Willie Rennie calls for enquiry into Lockerbie prosecution

Willie Rennie used his slot at First Minister's Questions yesterday to call for an enquiry into the way the Lockerbie prosecution was carried out. I think this is very sensible given the six concerns raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Governments are not very good at admitting to their mistakes - and most especially, justice systems are amongst the worst offenders. People can be deprived of their liberty for crimes they didn't commit. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does, and when concerns are raised about the validity of prosecutions, it's really important that they are held to account. We've all seen cases where it's gone wrong - the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four.

With the Lockerbie prosecution, so much doubt remains over things like a break in at Heathrow where the luggage from Flight 103 was in transit, queries over the identification of Megrahi by the Malta shopkeeper and other things.

We need to be sure that the Crown Office and the Police did everything they should have done and if they didn't, there needs to be consequences and change.

What was interesting about their exchange yesterday is that Salmond was quite serious in his response. There was none of his usual bluster and point scoring and he actually answered the question:

Willie Rennie: The First Minister will have seen the open letter from 40 leading figures that calls for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. The group made it clear that it wants a Scottish inquiry, whether or not there is an appeal.

The Scottish Government’s Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds for appeal, including the conduct of the Crown Office, withheld evidence and doubt about identification.

The First Minister has said that he would be prepared to co-operate with a United Kingdom inquiry. If he has no objection in principle to an inquiry, will he agree to hold the Scottish inquiry that the group wants?




The First Minister: The place where an individual’s guilt or innocence is determined is a court of law. As Willie Rennie should know, the relatives of Mr al-Megrahi have the ability, if they so choose, to go back to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and seek further leave to appeal. That is the process that can be followed. The Parliament would do well to take the view that a court of law is not just the best place but the only place to determine guilt or innocence.

Willie Rennie described the SCCRC’s report. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is part and parcel of the Scottish judicial system. It exists to provide checks and balances in the system. It is right and proper for the SCCRC to refer cases back to the court of appeal, if it thinks that there is reason to do so. That does not automatically mean that cases will be successful on appeal—we should look at the record to see that.

Mr Rennie should in fairness note that, now that we have the full detail of the SCCRC report—as he knows, I campaigned for years to have it published—we can see that the forensic trail that led to Malta and Libya was upheld in the SCCRC’s exhaustive review. That is not always clear in the reporting about the report.


Willie Rennie: This is not just about guilt or innocence; it is also about the conduct of the Crown Office. Surely, a liberal society should be prepared to look hard at its justice system, even if it is worried about what it might find. Whether or not that is determined surely cannot be left in the hands of a family somewhere in Tripoli. If the First Minister chose to act on the inquiry, he would have the support of Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, John Pilger and many others.

This is not a normal case; it is Scotland’s biggest terrorist atrocity. These are serious questions that have been raised by serious people, and the world is watching. Will the First Minister act?


The First Minister: I have no axe to grind as far as the Crown Office of 10 years ago is concerned. This Government was not in office then. There is no reason for me to be unreasonably protective of law officers, the Lord Advocate and members of the Crown Office from that time. However, the basis on which we must proceed is to see whether the appeals are exhausted within the system. It is not something that we can shrug aside and say that it should not be up to the family of Mr al-Megrahi whether they want to go back to the SCCRC. That is the process of Scots law. That is what the SCCRC is there to do. 

Given the exhaustive nature of the SCCRC report, the evidence that it compiled and the witness statements that it took over a period of years, we have every reason to suppose that it will do its job properly, as it clearly has done before. 

I ask Mr Rennie to remember that the SCCRC is part and parcel of our judicial system. It is not something that is outside the judicial system. The SCCRC is part of the judicial system.

The people whom Mr Rennie cited genuinely believe that Mr al-Megrahi was innocent. That is why they are arguing that case. The place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. Other people who want an inquiry into Lockerbie are not looking for an inquiry into the points in the SCCRC report; they are looking for an inquiry into the ultimate responsibility for Lockerbie. That touches on matters of huge international import, and it would be beyond the ability of a Scottish inquiry to summon witnesses and compel evidence and so on in that context. That is why we have said, clearly, that we would co-operate with any such inquiry. However, if an application to determine the guilt or innocence of Mr al-Megrahi comes forward, that is a matter for the SCCRC, which is an independent body, and that is the process by which things can be properly pursued.


I don't think an investigation into the conduct of our prosecuting services should be dependent on whether Megrahi's family decides to appeal. If they have done things wrong, it's important for all of us to identify weaknesses in the system. After all, you might find yourself charged with something you hadn't done one day. You would want to be confident that you could expect a fair trial.


Willie said:

“A liberal society should be one that is prepared to look hard at its justice system, even if it is worried about what it might find.

 “I have called for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. “The First Minister has the opportunity to shine a light onto the conduct of the Crown Office, which for years has been left blemished by the six separate grounds of appeal identified by the Government's own Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. “On matters which relate to the integrity, fairness and justice of the Scottish justice system, it is simply not good enough to leave this to a family in Tripoli.
"An inquiry into Scottish justice is not a matter to be left to a UK inquiry. It has the backing of 40 leading figures, is about Scotland's biggest terrorist atrocity and potential flaws have been identified by the Government's own review body. We need the First Minister to act."

