corrupt justice system - worthy of a 'banana republic' and obstruction to independence.

Another fine week has passed for the Scots legal system, which began with the UN Observer to the Lockerbie trial referring to Scotland as having the reputation of a 'banana republic' for our legal system, due to the handling of the Lockerbie trial.

Hans Köchler is correct, but the failures of the Lockerbie trial run wide & deep in Scots Law, and have done so for many years prior to the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Camp Zeist for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 259 people.

Quoting the Sunday Times article :

"It has been alleged that evidence relating to a timer device was planted by investigators to implicate the Libyan as responsible for the bombing that claimed the lives of 259 people when Pan Am flight 103 was brought down in 1988.

Köchler said he believed the Crown Office regarded Megrahi as a "headache" and wanted him out of Scotland to avoid further embarrassment.

"They would prefer to have him out of the country and have the entire legal case collapse without asking any further questions." he said.

"But I think it won't be so easy because there are still some people in Scotland who are committed to the rule of law and who do not want the country to appear like a banana republic because that is what it is, for me, after I have followed [the case] over so many years

Convenient for those in the legal system .. and some now in the Executive it would seem, that Mr Megrahi be shipped out of Scotland, and indeed, have no need to ask any questions of what actually took place .. and before you say, oh, the current Executive are going to hold an inquiry ... don't be too sure on that one. What politicians say, verses what they do, no matter who they are, are two very different things ...

Going even further, Hans Köchler took issue with the SNP call for independence, citing that Scotland needs a proper accountable judicial system before thoughts of independence should be progressed. Again, Mr Köchler is correct, and while the truth may be unpalatable to some, taking a country independent with a crooked corrupt judicial system, which is what we have currently in Scotland, will be in the worst interests of the public.

Referring back to the Sunday Times article once more :

"If they aspire to independence then they should show they can do things in the right way in the judicial domain, in devolved areas, and if they cannot do things in the right way and if they handle judicial proceedings like intelligence operations then in my view the aspirations towards independence are not very well founded."

If we cant get Justice right for our own people, we don't deserve independence - not until we clean up the acts of the Judicial & legal system which has been allowed to run itself for so many years, and influence politics & politicians to prevent reforms in the public interest.

Oh yes, some may argue that a fairer Justice system would come after independence, but do any of you really believe that ? I certainly don't, and I can assure you, if you need any assuring, the Judiciary and those within the legal system will have even more power to do what they want post independence, if we don't clean up their act before such a radical step for Scotland is taken ...

Here is the Sunday Times report on Hans Köchler and comments on the Lockerbie case, taken from here :

UN observer says Scots law is flawed
Mark Macaskill

THE United Nations observer at the Lockerbie trial, Hans Köchler, said that Scotland has the reputation of a "banana republic" because of its handling of the case.

The academic, who advises the European Commission on democracy and human rights, said Scotland does not deserve to be granted independence until it addresses the failings within its judicial system.

He was responding to reports that evidence that would have undermined the crown's case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the atrocity, was withheld from his defence lawyers. It has been alleged that evidence relating to a timer device was planted by investigators to implicate the Libyan as responsible for the bombing that claimed the lives of 259 people when Pan Am flight 103 was brought down in 1988.

Köchler said he believed the Crown Office regarded Megrahi as a "headache" and wanted him out of Scotland to avoid further embarrassment.

"They would prefer to have him out of the country and have the entire legal case collapse without asking any further questions." he said.

"But I think it won't be so easy because there are still some people in Scotland who are committed to the rule of law and who do not want the country to appear like a banana republic because that is what it is, for me, after I have followed [the case] over so many years.

"If they aspire to independence then they should show they can do things in the right way in the judicial domain, in devolved areas, and if they cannot do things in the right way and if they handle judicial proceedings like intelligence operations then in my view the aspirations towards independence are not very well founded."

Köchler's comments follow speculation that a US intelligence document, which disputes claims that Megrahi used a digital timer bought from a Swiss company and then planted the bomb on a flight from Malta to Germany — was shown to senior crown officials but never disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.

It is understood to be one reason why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which spent three years considering the safety of Megrahi's conviction, decided last June to refer the case to Court of Appeal.

"My most serious concern is about the timer, because if something was indeed inserted, that would have devastating consequences for the entire judicial and political system of Scotland and of the United Kingdom " Köchler added.

Sources close to the case have claimed that evidence was fabricated to implicate Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian terrorist, before the focus of the investigation switched to al-Megrahi and Libya in 1989.

Doubts have also been raised over evidence given at the trial by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed he sold Megrahi clothing that was wrapped around the bomb. Last week, well-placed sources claimed that Gauci and his brother Paul were paid about £2.5m by the US intelligence services soon after Megrahi's appeal collapsed in 2002. Details of the alleged payment emerged in 2005 when one of Gauci's relatives sought legal advice in an attempt to claim a share of the money.

