Courtesy of Cuillin FM, you can listen to the press conference held at Greshornish House, Skye, yesterday morning on the occasion of the conclusion of the Greshornish House Accord.
I wish to pay a sincere tribute to Robbie the Pict for organising this meeting and for chairing it so competently. His expertise on constitutional and human rights issues made no small contribution to the success of the occasion.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Greshornish. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Greshornish. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday 17 September 2008
Saturday 4 October 2008
The Firm's coverage of Skye event
The October issue of the Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm has a two-page spread, with photographs, on the meeting organized by the Lockerbie Justice Group at Greshornish House, Skye, on 15 and 16 September 2008. The text reads as follows:
No limits on Skye as legal academics aim for new way ahead
Over two days at a retreat in the north of Skye, a unique and unprecedented international accord was drafted in an effort to provide Scots law with a way out of the Lockerbie judicial quagmire, and provide a better model for future cases. Steven Raeburn was there to hear the outcomes.
A secluded idyll at practically the northwesternmost fringe of the European continent is an incongruous site for an international conference. The ripples that could emanate from a quiet country hotel sited at the end of a rutted road, promulgated by two legal academics at the invitation of Scotland’s most dogged and effective patriot, far from the entrenched attitudes, vested interest and closed minds of the madding crowd of Holyrood and central belt establishment, could ripple out and write a profoundly significant chapter in the history of Scottish justice.
The Greshornish House Accord proposes that if Scotland was charged with managing such an international case in the future, it could be held at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And that non Scottish judges could participate in a Scottish trial, citing international precedent. It also proposes practical amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland ) Act 1995, the ‘bible’ of criminal law, and to the Scotland Act to amend the ‘inappropriate’ situation where the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of criminal prosecutions.
“I hope that we can set a hare running from this point, and that this message will eventually get to the powers-that-be, and they will take some cognisance of it,” said Robbie the Pict, who had gathered Professor Robert Black and Dr Hans Kochler, UN appointed observer to the Lockerbie proceedings, to discuss four key questions “in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988”. The resultant accord is a four part template providing both a philosophical and a practical way out of the quagmire surrounding the ongoing Lockerbie proceedings which have stained Scots law. Proceedings which presently appear to be hostage to the strategic interests of UK and US foreign policy and Libyan governmental expedience.
The scale and depth of the mess has been extraordinary. The ease with which Scots law was hijacked is troubling. The lack of fuss or even interest from within the legal and political establishment, and the evident assent of Scots law to serve the geopolitical interest gives the impression of collusion, complicity and denial. Court doors have literally been closed as proceedings carry on in secret, to the exclusion even of the defence and the accused. The era of hidden justice is upon us. The proponents of the Greshornish House accord don’t think this is good enough.
“As an observer, I just would like to know exactly what the causes of this incident in the air over Lockerbie really are. I just hope that there will be a new appeal. If evidence is withheld from the defence, there can be no appeal,” Hans Kochler said, announcing the joint conclusions on Skye. “To me it is extremely frustrating that in regard to such an incident, just one person has been presented as the culprit, with no further questions asked and no investigations ever having been made. This is not a credible explanation.
“Why doesn’t Scotland, independent in regard to the administration of criminal justice, undertake the appropriate measures to investigate this matter fully? This is a case that is not closed. This is something that is ongoing, and I will not run away until I am presented with a clear, unambiguous and comprehensive decision of a court.”
“If this is an independent system, theoretically, the prosecutorial authorities of Scotland could still initiate investigations into this incident and into what caused it. I do not think everything is just connected to the question of the personal criminal responsibility of one lone individual.”
The ongoing court proceedings in the case, returned to the High Court on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, are presently diverted with procedural issues relating to the disclosure or otherwise of evidential letters, which have been given considerable weight by the court and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, although sources who are aware of the contents of the documents have told the Firm that their contents are well known and irrelevant. The sleight of hand will result, say both Black and Kochler, in unavoidable prejudice to Megrahi’s case, and his inevitable repatriation.