33 Months

The medics said he had less than 3 months to live. In the event, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie Bombing, died yesterday exactly 33 months after he was released by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

I am not, to say the very least, an admirer of MacAskill's. Anyone who has presided so lackadaisically over the appalling conditions at Cornton Vale Women's Prison while prioritising attacks on the UK Supreme Court deserves every bit of opprobrium they get. On Megrahi, though, he got it right in the decision to release him, if not in the process. I wrote on this extensively at the time, when Scotland was catapulted into the international spotlight.

I am far from convinced of Megrahi's guilt. I hope one day that we will know the truth about what happened.

Willie Rennie was right to say yesterday that Megrahi's death was no cause for celebration.He went on to call for an enquiry to establish the truth of what happened:

Although this is an end to a chapter of one of the worst terrorist events in Scotland there should be no celebration that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has died.

Instead it should act as spur to establish the facts, including whether crucial forensic evidence was withheld from the trial

We should really pay most attention, though, to what Dr Jim Swire has to say. His dignity and compassion in the face of the worst adversity is an example to all of us. He lost his daughter, Flora, when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie. I'm not sure I could have maintained his rational and open minded pursuit for the truth. Yesterday, he said:

"It's a very sad event,”

“I met him for the last time face-to-face in Tripoli last December, when he was very sick and in a lot of pain.

“But he still wanted to talk about how information which he and his defence team had accumulated could be passed to me after his death.

“That’s an amazing thing for a man who knows he’s dying to do.

“Right up to the end he was determined – for his family’s sake, he knew it was too late for him – that the verdict against him should be overturned.

“He wanted that for the sake of those relatives who had come to the conclusion after studying the evidence that he wasn’t guilty – and I think that’s going to happen.”

Megrahi's demise was painful and protracted.  His 33 months at home in Tripoli was very difficult for him indeed. His life may be over, but the quest for truth must not end with him. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified no less than six reasons why there may have been a miscarriage of justice in his case. The families of the victims deserve to know what really happened.

In which I don't agree with Nick - the Lockerbie bomber should be left in Libya

I do feel I need to atone slightly for writing such a truthful if toadying post about Nick Clegg's visit to Edinburgh so in a way I'm glad he said something that I really disagree with.

He's said that he wants to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi brought back here to serve in a UK jail.  At least he had the good grace to acknowledge that it was nowt to do with his Government though, as this is a Scottish government matter.

I supported Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds 2 years ago. He made the only decision he could on the basis of the information given to him. 

Megrahi may well have outlived expectations - but he has until now been given some super duper drug therapy not available in the UK. I can't imagine he'll just be able to turn up at his hospital in Tripoli now and get the same drugs, somehow. And the fact that he still has terminal cancer stands. There is nothing to gain from dragging an increasingly frail man back here and throwing him in jail to die. The instincts that would appease are not the best we human beings have.

Yes, it absolutely turned my stomach to see him, albeit in a wheelchair, at a pro Gaddafi rally a while back, but we can't judge him on that. We have to go on his actual state of health and whether it's humane to take him back here. I can't imagine his life is particularly pleasant at the moment - he must know that everyone and their dog is looking for him, and he will probably be facing the reality of his condition. 

Suffering from Cancer is not pleasant. The drug therapy and being with his family have both helped extend his life, but that doesn't mean that he has had the same quality of life that you or I would have.

I've never been convinced of his guilt, but equally, that should have nothing to do with what should happen now. He's a prisoner released on compassionate grounds because he is dying. Predicting when someone will die isn't an exact science and there's every possibility that if he had been left here he wouldn't have seen out 2009. While I have huge sympathy with the families of those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity, causing extra suffering to a terminally ill man, who isn't to blame for the fact that he's still alive, is not going to help.

He was released, like any other terminally ill prisoner, on compassionate grounds because of his illness. The facts of his illness remain the same. There is nothing to gain from pursuing him further.

Misleading headline of the day - the Guardian on Megrahi release

If you see a headline that says "Wikileaks Cables: Lockerbie Bomber freed after Gadaffi's Thuggish Threats" it does sort of imply some sort of causality between the latter and the former.

It implies that the Libyan Leader basically sent the boys round to Bute House and Alex Salmond meekly complied with their wishes.

Bad taste this may be, but it does amuse me that anyone could think this was even remotely plausible.There are mental images going round my head that will keep me amused for hours on that one.

Seriously, though, if you actually go read the full report, it actually says three things: that Gadaffi had had a good go at the UK Government, threatening UK diplomats, business and interests should Megrahi die in prison; that the Scottish Government was courted and offered "a parade of treats" which they knocked back and, surprise, surprise, the decision to release Megrahi was taken by the Scottish Government which apparently underestimated the international disapproval it would receive. Both the elements referred to in the headlines happened but one did not cause the other.

I have said all along and without embarrassment that I think that Kenny MacAskill did absolutely the right thing to release Megrahi, given the medical evidence he had available. I still hold to that and had I been in his position I'd have released him too. And that's not just about my soft heart - it's because it was the right thing to do.

There's nothing in the Wikileaks cables that suggests anything to the contrary and the Guardian's sensationalist headline should actually have read "Megrahi: as we thought, nothing to see here."