Köchler's intervention will be a blow to the Crown Office, which is still reeling from the collapse of the World's End murder trial. In August, the trial judge Lord Clarke threw out the case against Angus Sinclair ruling there was not enough evidence for the jury to reach a verdict.

An unseemly public row ensued between Lord Hamilton, the lord justice general, and Elish Angiolini, the lord advocate, after she insisted there had been a strong enough case to put to the jury.

"The whole Lockerbie affair has not been a good advertisement for Scottish justice but there is now the opportunity to rectify what went wrong," said Professor Robert Black from Edinburgh University, who brokered Megrahi's trial at Zeist in the Netherlands.

"Provided the lessons are learned then the experience could yet prove to be a beneficial one. Köchler cast doubts over the quality of the evidence after the trial. He wasn't taken seriously at the time but all credit to him, they are now coming to the surface," said Black.

Alex Salmond, the first minister, dismissed Köchler's remarks.

"The strength of the legal system is in the processes it adopts to ensure justice is done and seen to be done. The fact that the Lockerbie conviction is going before the Court of Appeal is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength in our legal system.

A spokeswoman from the Crown Office, said: "It would be inappropriate to comment while the case is yet to come before the appeal court."

Legal Profession attempts fiddle against new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as wider review required on injustice in Scotland

The Lockerbie trial again makes the headlines, with Dr Hans Köchler, the United Nations observer to the Trial which took place in the Netherlands under a bizarre set up of Scottish Law, calling for an international inquiry into the handling of the case.

Of course, the handling of the case - such as it was, is consistent with Scottish Justice, or should I say Scottish Injustice .. and 'institutions' such as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which itself has played the major part recently in 'recommending' an appeal into the Lockerbie Trial, leave a lot to be desired in terms of impartiality.

Over the past week, I have had a few emails from solicitors who have identified themselves to ensure their authority in their words. Only a few times over the course of the past year and a half of this blog has that happened, but the past week has certainly broken that record.

One fairly senior solicitor in the profession, willing enough to speak to me but unwilling to speak in public due to what happens to those in the profession who do, said to me "Don't you think it is so telling of Scots Law that our own people who are caught up in injustice have to rely on the faint prospect of an inquiry into a case relating to a terrorist incident on Scottish soil ? ... why can't we do something for our own people without having to be prodded by international agencies ?"

He's right of course. Scotland seems to excel at mistreating it's own people for greed & power when it comes to problems with the Justice system .. and those at the top, seem to go along with it for what motive ? deals to stay in power ? deals to keep the creaky justice system afloat & avoid legal challenges which might strike most of it down ? a cheap house on the side or a scandal swept under the carpet ?

All of those from inside the legal profession contacting me over my well aired sentiments on the leadership of the Law Society of Scotland seem to agree wholeheartedly too .. although I can only assume Douglas Mill's supporters have held their tongues for now, perhaps concocting yet another deviously despicable plan to get back at me later on.

Certainly folks, it seems democracy isn't allowed in the legal profession - something we shouldn't be surprised about, and while they have all these fancy public debates on 'the law', plotting the course of the law, how it should be steered, who should be influenced to do what, who should make a few threatening letters & statements in the press against change, etc ...the legal profession always has it's own interests at heart.

Just the other day, leaks of the formation process of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reached my eyes, where it seems further discussions have been made over what the Commission should and shouldn't do and who should be appointed and who should not .. and what should be declared ...

Oh yes of course, our new SNP Executive will tackle that one, after all, I did, in a way, as you know, support 'change for the better' - if it was of course, change for the better ... but is it turning out to be change for the better ?

Well, would you believe, the solicitors who are going to sit on the Commission are not to be asked to declare their full regulatory history before being appointed. .. so in effect, we can have some of the worst members of the legal profession sitting on Committees of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, or advising it, while having unsuitable regulatory histories and no one will ever know about it !.

There would be a problem of course, with any declaration of a regulatory history by a solicitor or the Law Society of Scotland. That problem is - they tend to be liars when it comes to telling how badly they have performed in the past, so could anything be believed from a member of Scotland's legal profession so willing to sit on the new 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ?

Perhaps an even worse problem has emerged in the formation process of the new SLCC, with the possibility of the infamous insurers to the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy, Marsh UK and the many insurance firms who underwrite the infamously corrupt "Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme of Scotland's legal profession, are vying for the business to provide services to the new independent legal complaints body. Sources within the Executive say this could be on the cards - although it was hoped no one would notice ...