“This panel basically agrees that if they uphold the PII certificate, no appeal is possible, and Mr Megrahi will be sent home. He would have to be sent home. We cannot offer him a fair hearing of his appeal,” said Robbie the Pict, who brokered the accord and convened the panel. “If the FCO are urging that this is a highly sensitive document, this cannot be taken lightly. So it would prevail over the interests of Scottish justice. If that happens, there is an implicit duty upon the judges to say there is not an equality of arms, therefore they cannot offer Mr Megrahi a fair appeal hearing.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in orchestrating the original trial proceedings in Zeist, says there is currently no political will to reinvestigate the circumstances of the event, even if Megrahi is repatriated and proceedings close without a solid conviction as predicted. “I am not convinced that there is such political will. One of the things we have been trying to do is insert some backbone into those politicians who have the power to make it happen,” he said.
Kochler in turn drew comparison with the Shirley McKie embarrassment, which resulted in a lengthy and productive inquiry process that shed some welcome light on the dustier corners of the Scottish judicial and political power structure. Such an outcome is warranted in the Lockerbie scenario he says. “The present case definitely has as much weight as the McKie case for the rule of law, and for democratic structures. Why would the government of Scotland not agree to an independent inquiry? Scotland would also do a great service to the international rule of law. This was an incident of international nature. To know the truth about it is extremely important.”
The nexus between Scots law and UK foreign policy is directly affected by the friction arising from the handling of this case. Kochler believes that this presents an opportunity for Scots law to assert its credibility and ensure the maintenance of its international reputation. “It is a test case to see how independent the Scottish judiciary acts and how determined the authorities of this country are to assert the supremacy of the law over political interests,” he says.
“Scottish justice may still come out very well, if there is a new appeal, which is fair, and conducted with all the material and all the evidence made available to both sides, then there is still a chance. If not, this will just be one of the many cases where politics finally prevailed over law. This is the result of a political and international constellation that Scotland cannot control. But still, the judiciary should try to act independently and not give in to the political pressures.”
No limits on Skye as legal academics aim for new way ahead
Over two days at a retreat in the north of Skye, a unique and unprecedented international accord was drafted in an effort to provide Scots law with a way out of the Lockerbie judicial quagmire, and provide a better model for future cases. Steven Raeburn was there to hear the outcomes.
A secluded idyll at practically the northwesternmost fringe of the European continent is an incongruous site for an international conference. The ripples that could emanate from a quiet country hotel sited at the end of a rutted road, promulgated by two legal academics at the invitation of Scotland’s most dogged and effective patriot, far from the entrenched attitudes, vested interest and closed minds of the madding crowd of Holyrood and central belt establishment, could ripple out and write a profoundly significant chapter in the history of Scottish justice.
The Greshornish House Accord proposes that if Scotland was charged with managing such an international case in the future, it could be held at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And that non Scottish judges could participate in a Scottish trial, citing international precedent. It also proposes practical amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland ) Act 1995, the ‘bible’ of criminal law, and to the Scotland Act to amend the ‘inappropriate’ situation where the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of criminal prosecutions.
“I hope that we can set a hare running from this point, and that this message will eventually get to the powers-that-be, and they will take some cognisance of it,” said Robbie the Pict, who had gathered Professor Robert Black and Dr Hans Kochler, UN appointed observer to the Lockerbie proceedings, to discuss four key questions “in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988”. The resultant accord is a four part template providing both a philosophical and a practical way out of the quagmire surrounding the ongoing Lockerbie proceedings which have stained Scots law. Proceedings which presently appear to be hostage to the strategic interests of UK and US foreign policy and Libyan governmental expedience.
The scale and depth of the mess has been extraordinary. The ease with which Scots law was hijacked is troubling. The lack of fuss or even interest from within the legal and political establishment, and the evident assent of Scots law to serve the geopolitical interest gives the impression of collusion, complicity and denial. Court doors have literally been closed as proceedings carry on in secret, to the exclusion even of the defence and the accused. The era of hidden justice is upon us. The proponents of the Greshornish House accord don’t think this is good enough.
