Blog:Megrahi - Scotland Comes Of Age
From Bolton Interweb
Willy Orwonty, International Correspondent, 23rd August 2009
I was surprised this week to hear that a guy called Alistair “Ally” McGrathy was being released from a Glasgow prison and sent to Libya. I know the prisons are overcrowded but it seemed a bit extreme to be transporting our convicts to North Africa. Is Australia too expensive these days? I decided to investigate and it turns out to be a Mr Ali al-Megrahi who has been the subject of this storm.
The release, on compassionate grounds, of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has raised considerable anger in the US this week, and not insubstantial criticism in the UK. Obama, Clinton (Mrs), and now FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, have all been critical of the decision made by the Scottish Government. But are they in danger of (a) methinks they protestest too much, or (b) attempting to inappropriately influence British justice based on US concepts of vengeance rather than punishment and rehabilitation.
Let’s take the first of those ideas. Megrahi was convicted in 2001 of the murder of the 259 passengers and crew of Pan Am Flight 103 and eleven residents killed at Lockerbie on on 21 December 1988. The trial lasted 36 weeks and there was no jury – three Scottish judges delivered the verdict. However, there was and remains significant legal opinion that the verdict was unsafe (not that Megrahi was innocent, but that the case for guilt had not been proven). This is based on unreliability of witnesses and suppression of evidence. A second appeal was granted in 2007 indicating judicial acceptance that there was a possibility of a miscarriage of justice, the only grounds for appeal under Scottish law.
The UN Observer at the original Lockerbie trial, Hans Köchler, wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband in July 2008 to express concern about a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate issued in connection with the Megrahi’s second appeal denying the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document in the possession of the prosecution. In other words, evidence that might affect the verdict was being officially suppressed by the UK government on national security grounds. Most reasonable people would not consider a trial fair if the prosecution were permitted to withhold evidence. Worse, the Government decided to appoint a defence lawyer of their own choice to examine the documentation on Megrahi’s behalf. Would you trust your defence in a murder charge to a lawyer appointed by the people prosecuting you? This is beginning to sound like the sort of justice a totalitarian regime might indulge in, not the UK.
At the very least the conviction could not be said to be completely sound and above board. The appeal was originally to be heard at some point in 2009 and expected to last up to 12 months. However, in the meantime, Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer and would be most unlikely to survive the appeal. In an ideal world the appeal would have gone ahead, perhaps a re-trial would have been ordered. But this could never happen based on Megrahi’s life expectancy, measured in months. The suppressed evidence was apparently documentation originating from the CIA. At this point, conspiracy theories abound. Was Libya a scapegoat, was the perpetrator Iran? All kinds of Middle East politics and intrigue involved. We will never know the truth, and because of that the verdict of guilty could never be safe. Even amongst the relatives of some of the victims there is doubt. So why are the Americans bleating about the release of Megrahi. Because maintaining he was the guilty man, despite the doubts, closes the case and stops the questions having to be answered perhaps?
What about the second possibility, vengeance. The American concept of justice is alien to the British, and European, models. We are also covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. The basis of our penal system is punishment and rehabilitation, with all but the most heinous of criminals eligible for parole at some point. In Megrahi’s case he would have been eligible for parole after 20 years. Under the US system, they often solve the problem with a lethal injection, or at best no possibility of parole. In such cases there is no concept of rehabilitation, only vengeance, and vengeance is a very destructive emotion. Judges in the US are closely tied in with politics, either through direct election, or via political appointment, so are closely influenced by public emotion, regardless of how destructive such an emotion is to society.
There are some, many, maybe a majority, who would prefer we adopted the same standards, and you do despair at many inadequate sentences passed down by British judges. But do you really want your judges to be indebted to politicians, or do you want them to be independent? Do you really want the State, in your name, to execute innocent people bearing in mind there are many instances of wrongly convicted people in the UK, who would undoubtedly have been executed if we had a death penalty. You can’t reverse an execution if you have made a mistake. If you, or a loved one, were the victim of a miscarriage of justice, would you want our system or theirs? That is why Parliament always rejects a return to capital punishment despite “popular” opinion based on one-sided gutter press arguments, remembering that our main gutter press outlet is owned by a US citizen. US justice also means Guantanamo Bay, detention without trial, torture, and the PATRIOT Act. It is very scary stuff – if Americans want to put up with that it is up to them. But it isn’t for us, and American leaders have zero right to attempt to influence, or even criticise, our standards of justice. Had Megrahi been convicted in the US, they would long ago have disposed of inconvenient questions as to guilt via a lethal injection. That is what Americans would have expected, demanded, and got. Hence their insistence he should die in a Scottish jail. Clean up your own act in Guantanamo before you start lecturing us America.
Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds is a convenience. He withdrew his appeal, an appeal that would never have been concluded. The awkward questions will not be asked or answered. No other explanation will be explored other than by conspiracy theorists, and the case remains closed. Time to move on – the truth may be known to our great grandchildren when papers are released in 100 years, but we will never be told.
What of Scotland in all this? The SNP government have taken their first major decision with international perspectives. Not a popular one across the Atlantic, nor it seems at home in Scotland, or in the rest of the UK. But they took it, difficult one that is was. It may well be another step on the road to an independent Scotland, and good luck to them if that is the road they choose to take. Whether you agree with this decision or not, you have to give the Scottish government credit and respect for actually taking it, rather than passing it off on the Westminster government or kowtowing to American pressure. Interesting that it is the Scots and the Scottish Nationalists that are upholding our, British, values and standards of justice, something our, British, government might think about as they deliver Gary McKinnon to our friends across the Atlantic.
© Evrose, 2010