Such are the problems with the new Commission, even before it's got off the ground, I have asked the Justice Secretary to confirm or deny these matters reported to me .. and time will tell on the response from the Scottish Executive on how honest or independent the SLCC will be ... giving an indication of who is interfering, and who is being allowed to interfere with our supposed remedy to the failure of the Law Society of Scotland for decades to regulate complaints from the public against a massively corrupt membership.

I have been running my own tests on the intentions of the Executive to deal with matters of injustice in the field of regulation of the professions, and have to report a rather blunt set of responses, indicating that injustice may well be here to stay for now.

In one instance, John Swinney's Finance Department incredibly choosing to let Westminster make an order there be no inquiry into regulation of accountants for now, and in another instance, when a member of the public who appeared at last year's Justice 2 Committee with evidence of memos written by the Chief Executive of the Law Society himself, interfering in negligence cases against crooked lawyers, has been effectively told to get stuffed and that now there will be no support for any claim against the Scottish Executive - quite a turn around from what was said at the Justice 2 Committee hearings and the confrontation with Chief Executive Douglas Mill over his own written words.

So, will Granny swear by the SNP ? ... because we know from Douglas Mill's own bizarre claims before the Justice 2 Committee last year, that Granny couldn't swear by the Law Society ... We will just have to wait & find out ... I will be publishing this critical material in later articles for you to consider for yourselves.

Getting back to Lockerbie, being but a symptom of the injustice in Scotland felt by many of our own citizens, Dr Hans Köchler and the United Nations might do well to listen to the trials of the Scottish public themselves too, our experiences and victimisation at the hands of our very own legal system, where politicians have stood by and allowed disgraceful & corrupt conduct to become routine, by those who 'serve' the legal system or use it as a business model.

Perhaps there has to be a much wider international inquiry into the fiefdom of Scottish Justice as a whole, not just on Lockerbie ... and the world must find out if our country's justice system can be trusted with anything ? certainly the public of Scotland deserve better.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1060352007

UN Lockerbie trial observer urges independent inquiry into the case MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (mhowie@scotsman.com)

THE United Nations observer appointed to oversee the Lockerbie trial has called on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to agree to demands for an international inquiry into the handling of the case.

Dr Hans Köchler has written to Mr Salmond and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, calling for experts from countries not involved in the case to investigate the way the investigation was conducted by UK and US authorities.

His letter follows the decision by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), announced last week, to grant a fresh appeal into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

In a summary of its 800-page report, released following a three-year review into the case, the SCCRC said it had found six grounds which indicated that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

These concentrated on the evidence of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who said a man resembling Megrahi had bought clothes from his shop which were found to have been wrapped around the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988, killing 270 people.

The SCCRC also said it rejected nearly 50 other grounds presented by Megrahi's defence team.

It also dismissed claims that Megrahi's original defence team was incompetent and rejected an attack on the credibility of a key witness, forensic expert Allen Feraday. The SCCRC also rejected claims evidence was invented to lead a trail to Libya.

"The commission has found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies," it said.

Such exoneration of the authorities was described as "rather strange" by Dr Köchler, who concluded in an earlier report that the original Camp Zeist trial was "not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner".

In his letter, Dr Köchler called for "a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case and its handling by the Scottish judiciary as well as the British and US political and intelligence establishments".

He also called for the SCCRC's full report to be made public.

His letter states: "In order to avoid bias, such an investigation will require the participation of additional legal experts, to be appointed by the United Nations Organisation, from countries that are not involved in the Lockerbie dispute.

"Those politicians in the United Kingdom and the United States who have proclaimed an international 'war on terror' will not be credible in their strategy if they prevent a full investigation into the causes of the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. All those responsible, without exception, must be brought to justice."

His call for an independent inquiry was last night backed by the Reverend John Mosey, whose daughter was killed in the disaster, a member of the support group UK Families Flight 103.

"There has to be some sort of independent inquiry. We have been calling for that for some time. I realise it wouldn't necessarily be a public inquiry at all times because it would have to deal with the dissemination of highly-sensitive intelligence.

"An international panel of experts would guarantee a certain open-mindedness. The problem with an inquiry in Scotland, composed of Scottish legal establishment figures, is who can we trust to chair it? Who is not establishment? This proposal has some mileage in it."

A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said: "Our focus remains fixed on ensuring that justice is done in the public interest. " HEARING WILL BE NEXT YEAR

AN appeal over the conviction of Megrahi will not be heard until well into 2008.

There has been speculation that a hearing could be staged as early as this year, but such a timescale will be impossible to meet for the Libyan's defence team.

Following the move to grant a fresh appeal, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, said he had "a blank sheet" upon which to write a new set of grounds to try to have the conviction quashed.