“As an observer, I just would like to know exactly what the causes of this incident in the air over Lockerbie really are. I just hope that there will be a new appeal. If evidence is withheld from the defence, there can be no appeal,” Hans Kochler said, announcing the joint conclusions on Skye. “To me it is extremely frustrating that in regard to such an incident, just one person has been presented as the culprit, with no further questions asked and no investigations ever having been made. This is not a credible explanation.
“Why doesn’t Scotland, independent in regard to the administration of criminal justice, undertake the appropriate measures to investigate this matter fully? This is a case that is not closed. This is something that is ongoing, and I will not run away until I am presented with a clear, unambiguous and comprehensive decision of a court.”
“If this is an independent system, theoretically, the prosecutorial authorities of Scotland could still initiate investigations into this incident and into what caused it. I do not think everything is just connected to the question of the personal criminal responsibility of one lone individual.”
The ongoing court proceedings in the case, returned to the High Court on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, are presently diverted with procedural issues relating to the disclosure or otherwise of evidential letters, which have been given considerable weight by the court and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, although sources who are aware of the contents of the documents have told the Firm that their contents are well known and irrelevant. The sleight of hand will result, say both Black and Kochler, in unavoidable prejudice to Megrahi’s case, and his inevitable repatriation.
“This panel basically agrees that if they uphold the PII certificate, no appeal is possible, and Mr Megrahi will be sent home. He would have to be sent home. We cannot offer him a fair hearing of his appeal,” said Robbie the Pict, who brokered the accord and convened the panel. “If the FCO are urging that this is a highly sensitive document, this cannot be taken lightly. So it would prevail over the interests of Scottish justice. If that happens, there is an implicit duty upon the judges to say there is not an equality of arms, therefore they cannot offer Mr Megrahi a fair appeal hearing.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in orchestrating the original trial proceedings in Zeist, says there is currently no political will to reinvestigate the circumstances of the event, even if Megrahi is repatriated and proceedings close without a solid conviction as predicted. “I am not convinced that there is such political will. One of the things we have been trying to do is insert some backbone into those politicians who have the power to make it happen,” he said.
Kochler in turn drew comparison with the Shirley McKie embarrassment, which resulted in a lengthy and productive inquiry process that shed some welcome light on the dustier corners of the Scottish judicial and political power structure. Such an outcome is warranted in the Lockerbie scenario he says. “The present case definitely has as much weight as the McKie case for the rule of law, and for democratic structures. Why would the government of Scotland not agree to an independent inquiry? Scotland would also do a great service to the international rule of law. This was an incident of international nature. To know the truth about it is extremely important.”
The nexus between Scots law and UK foreign policy is directly affected by the friction arising from the handling of this case. Kochler believes that this presents an opportunity for Scots law to assert its credibility and ensure the maintenance of its international reputation. “It is a test case to see how independent the Scottish judiciary acts and how determined the authorities of this country are to assert the supremacy of the law over political interests,” he says.
“Scottish justice may still come out very well, if there is a new appeal, which is fair, and conducted with all the material and all the evidence made available to both sides, then there is still a chance. If not, this will just be one of the many cases where politics finally prevailed over law. This is the result of a political and international constellation that Scotland cannot control. But still, the judiciary should try to act independently and not give in to the political pressures.”
Wednesday 16 September 2015
The Greshornish House Accord
[In September 2008, the Lockerbie Justice Group convened a meeting at Greshornish House, Isle of Skye, at which the participants, Professor Hans Köchler and I, were invited to consider four questions. The resulting Greshornish House Accord, dated 16 September 2008, reads as follows:]
The questions asked were answered as follows:
QUESTION 1. Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office arrangements for a trial at Kamp Zeist deliver an independent and impartial tribunal?
