shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 523

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/gadafy-brown-lockerbie-g8

Gaddafi demands return of Lockerbie bomber in first meeting with Brown

Prime minister insists to Libyan leader at G8 summit that he cannot intervene in Megrahi case

In his first face-to-face meeting with Gordon Brown this morning, the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, only to be told by Brown that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.

Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by his female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. He has pitched a bedouin-style tent outside the G8 barracks in which world leaders are staying during their three-day summit.

In a 40-minute bilateral between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.

Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a real risk of dying in jail.

The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on board and on the ground.

Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown's urging of Gaddafi to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.

Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair visited Tripoli to meet him in 2004.

The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff, and paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, leaving the inquiry stalled for more than a year.

Brown also called on Gaddafi to help bring about the return of six-year-old Nadia Fawzi, who was abducted by her Libyan father in 2007. Her English mother, Sarah Taylor, wants her daughter returned, and Gaddafi promised Brown that the Libyan courts were on course to reunite the two shortly.

More broadly, Brown, accompanied by three UK officials, also urged Gaddafi to use his influence to persuade Middle Eastern countries to renounce nuclear weapons. It is not clear that Gaddafi has any influence over the Iranian regime.

The 67-year-old leader, wearing dark glasses for much of the day and sporting long dark hair, resembled an ageing rock legend and was generally seen as the star of yesterday's meetings.

In his bilateral meeting, Brown praised Gaddafi lavishly for abandoning his chemical weapons programme unilaterally in 2003, a move intended to bring about a normalisation of relations with the west. They also agreed to work together to bring stability to the oil market, with Brown promising to use his influence to improve African representation on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

British officials admitted that the meeting between the two men started formally, but gradually warmed up as discussions continued.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 523

Megrahi to drop appeal if Libya transfer is agreed

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...l_if_Libya_transfer_is_agreed.php

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter July 11 2009

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has signed a secret document agreeing to drop legal proceedings if Scottish ministers allow him to return home to Tripoli.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction, has given the document to the Libyan government on the instruction that they cannot hand it over until Scottish ministers agree to his transfer.

His decision has led to an international political impasse as Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal. Supporters are pushing for the "compassionate release" of Megrahi as a preferable alternative.

Legal experts say the minister could agree to such a move without an application from the Libyan, who is suffering terminal prostate cancer and whose condition has deteriorated.

There is confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers have to give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi urged Gordon Brown to allow the repatriation of Megrahi at the G8 summit in Italy. The UK and Libyan governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement earlier this year, and Mr MacAskill is consulting all of the parties concerned before making a decision.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 523

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/MacAskill-in-offer--to.5451505.jp

MacAskill in offer to meet Megrahi

Published Date: 12 July 2009
By Tom Peterkin
JUSTICE Secretary Kenny MacAskill has offered to meet the Lockerbie bomber in prison as he decides if the convicted mass murderer ought to be allowed home to Libya.
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who helped set up the Scottish Court in Holland that convicted Megrahi, believes he is innocent. "I don't see any objection to MacAskill meeting with him," he said.

Megrahi's appeal has been delayed because Lord Wheatley, one of five judges at a hearing in May that dealt with the first part of the appeal, is recuperating from heart surgery and will not resume his judicial duties until mid-September.

His defence team has warned that Megrahi is now so ill with terminal prostate cancer that the delay means he may not live to see the conclusion of the appeal. Supporters have suggested he be granted compassionate leave – a move that would allow his appeal to continue.

Meanwhile Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi last week pressed Gordon Brown over Megrahi's future. The Prime Minister reminded Gaddafi that the decision was a matter for Scottish ministers.

If Megrahi were allowed home, the move would please Libya and ensure his conviction remained safe. But the sight of Megrahi walking out of jail would inflame the US.

Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, condemned Gadaffi for calling on Megrahi to be returned to Libya. "How can you consider sending someone home at the request of the person, who sent him off to do the bombing," he said.

The US families had a video talk with MacAskill from Washington's British Embassy last week. They said they were convinced Megrahi was guilty.

[/quote]

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 523

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politi...Secretary_set_to_meet_Megrahi.php

Justice Secretary set to meet Megrahi

ustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to hold a face-to-face meeting in the coming days with the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

A verdict is due later this month on whether or not terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be allowed to transfer and serve the rest of his sentence in Libya, and Mr MacAskill has said he wants to meet all the parties involved before he makes a decision either way.

Though a transfer would not be allowed while legal proceedings are ongoing, meaning Megrahi would have to drop his appeal against the conviction, Mr MacAskill also has it in his power to allow the transfer on compassionate grounds.

The Scottish Government said yesterday: "We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary, so we will take that forward.

Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn't hear representations from the man who this is all about."

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Jim Swire writes a letter from the heart asking for compassionate leave for Megrahi.

Recreated here in full from the Firm Magazine:-

Jim Swire meets MacAskill to argue compassionate release
On 1 July Dr Jim Swire and other relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie airliner incident met with Justice Minster Kenny MacAskill toask for the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi. Separately, US relatives and Libyan officials ahve also made representations.