Press Release from Dr. Hans Köchler, the United Nations Observer on the Lockerbie Case follows :

http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Lockerbie-04July07.htm

Lockerbie case: Call for independent investigation

United Nations observer Dr. Hans Köchler sends letters to Scottish and British officials

Dr. Hans Köchler, the international observer appointed by the United Nations to the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, today reiterated his call for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case, a measure which he had initially suggested in April 2002.

In letters sent to the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, the British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and the Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, Mark Malloch Brown, Dr. Köchler transmitted his statement on last week's decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), in which he emphasized, inter alia, that, in order to avoid bias, an investigation into the handling of the Lockerbie case by the Scottish and British authorities will require the participation of additional legal experts, to be appointed by the United Nations Organization, from countries other than the UK, US and Libya, i.e. from countries that were not involved in the Lockerbie dispute.

In the statement issued today, the UN observer also expressed his full support for the proposal made by Tam Dalyell, former MP and Father of the House of Commons, to end all doubt with a public inquiry.

In his earlier comprehensive reports on the Lockerbie trial (issued on 3 February 2001) and appeal (issued on 26 March 2002) Dr. Köchler had suspected a miscarriage of justice - a conclusion now also reached by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ("The Commission is of the view ... that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice": Dr Graham Forbes, Chairman of the Commission, according to an SCCRC News Release of 28 June 2007).

Lockerbie Trial - appeal granted as SCCRC report suffers inevitable claims of whitewash

A whitewash in the Scottish justice system ? Hardly surprising considering the levels of whitewash we have been used to in the past but what could one expect from a Review Committee in dire need of reform, accountability & a greater degree of independence from the very same legal system it seeks to review & pick fault with.

With no sign yet of the SNP Executive taking up calls for a fully independent inquiry into the engrained culture of injustice in Scotland emanating from the legal system and those who serve it, the long awaited report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (hardly an advertisement for independence itself) on the Lockerbie bombing case, recommends, grudgingly it seems, that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi be given a fresh appeal - although this will take about a year to get to court - perhaps an injhustice in itself on what many believe to be a fit up using Scots Law as a toy in global politics for not so honourable ends ..

It could be said, after reading the SCCRC summary of their report, that it giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other - the report follows in the tradition of all inquires then, nothing new on that.

No signs of fabricated evidence says the SCCRC ... but many seem to feel otherwise and we've heard this before ...

Well, we all know this never happens in Scots Law of course ... from the Edinburgh Gun Shop siege of the 80's & it's revelations on the Police & how documents were fabricated on destroyed firearms while they were actually sold to the owner of the Gunshop ... to the Shirley McKie case & many more, of course we know evidence is never fabricated .. or perhaps it is ? and if the SCCRC were ever independent enough or brave enough to come to such a conclusion there were problems with the evidence , there would then be some really serious questions on many a case of the past ...

Perhaps look at it this way - the way the not so independent SCCRC has handled this report, among others, is a good advertisement to reform it's mode of operation, membership and also have a review of it's handling of cases of the past, where accountability has as usual been somewhat lacking.

"First Minister Alex Salmond said it was "in the interests of justice" that the case go back to court for another appeal"

Well, then, get on with a review of the Justice system, Mr Salmond & Mr MacAskill - not only in the interests of justice, but also in the public interest too .. and end this engrained culture of injustice we have had to suffer for so long, just because the judiciary and the legal profession want to keep running the legal system for themselves & keep a power base of political influence over public life in Scotland, which they definitely do not deserve.

Links from the Scotsman follow :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1014052007

Lockerbie: Scottish justice in the dock
MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (mhowie@scotsman.com)

THE Libyan jailed for bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was yesterday granted a fresh appeal after a review body uncovered new evidence that cast serious doubt over his conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced it was referring the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back to the appeal court, seven years after he was convicted of the murder of 259 passengers and crew on board the plane, and 11 town residents.

Relatives, politicians and legal experts last night demanded a full independent inquiry into how the case was handled after the commission revealed that potentially devastating evidence was not made available to Megrahi's defence team. The commission said it had identified six grounds, among dozens submitted by Megrahi's defence team, where it believed "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred".

One of those related to the day that clothes, believed to have been wrapped around the bomb, were purchased from a shop in Malta. The court had accepted the Crown's position that the clothes were bought on 7 December 1988, when there was evidence that Megrahi had been on the island. But the commission found there was "no reasonable basis" for the judges to reach this conclusion.

Crucially, it also said new evidence not heard at the trial, together with the testimony of the shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, indicated the items were purchased before 6 December. "In other words, it indicates that the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta," the commission said.

The commission also concluded that the reliability of Mr Gauci's identification of Megrahi was undermined by new evidence showing that, four days before he picked the Libyan out in an identity parade, the witness saw a photograph of the accused in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.

Following a three-and-a-half year review, costing £1.1 million, the commission's chairman, the Very Reverend Dr Graham Forbes, said the SCCRC was "of the view, based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice".