A.1. No. We draw attention to five principal defects:
a) It would have enhanced the appearance of independence and impartiality if the Judicial Bench had been composed of Judges from countries other than the United Kingdom with a Scottish Judge in the Chair. This is principally because the case involves the interests of more than one state and the appointment of all the Judges from only one of the concerned states does not meet the required standards of independence and impartiality. The Consultants present today would both have preferred a tribunal wherein a Scottish Judge chaired a panel of Judges from other countries but this was rejected by the relevant UK authorities. It should be kept in mind that there was an ongoing political dispute between the UK and Libya at this time which had led to the severing of diplomatic relations.
b) The presence of American advisers in the well of the Court, later identified to the IPO as FBI agents, having frequent discourse and consultation with the Crown prosecution team contributed to the appearance of outside influence on the conduct of the prosecution. These persons were not identified at any point and their names did not appear on the official brochure which, amongst other things, named the prosecution and defence teams. Concerns were raised in the course of the trial that these persons appeared to be guiding witness responses by facial gestures.
c) We are of the view that if, in an adversarial system, the defence does not properly play its antagonistic role, the interplay of forces is set off-balance. This demands both equality of arms procedurally, and a determined and dedicated wielding of these arms.
We draw attention to the new burden placed upon all Judges under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to ensure that there is indeed an equality of arms in their Court.
d) Whilst we accept that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to convict, we are not satisfied that the Court, in its written judgment, adequately explained its reasons for accepting incriminating inferences from that evidence and rejecting or dismissing evidence that supported non-incriminating inferences.
e) We have good reason to suspect that rewards and benefits of a direct or indirect nature have been paid to prosecution witnesses.
QUESTION 2. What should happen now?
A.2
a) In the event that the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate is upheld by the Court and evidence is withheld from the Defence, we consider that this would render the conduct of a fair appeal impossible. We believe that, in actuality and in the public perception, such a denial compromises the principles of a fair hearing, which depends significantly upon equality of arms.
In this context we would like to draw attention to the position adopted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter, as contained in a letter written to the IPO on 27 August 2008. It reads:
“Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Court has a duty to act in compliance with Convention rights in terms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the right to a fair trial. The UK Government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately.”
b) In the event that the present appeal proceeds, we recommend the following:
i) That the pending decision by the Appeal Court, regarding the scope of the appeal, be delivered with urgency. Preparation by both the appellant and the Crown is impeded whilst the precise parameters of the appeal remain unsettled. It is clearly desirable that any decision defining those parameters should give reasons for the rejection of any grounds submitted by the appellant.
ii) The phrase ‘the trial and any appeal’ in the Agreement between the Governments of the UK and the Netherlands concerning a Scottish Trial in the Netherlands permits the view that this further appeal should also take place in an international framework; however we consider that unlikely. We urge that the relevant Scottish andUK authorities take such steps as are necessary to secure the presence of international observers at any further appeal hearing.
c) Irrespective of the outcome of the current appeal, there should be a re-investigation of the incident by the Scottish authorities. A further Fatal Accident Inquiry would not be inappropriate given the amount of material that has become available since the original FAI took place. When the restricted scope of an FAI is considered perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a wider-ranging public inquiry.
d) Allegations have been made in the Press and elsewhere of incidences of tampering with evidence material to the case. The Lord Advocate should instruct that these allegations be investigated.
QUESTION 3. If Scotland was charged with managing such an international event in the future, what model is recommended?
A3.
a) Although this is a hypothetical question it offers the opportunity to advise the Scottish public of developments since the Lockerbie incident. The UK is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This would mean that such matters could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
b) Where, for whatever reason, the ICC cannot be resorted to, the possibility exists of inviting non-Scottish Judges to participate in a Scottish trial. The following are illustrative precedents for such an approach:
- The Special Court for Sierra Leone, established by agreement between the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone.
- The Special Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.
QUESTION 4. What changes should be considered for the better administration of justice in Scotland?