Dr Swire's address to Kenny MacAskill is reproduced in full, below.

Secretary,

The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.

We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.

I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.

You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.

You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.

I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.

On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.

Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.

I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.

But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.

We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.

The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.

The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-

1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.

2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.

3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.

It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.

My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.

In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.

You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.

I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.

To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.

It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.

You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.

I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.

But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.

Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.

Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.

We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.

I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.

Dr Jim Swire, Father of Flora age 23, one of 270 people killed at Lockerbie 21/12/88.

Article Link:

http://www.firmmagazine.com/featu...skill_to_argue_compassionate.html
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 523

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8155741.stm

Lockerbie judicial review claim

Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims could demand a judicial review to stop Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi being returned to Libya, it has been claimed.

SNP MSP Christine Grahame said the possibility would prevent the terminally ill Megrahi returning to Libya in the short term.

It would effectively ensure Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing, died in Greenock prison, she said.

Libya has already submitted a request to have Megrahi returned.

A total of 270 people died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said earlier this week that no decision on the prisoner transfer could be made while Megrahi pursued a second appeal against his conviction for the bombing.

“ The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison ”
Christine Grahame MSP

It has been reported that Megrahi has offered to drop his appeal if Mr MacAskill agrees to the request to have him returned to Libya.

South of Scotland MSP Ms Grahame said she understood US relatives of the victims had taken legal advice in both London and Scotland, and would seek an immediate judicial review if Mr MacAskill agreed to the Libyan Government request.

The request was made under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007.

She also claimed the relatives warned Mr MacAskill they would take this course of action, during a teleconference meeting he held with them last week.

Megrahi is currently being held in Greenock prison where he is receiving treatment for advanced stage prostate cancer.

Ms Grahame, who has met Megrahi twice in recent months, said Scottish Prison Service officials had already informed her there was nowhere within the prison estate properly suited to managing Megrahi's condition.

"This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative. That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health," she said.

'Considerable delay'

"The weight of evidence which has emerged combined with the serious doubts raised over the original evidence that was led at the trial have left me in no doubt of Mr Megrahi's innocence.

"The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison. There has already been considerable delay which means that Mr Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal he has ongoing against his conviction.

Ms Grahame said that if Megrahi was allowed to die in prison but it was later established he was innocent, people would question why the Scottish justice system "failed so dramatically".

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The justice secretary is still considering the application and it would be wrong to comment on any hypothetical situation which may arise from any decision still to be made."

She added that any judicial review would be a matter for the courts.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/...and/south_of_scotland/8155741.stm

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

The Crown are in moves to shut down Christine Graham MSP over Lockerbie:

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/...e_over_Lockerbie_criticisms_.html

Story in full:-

Silence as Crown Office moves to shut down MSP Grahame over Lockerbie criticisms
The Crown Office is refusing to respond to questions about an email circulated to news editors in Scotland which accuses MSP Christine Grahame of defaming Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen.

The MSP has been pursuing allegations that testimony which may have been useful to the defence team in the Lockerbie proceedings was withheld from them.

The email, circulated on 17 July, states that the Crown Office have become aware of "serious allegations made by Christine Grahame against the Crown Agent, Norman McFadyen, in relation to the Lockerbie trial

"These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind," it adds.

"Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The email makes no reference to the allegations it is referring to or where they may have appeared, and no clarification has been provided, despite repeated requests. It is understood that Ms Grahame expressed concerns about the manner in which Crown officials conducted themselves.

The email is not attributed, and the Crown Office have not responded to queries asking if it is intended as a publishable response to comments attributed to Ms Grahame.

The Crown Office routinely issue guidance notes to editors, making direct reference to the Contempt of Court Act, and usually counselling coverage of an active criminal case in accordance with the Act. However, statements such as this, directed against an MSP are without precedent.

The Crown Office were asked to confirm to whom the email was to be attributed, if an action for defamation was being pursued and if any action was being taken against the publications they referred to. The Crown Office have refused to respond to the query, provide a clarifying statement, or confirm if the email was intended for publication, or issued as a background briefing to editors.

They have also refused to advise if they are raising an action of defamation against either Grahame or any publications who may have defamed MacFadyen.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Kenny MacAskill has already released three people on compassionate leave according to this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8168679.stm

Well done Kenny, this gives Mr Megrahi some hope that you (Kenny) will not discriminate against him.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Anyone get the feeling MacAskill is working with Crown Office in hindering and stalling this appeal and decision so Megrahi will have no option but to give up his appeal or Die in a rotten stinking dirty Scottish Jail ?

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland...nable-to-meet-deadline.5514647.jp

MacAskill unable to meet deadline on Megrahi appeal

« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 01 August 2009
THE Scottish Government will not meet a 90-day deadline on an appeal to allow the Lockerbie bomber to return to his homeland, it has been confirmed.

But justice secretary Kenny MacAskill insisted that "political and economic" factors will not play any part in his decision on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Mr MacAskill is considering an application from Libya to transfer Megrahi back home, as well as an application for compassionate release by the bomber, who has terminal prostate cancer.