The commission rejected 48 grounds for review, including apparently "sensitive" information provided by a senior police officer, codenamed "The Golfer", who claimed evidence had been fabricated to lay a trail to the Libyan.

The former detective sergeant was interviewed, but the commission found his statements to contain a "vast array of inconsistencies and contradiction".

The commission stressed it had not leaked any documents or findings following widespread speculation and press reports surrounding the case in recent weeks. It added: "The commission has found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies."

But Professor Robert Black, who was instrumental in bringing Megrahi and co-accused Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah to trial at a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said the revelation that crucial evidence was not presented to the defence, coupled with apparent criticism within the commission's report of the trial judges on an important aspect of the case, threatened the integrity of Scotland's legal system.

"It's not just that new evidence casts doubt over the original verdict - it's far more serious than that." He said an independent public inquiry, led by foreign experts, was needed. "Something needs to be done to ensure the integrity of the prosecution system and the judicial system."

Tam Dalyell, the former Linlithgow MP who has long believed Megrahi, who is serving life in Greenock, is innocent, said yesterday's ruling left the Scottish justice system's reputation "in tatters". He added: "If it is self-righting, that is to the credit of the legal system. A decision on whether to have an inquiry must be taken immediately following the appeal."

Juval Aviv, who headed up Pan Am's investigation into the bombing, said: "It is of the utmost importance that a comprehensive investigation be launched into what we now know to be the blatant effort to hide the truth from the public. Perhaps through such an open and public inquiry the real truth about this cover-up will come to light... we owe it to the families of the victims."

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, said he could not "achieve closure" until he was sure who was responsible. "It's no good trying to have closure on false foundations if they are false. A house built on sand cannot stand."

He added: "If today's SCCRC decision does indeed lead to the overturning of the verdict, we hope that, at that point, an immediate, independent and fully empowered inquiry into how the judicial failure came about would be launched and relentlessly pursued."

SNP MSP Alex Neil said there needed to be "a full investigation into all the circumstances surrounding Lockerbie".

Megrahi, 55, welcomed the decision in a statement issued through his solicitor, Tony Kelly. He said: "I was never in any doubt that a truly independent review of my case would have this outcome. I reiterate today what I have been saying since I was first indicted in 1991: I was not involved in the Lockerbie bombing in any way whatsoever."

Mr Kelly said if it was possible he would apply for bail, but any decision on that was months away. He said doubt over the date the clothes were bought could prove "fatal" to the prosecution case. "If the date is held not to be 7 December, 1988, Mr Megrahi cannot stand convicted of this crime," he said.

He also said that they now had "a blank sheet" upon which to write a new set of grounds for appeal. The appeal, he said, would touch upon "every single circumstantial aspect of the case", and would include indications as to who they believed to be responsible for the bombing".

The decision to reopen the case was welcomed by many relatives of Lockerbie victims.

First Minister Alex Salmond said it was "in the interests of justice" that the case go back to court for another appeal.

Scotland's Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, said the prosecutors at the Crown Office and Procurator-Fiscal Service would respond to the decision and appeal "with the same commitment and independence as was shown during the trial and first appeal".

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1012922007

No sign of fabricated evidence, report finds
JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT

THE commission's report is interesting for the complaints it has rejected as much as for those it has found to carry substance.

Some 45 grounds on which it was argued the commission should send Megrahi's case back to the appeal court were rejected, and much criticism was heaped on the media for "inaccurate and incorrect" speculation about the three-and-a-half year, £1.1 million investigation.

"In particular, the commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies," it stated.

The commission summarised some of the rejected grounds as follows:

• A former detective sergeant, termed "the golfer", made several allegations about the conduct of the police investigation. However, the commission found "a vast array of inconsistencies and contradictions between, and sometimes within, his statements" and considered some of his claims to be implausible when looked at alongside other evidence.

"The commission has serious misgivings as to the credibility and reliability of this witness and was not prepared to accept his allegations."

• Underlying a complaint about the discovery of a piece of circuit board from the bomb's timer had been the allegation that the evidence had been fabricated to implicate Libya. "The commission undertook extensive inquiries, but found nothing to support the allegation."

• Some convictions had been overturned in England, after doubt was cast on the evidence of forensic scientist Allan Feraday, a witness in the Lockerbie trial. "The commission is satisfied that the evidence on those occasions was different in nature from that given at (Megrahi's) trial."

• Many claims had been made about Megrahi's legal team at his trial and his first appeal. The commission "did not consider the allegations to be well-founded".

• Another former policeman was said to have found a "CIA badge" in the crash debris, but had been told such items were not to be recorded as evidence.

"The commission's inquiries established nothing that might support the claims."