A4.
1. Whilst Scotland retains an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial system, the existence of a real equality of arms is crucial to the delivery of justice. Following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) the responsibility for ensuring a fair trial, which includes equality of arms, lies with the Court itself. Although this judicial obligation is already enshrined in the law, it could usefully be spelled out in an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
2. It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998.
3. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be amended to oblige the Crown to disclose all prosecution witness statements. The current system, whereby the Crown’s disclosure obligation is met by simply supplying a list of possible Crown witnesses, encourages the fruitless expenditure of defence time, money and effort.
4. The absence of a particular and dedicated Criminal Appeal Court, especially when, unlike in civil matters, there is no further appeal available to a higher Court, renders the appeal system vulnerable to serious criticism.
Wednesday 17 September 2008
Press coverage of the Greshornish House Accord
The Scottish daily "heavies" run substantial reports on the Greshornish House accord. The article in The Herald can be read here and that in The Scotsman here. The comments from members of the public are also worth reading. The website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm also has a lengthy report.
Sunday 2 November 2008
Judges call for Lord Advocate to be stripped of powers
In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professor Hans Köchler and I said this:
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
Friday 22 September 2017
Law and Politics in the Lockerbie Case
[This is the heading over a press release issued on this date in 2008 by the International Progress Organization. It reads in part:]
The UN-appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, Dr Hans Koechler, revealed in an interview with the BBC's Reevel Alderson on 17 September that the judges dealing with the new appeal of the only convicted suspect in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have ruled that special counsel should be appointed for the Appellant in regard to the material covered by the Foreign Secretary's Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. This was communicated in a letter to a member of the House of Commons, dated 4 September 2008 and signed on behalf of the Minister of State Kim Howells. The respective paragraph at the end of the letter reads as follows:
The UK government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr. Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately. To this end the court ruled on 19 August that special counsel should be appointed to assist the court and safeguard Mr Megrahi's interests in relation to this issue. Once appointed, the special counsel will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last hearing. The UK government supports this ruling in the interests of ensuring the trial is fair.
It is to be noted that the above letter was in reply to a letter the member of the House of Commons had written earlier (13 August 2008) to the Foreign Secretary, stating that he was "deeply concerned if the statement by Dr Koechler in the attached letter is correct and vital 'exculpatory material' is being withheld from Mr Al-Megrahi's defence team." The member of the House of Commons refers to a letter by Dr Koechler, dated 21 July 2008, to the Foreign Secretary. It is further to be noted that Dr Koechler received an almost identical letter of reply from the Foreign Office (dated 27 August) - with the exception of the three sentences marked in bold in the above quotation.
The UN-appointed international observer has visited Scotland from 11 to 19 September on a fact-finding mission aimed at assessing the reasons for the long delay of the new Lockerbie appeal. (In June 2007, after investigations that lasted several years, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the convicted Libyan national's case back to the High Court of Justiciary.)
In the course of his visit, Dr Koechler has participated in consultations held on 15/16 September at Greshornish House on the Isle of Skye. The meeting was convened at the invitation of the Lockerbie Justice Group, headed by Robbie the Pict, and included Prof Robert Black, the "architect" of the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. Under the motto Quid nunc, Scotia? the participants were asked to consider questions in regard to the fairness and impartiality of the Lockerbie proceedings in the Netherlands and eventual new appeal proceedings in Scotland and to reflect on the lessons to be learned for the handling of any such case in the future.
Dr Koechler further held consultations with Mr Tam Dalyell, former member of the British Parliament and Father of the House of Commons; with Mr Alex Neil MSP and Mr Ian McKie, father of policewoman Shirley McKie, at the Scottish Parliament; and with members of the Lockerbie Justice Group on the Isle of Skye, in Edinburgh and Glasgow. On 18 September he delivered a keynote speech on "The Lockerbie Trial and the Rule of Law" at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008, organized by The Firm magazine in association with Registers of Scotland at the Glasgow Hilton Hotel. In a reference to the Public Interest Immunity claimed by the UK government, Dr Koechler said:
Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale - its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as "supreme state interests" interfere with the imperatives of justice. (...) The fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order - such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience.