The justice secretary said yesterday: "There's a 90-day timescale within the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement), and that's due to end shortly.

"I won't be able to meet it precisely because of information still to come in, and I will have to reflect upon what happens.

"But I will thereafter be seeking to act as expeditiously as possible, and I think I will see if I can deal with questions of prisoner transfer and compassion together."

Mr MacAskill has spoken to the US attorney-general, the American families and British families of victims. He will also meet Megrahi next week.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

I do not know how we all missed this good story.

http://news.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Stretched-to-the-limits.5473729.jp

Published Date: 20 July 2009
AS the second appeal by Megrahi approaches its conclusion, John Forsyth examines the effects the long-running case has had on Scotland's legal system
IT BARELY seems believable, but in legal terms the long journey from the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988 is approaching the final straight.

As it does, so the Scottish legal system is stretched to its limits. Stressful as it is for the individuals involved in making decisions in the full knowledge that every word will be scrutinised around the world before the ink is dry on the paper, it is also a test of the capacity of the Scottish jurisdiction itself.

In the courts, the second appeal by the man convicted of planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, appeared to stumble earlier this month. A decision was expected on grounds 1 and 2 of Megrahi's appeal on 7 July. Instead the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, stunned everyone present when he announced that one of the five judges, Lord Wheatley, had undergone heart surgery and would not be able to participate further until September.

Lord Hamilton was asked by defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, to consider appointing a "shadow" judge to the bench in consideration of Megrahi's deteriorating health. It is understood he will nominate a "shadow" shortly.

The problem has been that even with 36 Senators of the College of Justice, its highest-ever membership, it is difficult to find another judge who has not been "cup tied" by participation in a previous Lockerbie-related case – the original Camp Zeist trial, the five-judge bench that rejected Megrahi's first appeal, a role in the original prosecution or involvement in the 1990-91 fatal accident inquiry.

Professor Robert Black says there is an alternative solution available to the Lord President founded in normal Scots law: "The statutory quorum of judges for hearing criminal appeals is normally three. There was never any technical reason why Megrahi's new appeal had to be heard before five judges. They obviously chose to do so because the original trial was before three judges and the first appeal before a bench of five. That was in itself unusual because the number was specified in terms of a special Order in Council. But that Order in Council no longer applies. It expired at the end of the first appeal."

Prof Black's solution is to nominate the junior of the remaining four judges on the bench as the "shadow" in case of further misfortune, allowing the original schedule to be resumed. In parallel to the appeal, there is a separate process initiated by the application lodged by the government of Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement signed with the UK government in November 2008.

Scottish ministers are bound by the agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it. Megrahi is the only known Libyan presently in jail in the UK. The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan government in respect of Megrahi on 5 May. Responsibility for considering the application has fallen to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has to carry out a quasi-judicial role in assessing the merits of the competing arguments.

As part of the exercise, MacAskill invited families of the US victims to take part in a video link consultation last week. The president of US Victims of Pan Am 103, retired lawyer Frank Duggan, says about eight family representatives were present in Washington and a similar number in New York. Representatives of the US justice department and FBI were present in case questions arose about US government policy.

"But none did," says Mr Duggan. "They never opened their mouth. For us, this was the first time in more than two decades, as families, that we had a chance to explain the impact this catastrophe had on our lives. It was very, very difficult and we were all blubbering. I got the impression Mr MacAskill was listening very carefully. Of course, he couldn't make comments, as that would compromise his role, but he was clearly going about his job properly."

Stephanie Bernstein, a recently- ordained Rabbi in Washington, says: "This decision for Mr MacAskill is very difficult, but very important."

Mr Duggan dismisses stories that said the US families had taken legal advice that would underpin an application for immediate judicial review should Mr MacAskill decided to grant the Libyan government application. "That is completely wrong," he says. "We haven't sought such legal opinion, nor do we intend to. There's no suggestion of us raising judicial review – as a group we don't have standing in the Scots jurisdiction. It's not an option.

"Don't get me wrong: if Megrahi is sent back, we will raise hell. It was clear in all the correspondence between the US, UK and the United Nations, if anyone was convicted (at Camp Zeist], they would serve the whole sentence in Scotland. That was the deal."

In terms of the prisoner transfer agreement, Mr MacAskill has 90 days from the date of the Libyan application, 5 May, to reach a decision. The application cannot proceed while legal proceedings continue; Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal to activate the transfer.

The key decision might not be a legal one, however. Megrahi's medical condition might cut across both the appeal and prisoner transfer agreement. If medical opinion were to establish that he is seriously ill and close to death, Mr MacAskill could order his release on compassionate grounds. On that basis, Megrahi would be deemed to have served his sentence in terms of Scots law.

Mr Duggan says: "There are thousands of prisoners in US jails with cancer who serve many years with it. We don't want a horrible death in jail for anyone, but at his bail hearing, it was said he could live for another five years. I think we have more faith in the Scottish legal system than you appear to over there."

_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/