• Had items found at the crash site, belonging to the passenger Major Charles McKee, been "spirited away" during "unofficial CIA involvement"?

The commission found nothing to say anyone other than the Scottish police had come into contact with Major McKee's suitcase, or that it had been cut open to allow access to the contents.

Since the bombing, suspicions have been raised about Khaled Jaafar, who flew from Frankfurt to London and joined Pan Am flight 103.

"The results of the commission's inquiries provide no support for the claim that Mr Jaafar was involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in the bombing."

Scottish law back in the dock as Lockerbie appeal ruling expected and inquiry to follow

Scarcely a day goes by now it seems, where there isn't a scandal of some description involving the Scottish legal system .. could it be that someone is trying to tell us something those of us not in the legal profession or judiciary actually know ? that Justice in Scotland is only for a select few, and Injustice, rather than Justice, is the order of the day for many.

Indeed, it seems the Scottish Justice system has been fashioned into some contemptible weapon of unimaginable proportions, to be used by those who serve its ends or use it as a business model for profit against the fee paying client and Scottish public.

There are however, cases of injustice now returning to haunt Scots Law .. and one of those of course is the infamous Trial of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie in Scotland, which to many, including myself, seems to have been a political fit up to blame one nation for another's involvement in that despicable terrorist crime which occurred over South Scotland in 1987 seeing the loss of 270 innocent lives.

The SCCRC, the Scottish Criminal Complaints Review Commission, tasked with reviewing cases of injustice in Criminal law, has completed it's report on the trial of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, which took place at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, under a cloak of Scots Law touted as being transparent & accountable at the time .. seemingly anything but as many have now come to realise though through the staggering levels of unresolved cases of injustice now plaguing the Scottish legal system - and awaiting concrete & effective action by our shiny new SNP led Scottish Executive which some expect to deliver, while others expect to fall on their own sword .. time will only tell on that one, and actions speak louder than words in most cases, as we all know ...

Next week, the SCCRC report will be published, and many expect the content of this report - which may well have had a few adjustments made to it, due to the recent change of leadership at the Scottish Executive, will show injustice in the trial & conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.

If this is the case, it may well assist the calls for a general inquiry with wide ranging remit into injustice in the Scottish legal system, given the actual trial at Camp Zeist had been hailed as one of the premier events of Scottish Law for many years .. something which may now turn out to be a big fraud, meddled in by political interests from more than one country to the point that justice itself was twisted beyond recognition in what has become something many of those who take issue with Scots Law and it's practices have become used to.

On the subject of those who serve the law & use it as a business model for profit, a few stories have surfaced in the media this week showing yet again how glorious our legal profession really is ... in one instance, Lord Osborne, a High Court judge decided to have a go at solicitor Spencer Kennedy of Balfour and Manson, one of Edinburgh's best-known law firms for wasting court time where, quoting the Herald newspaper, the solicitor, Mr Kennedy canceled a three-day hearing before a panel of three judges just two days before they were due to sit, leaving Lord Osborne, who was to chair the panel,with an empty courtroom and two judges with nothing to do.

Great work on the part of Mr Kennedy then .. although hasn't this sort of thing happened before, dare I say .. regularly ? .. but usually the client gets billed for it too ...

Referring to the Herald newspaper article once more, Lord Osborne was brave enough to critisise the legal profession in these actions, in a formally published opinion, said:

"We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of scarce public resources which has occurred in this case.

"In our view, those who are professionally involved in litigation in this court have an indisputable obligation to take reasonable care to avoid situations where court time will be wasted.

"Only by acceptance of the obligation to keep the Keeper of Rolls informed of relevant developments can the system of early disposal be operated effectively, without waste and in a way that is fair to litigants in general."

It's a pity some members of the judiciary wouldn't come out and tackle the way the Law Society has sunk the legal profession into the depths of public contempt for the decades it has caused injustice upon injustice towards clients who have dared complain against the poor, or even crooked services of many a crooked lawyer .. such comment & criticism from the bench would be most welcome, rather than a few open letters from the judiciary's ex members taking aim at our Parliament & Government over the prospect of any reform to centuries old practices which seem to have ... culminated in a sea of injustice and cases such as the Lockerbie trial, the McKie fingerprint scandal .. and indeed all our cases of injustice left to fester at the very feet of madam justice herself.

Going back to complaints against lawyers, as a deep rooted issue of injustice in Scotland, the cause of much suffering which the legal profession simply refuses to recognise or deal with, I see that lawyers still put forward such arguments as "the vast majority of complaints stem from fees, which the clients are made well aware of, and the outcome of cases"

An entirely false argument of course - Complaints are generally across a wide spectrum of services provided by the legal profession, as both lawyers & clients alike know full well - wills & probate, mis sold mortgages, investment work, case preparation & handling, you name it, there is a complaint to match it - Could anyone call 5000 complaints a year for over 10 years against less than 10,000 lawyers a positive reflection on the Scottish legal profession ?