Dr Koechler's address was followed by enthusiastic applause from an audience of over 600 attendants representing Scotland's legal profession and was commented on by the subsequent keynote speaker, Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC, former Leader of the United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats.
In an exclusive interview for the German-French TV channel ARTE, conducted in Edinburgh, and in all public meetings and consultations in Scotland Dr Koechler reiterated his call for a full public inquiry into the causes of the mid-air explosion of PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie and the handling of the case by the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish as well as the British executive.
Tuesday 23 September 2008
Professor Köchler on PII
Statement by Professor Hans Köchler following his visit to Scotland last week:
'The UN-appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, Dr Hans Koechler, revealed in an interview with the BBC's Reevel Alderson on 17 September that the judges dealing with the new appeal of the only convicted suspect in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have ruled that special counsel should be appointed for the Appellant in regard to the material covered by the Foreign Secretary's Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. This was communicated in a letter to a member of the House of Commons, dated 4 September 2008 and signed on behalf of the Minister of State Kim Howells. The respective paragraph at the end of the letter reads as follows:
'"The UK government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr. Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately. To this end the court ruled on 19 August that special counsel should be appointed to assist the court and safeguard Mr Megrahi's interests in relation to this issue. Once appointed, the special counsel will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last hearing. The UK government supports this ruling in the interests of ensuring the trial is fair."
'It is to be noted that the above letter was in reply to a letter the member of the House of Commons had written earlier (13 August 2008) to the Foreign Secretary, stating that he was "deeply concerned if the statement by Dr Koechler in the attached letter is correct and vital 'exculpatory material' is being withheld from Mr Al-Megrahi's defence team." The member of the House of Commons refers to a letter by Dr Koechler, dated 21 July 2008, to the Foreign Secretary. It is further to be noted that Dr Koechler received an almost identical letter of reply from the Foreign Office (dated 27 August)- with the exception of the three sentences marked in bold in the above quotation.
'The UN-appointed international observer has visited Scotland from 11 to 19 September on a fact-finding mission aimed at assessing the reasons for the long delay of the new Lockerbie appeal. (In June 2007, after investigations that lasted several years, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the convicted Libyan national's case back to the High Court of Justiciary.)
'In the course of his visit, Dr Koechler has participated in consultations held on 15/16 September at Greshornish House on the Isle of Skye. The meeting was convened at the invitation of the Lockerbie Justice Group, headed by Mr Robbie the Pict, and included Prof. Robert Black, the "architect" of the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. Under the motto Quid nunc, Scotia? the participants were asked to consider questions in regard to the fairness and impartiality of the Lockerbie proceedings in the Netherlands and eventual new appeal proceedings in Scotland and to reflect on the lessons to be learned for the handling of any such case in the future.
'Dr Koechler further held consultations at the House of the Binns with Mr Tam Dalyell, former member of the House of Commons; with Mr Alex Neil MSP and Mr Ian McKie, father of policewoman Shirley McKie, at the Scottish Parliament; and with members of the Lockerbie Justice Group. On 18 September he delivered a keynote speech on "The Lockerbie Trial and the Rule of Law" at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008, organized by The Firm magazine in association with Registers of Scotland at the Glasgow Hilton Hotel. In a reference to the Public Interest Immunity claimed by the UK government, Dr Koechler said:
'"Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale - its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as 'supreme state interests' interfere with the imperatives of justice. (...) The fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order - such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience."
'Dr Koechler's address was followed by enthusiastic applause from an audience of over 600 attendants representing Scotland's legal profession and was commented on by the subsequent keynote speaker, Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC, former Leader of the United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats.