How about another old chestnut - the one about "Everyone can make mistakes, not just lawyers - there are a lot of other crooked professionals out there too, including accountants, plumbers ..etc ..."

Yes, very true, there are most certainly a lot of other crooked professionals out there, and accountants are next on the list or equal to lawyers in their corrupt practices of self regulation .. but what separates the honest from the corrupt is who admits to making their mistakes and who has the decency to put them right. The legal profession, and most others, particularly those professions who enjoy the corrupt luxury of self regulation, are not putting their mistakes right in any way shape or form - particularly as far as lawyers go, that is simply against the policy of the nearly 17 year old regime of the Client Relations Office & leadership of the Law Society of Scotland which prefers client confrontation at all costs and any expense in preference to dealing properly with complaints.

Rather than bemoan & belittle the fee paying clients, or target & vilify those who take issue with the well known less-than-honest practices of the Law Society of Scotland which seems to have a vow to keep the very worst of the legal profession in practicing certificates, solicitors could vote themselves a new leadership of the profession & a new client friendly policy which would deal swiftly effectively, economically compassionately, and above all, honestly, with client complaints, perhaps reducing those thousands of hours of extra, unnecessary work - which are really down to the profession's policy of confrontation with clients rather than effective complaints resolution, or is it that lawyers prefer it that way ? confrontation at all costs ? Solicitors are certainly paying for that policy in subscriptions to the Law Society and the Master Insurance Policy...

Does the legal profession's view of complaining clients not look something more like : client given poor service or ruined, client complains, client gets nowhere, clients & their families should be targeted, victimised & hounded for the rest of their lives because they took issue with the almightily legal profession ? - this sadly is more the reality than what the legal profession would have us believe and that is why this injustice in Scotland, along with all the other injustice, must end.

Over to you Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond at the Scottish Executive ... it's within your power to end injustice - use the power and serve the country, not those who have thrived & profited on injustice & corruption against the Scottish public for so long.

A selection of articles from the Herald & Scotsman newspapers follow :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1490702.0.watchdog_to_rule_on_lockerbie_bomber_conviction.php

Watchdog to rule on Lockerbie bomber conviction
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor June 22 2007

The conviction of the Lockerbie bomber reaches a crunch point next week when a detailed review of the evidence is published that could force a second appeal or even a retrial.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is to announce on Thursday whether it believes the conviction was unsafe or whether a miscarriage of justice took place, following speculation that it has serious concerns about the use of evidence.

The case could put immense pressure on the Scottish justice system, for which the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was a massive test of global interest. It was tried in a special court without a jury at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, which was designated Scottish territory for the purpose.

The Libyan intelligence officer was convicted in 2001 of the murder of 270 people after the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. Eleven people were killed on the ground by falling wreckage and all 259 passengers and crew in the Boeing 747 died.

The SCCRC has the option either to refuse Megrahi's application or to refer it to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, where his conviction will be looked at again.

That would be the second appeal, after senior High Court judges dismissed a previous one in 2002 on a technical legal point. The report runs to 800 pages and will not be made public. A summary will, however, be published.

It was reported last Sunday that Megrahi's conviction will be declared unsafe and there will be a recommendation for the Appeal Court to reconsider the case.

Campaigners on Lockerbie have long had doubts about the case against Megrahi. Others have pointed the finger of blame instead at a Palestinian group backed by Iran.

The case of Megrahi, 55, sparked a political storm earlier this month between Tony Blair and Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond. Even before the SCCRC finding, Mr Salmond accused the Prime Minister of striking a deal with Libya that could see Megrahi transferred to a Libyan jail.

Tripoli's main motivation for the talks, it has been claimed, was to agree an exchange of specific prisoners: if Megrahi was allowed to serve the remainder of his life sentence in Libya then it would free five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor sentenced to death for deliberately infecting children with HIV at Benghazi Hospital.

If Megrahi is cleared, the Libyans may claim back US$2.7bn (£1.4bn) in compensation paid to families of the Lockerbie victims - a bill that could fall to the Scottish Executive as being responsible for the justice system.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said at the weekend: "I entered the court at Zeist at the beginning of the trial believing that this guy was responsible for killing my daughter. Having listened to the evidence, I came away convinced that Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1490549.0.0.php

Judge attacks solicitor for waste of time
DAVID LEASK June 22 2007

A High Court judge yesterday made a rare and blistering attack on a top solicitor for wasting court time.

Lord Osborne effectively "named and shamed" Spencer Kennedy of Balfour and Manson, one of Edinburgh's best-known law firms.

The solicitor cancelled a three-day hearing before a panel of three judges just two days before they were due to sit.

Lord Osborne, who was to chair the panel, was left with an empty courtroom and two judges with nothing to do because two days is far too short notice to arrange a different hearing.

Lord Osborne, in a formally published opinion, said: "We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of scarce public resources which has occurred in this case.

"In our view, those who are professionally involved in litigation in this court have an indisputable obligation to take reasonable care to avoid situations where court time will be wasted.

"Only by acceptance of the obligation to keep the Keeper of Rolls informed of relevant developments can the system of early disposal be operated effectively, without waste and in a way that is fair to litigants in general."

‘We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of resources’

It can take months or even years to get a case through the Court of Session, where the case, an appeal, was due to be heard.

Litigants often complain of expensive delays, and the Scottish Courts Service is desperate to reduce wasted time.

A day in court can cost thousands of pounds. Judges alone are understood to earn around £170,000 a year and are in high demand.

It is extremely unusual for them to make public their displeasure with solicitors. Lord Osborne, who is one of the country's most distinguished judges, sat on the Lockerbie appeal panel.

He said he had been prompted to make public his view by the waste of "scarce resources".

Mr Kennedy is representing a dissolved firm of solicitors, Sutherland and Company, which is being sued by a client for negligence.

The action had been allowed to go ahead back in June 2005 by another High Court judge, Lord Dawson, who has since died.

Mr Kennedy sought to appeal Lord Dawson's decision and had initially asked for a single day of court time to do so.

That was granted for March 22 of this year but Mr Kennedy then asked for a three-day hearing, which was set for May 30.

It was that appeal hearing that Mr Kennedy pulled out of two days before it was due to be called.

Now the case, brought by client Marylin McDonald-Grant, will go to a full eight-day proof before the Court of Session.

Lord Dawson, a former solicitor-general, was no stranger to controversy. Several of his decisions as a judge were later overturned before he died this year after years of poor health.

Mr Kennedy, a solicitor advocate, was on holiday yesterday and unavailable for comment. His company, Balfour and Manson, would not comment either.

However, Mr Kennedy told the court that the waste of its time was "regretted".

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=983592007

Developer wins £400,000 from law firm over property offer
JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT

A SCOTTISH law firm was yesterday ordered to pay more than £400,000 in compensation after it sent a client's offer for a property to the wrong fax number.

Alex Watts, 33, missed out on a substantial Georgian property in Edinburgh's New Town because his lawyers faxed his offer to the wrong place. His had been the highest bid by some distance, and would have been accepted.

A judge heard that the mistake by Bell & Scott WS had been "black-and-white negligence", and he ruled that Mr Watts - a property developer - was entitled to the profit he would have made by converting the building, the former Caledonian Club in Abercromby Place, into flats.

The Court of Session was told that Mr Watts ran a property development company concentrating on the New Town. He had undertaken projects in Nelson Street, Heriot Row and Abercromby Place. In mid-2002, his attention turned to the Caledonian Club.

The judge, Colin MacAulay, QC, said: "It was clear to me that he had had a successful track record in the property development business. He was plainly someone who possessed business acumen. He was in the process of moving up the scale of values for development."

Mr Watts put in a written offer, through Bell & Scott, of £1.05 million for the club. The selling agents, DM Hall, fixed a closing date of noon, 21 June. That morning, Mr Watts instructed the offer to be increased to £1.1 million. The selling agents agreed to accept a faxed offer if it was followed by a "proper" offer.

The court heard that, by mistake, the fax was sent to Mr Watts's fax number and not to that of DM Hall.

"At that time, Mr Watts was on holiday and unaware of the error. The faxed offer was therefore not received by DM Hall prior to the stipulated closing time," said the judge.

"Although seven other offers for the premises were received, Mr Watts's offer of £1.1 million would have been the highest offer by about £43,000. The premises were sold to Plum Developments, the highest bidder who had made a timeous offer. As a matter of principle, the club refused to consider Mr Watts's late offer."

The court heard that Caroline Docherty, a partner in Bell & Scott, was Mr Watts's solicitor at the time, and she bore direct responsibility for the error.

Mr Watts had planned to convert the building into flats, aiming at the upper end of the property market. He had expected the project to raise £2.37 million, and his lawyers claimed that his profit would have been £614,066..

Mr MacAulay said the mistake had been described by Mr Watts's QC as "black-and-white negligence."

Mr MacAulay considered that the method used by Mr Watts to calculate the lost profit was "too speculative." His timetable was likely to have been delayed and other factors, such as going over budget and sales prices being lower than anticipated, could also have impacted on the figure.

He preferred the approach urged by Bell & Scott, of looking at the profitability of previous developments by Mr Watts. That gave a figure of £412,380, which he awarded to Mr Watts.