'In an exclusive interview for the German-French TV channel ARTE, conducted in Edinburgh, and in all public meetings and consultations in Scotland Dr Koechler reiterated his call for a full public inquiry into the causes of the mid-air explosion of PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie and the handling of the case by the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish as well as the British executive.'
'The UN-appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, Dr Hans Koechler, revealed in an interview with the BBC's Reevel Alderson on 17 September that the judges dealing with the new appeal of the only convicted suspect in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have ruled that special counsel should be appointed for the Appellant in regard to the material covered by the Foreign Secretary's Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. This was communicated in a letter to a member of the House of Commons, dated 4 September 2008 and signed on behalf of the Minister of State Kim Howells. The respective paragraph at the end of the letter reads as follows:
'"The UK government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr. Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately. To this end the court ruled on 19 August that special counsel should be appointed to assist the court and safeguard Mr Megrahi's interests in relation to this issue. Once appointed, the special counsel will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last hearing. The UK government supports this ruling in the interests of ensuring the trial is fair."
'It is to be noted that the above letter was in reply to a letter the member of the House of Commons had written earlier (13 August 2008) to the Foreign Secretary, stating that he was "deeply concerned if the statement by Dr Koechler in the attached letter is correct and vital 'exculpatory material' is being withheld from Mr Al-Megrahi's defence team." The member of the House of Commons refers to a letter by Dr Koechler, dated 21 July 2008, to the Foreign Secretary. It is further to be noted that Dr Koechler received an almost identical letter of reply from the Foreign Office (dated 27 August)- with the exception of the three sentences marked in bold in the above quotation.
'The UN-appointed international observer has visited Scotland from 11 to 19 September on a fact-finding mission aimed at assessing the reasons for the long delay of the new Lockerbie appeal. (In June 2007, after investigations that lasted several years, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the convicted Libyan national's case back to the High Court of Justiciary.)
'In the course of his visit, Dr Koechler has participated in consultations held on 15/16 September at Greshornish House on the Isle of Skye. The meeting was convened at the invitation of the Lockerbie Justice Group, headed by Mr Robbie the Pict, and included Prof. Robert Black, the "architect" of the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. Under the motto Quid nunc, Scotia? the participants were asked to consider questions in regard to the fairness and impartiality of the Lockerbie proceedings in the Netherlands and eventual new appeal proceedings in Scotland and to reflect on the lessons to be learned for the handling of any such case in the future.
'Dr Koechler further held consultations at the House of the Binns with Mr Tam Dalyell, former member of the House of Commons; with Mr Alex Neil MSP and Mr Ian McKie, father of policewoman Shirley McKie, at the Scottish Parliament; and with members of the Lockerbie Justice Group. On 18 September he delivered a keynote speech on "The Lockerbie Trial and the Rule of Law" at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008, organized by The Firm magazine in association with Registers of Scotland at the Glasgow Hilton Hotel. In a reference to the Public Interest Immunity claimed by the UK government, Dr Koechler said:
'"Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale - its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as 'supreme state interests' interfere with the imperatives of justice. (...) The fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order - such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience."
'Dr Koechler's address was followed by enthusiastic applause from an audience of over 600 attendants representing Scotland's legal profession and was commented on by the subsequent keynote speaker, Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC, former Leader of the United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats.
'In an exclusive interview for the German-French TV channel ARTE, conducted in Edinburgh, and in all public meetings and consultations in Scotland Dr Koechler reiterated his call for a full public inquiry into the causes of the mid-air explosion of PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie and the handling of the case by the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish as well as the British executive.'
Tuesday 16 September 2008
Greshornish House Accord
Invited Consultants –
Dr Hans Koechler, President of the International Progress Organisation (IPO), Vienna.
Prof Robert Black QC, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law, University of Edinburgh.
Convener –
Robbie the Pict, Lockerbie Justice Group.
The participants were invited to reply to four questions put by the Convener in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988.
The questions asked were answered as follows:
QUESTION 1. Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office arrangements for a trial at Kamp Zeist deliver an independent and impartial tribunal?
ANSWER 1.
No. We draw attention to five principal defects:
a) It would have enhanced the appearance of independence and impartiality if the Judicial Bench had been composed of Judges from countries other than the United Kingdom with a Scottish Judge in the Chair. This is principally because the case involves the interests of more than one state and the appointment of all the Judges from only one of the concerned states does not meet the required standards of independence and impartiality. The Consultants present today would both have preferred a tribunal wherein a Scottish Judge chaired a panel of Judges from other countries but this was rejected by the relevant UK authorities. It should be kept in mind that there was an ongoing political dispute between the UK and Libya at this time which had led to the severing of diplomatic relations.
b) The presence of American advisers in the well of the Court, later identified to the IPO as FBI agents, having frequent discourse and consultation with the Crown prosecution team contributed to the appearance of outside influence on the conduct of the prosecution. These persons were not identified at any point and their names did not appear on the official brochure which, amongst other things, named the prosecution and defence teams. Concerns were raised in the course of the trial that these persons appeared to be guiding witness responses by facial gestures.
c) We are of the view that if, in an adversarial system, the defence does not properly play its antagonistic role, the interplay of forces is set off-balance. This demands both equality of arms procedurally, and a determined and dedicated wielding of these arms. We draw attention to the new burden placed upon all Judges under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to ensure that there is indeed an equality of arms in their Court.
d) Whilst we accept that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to convict, we are not satisfied that the Court, in its written judgment, adequately explained its reasons for accepting incriminating inferences from that evidence and rejecting or dismissing evidence that supported non-incriminating inferences.
e) We have good reason to suspect that rewards and benefits of a direct or indirect nature have been paid to prosecution witnesses.
QUESTION 2. What should happen now?
ANSWER 2
a) In the event that the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate is upheld by the Court and evidence is withheld from the Defence, we consider that this would render the conduct of a fair appeal impossible. We believe that, in actuality and in the public perception, such a denial compromises the principles of a fair hearing, which depends significantly upon equality of arms. In this context we would like to draw attention to the position adopted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter, as contained in a letter written to the IPO on 27 August 2008. It reads:
“Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Court has a duty to act in compliance with Convention rights in terms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the right to a fair trial. The UK Government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately.”
b) In the event that the present appeal proceeds, we recommend the following:
i) That the pending decision by the Appeal Court, regarding the scope of the appeal, be delivered with urgency. Preparation by both the appellant and the Crown is impeded whilst the precise parameters of the appeal remain unsettled. It is clearly desirable that any decision defining those parameters should give reasons for the rejection of any grounds submitted by the appellant.
ii) The phrase ‘the trial and any appeal’ in the Agreement between the Governments of the UK and the Netherlands concerning a Scottish Trial in the Netherlands permits the view that this further appeal should also take place in an international framework; however we consider that unlikely. We urge that the relevant Scottish and UK authorities take such steps as are necessary to secure the presence of international observers at any further appeal hearing.
c) Irrespective of the outcome of the current appeal, there should be a re-investigation of the incident by the Scottish authorities. A further Fatal Accident Inquiry would not be inappropriate given the amount of material that has become available since the original FAI took place. When the restricted scope of an FAI is considered perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a wider-ranging public inquiry.
d) Allegations have been made in the Press and elsewhere of incidences of tampering with evidence material to the case. The Lord Advocate should instruct that these allegations be investigated.
QUESTION 3. If Scotland was charged with managing such an international event in the future, what model is recommended?
ANSWER 3.
a) Although this is a hypothetical question it offers the opportunity to advise the Scottish public of developments since the Lockerbie incident. The UK is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This would mean that such matters could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
b) Where, for whatever reason, the ICC cannot be resorted to, the possibility exists of inviting non-Scottish Judges to participate in a Scottish trial. The following are illustrative precedents for such an approach:
i) The Special Court for Sierra Leone, established by agreement between the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone.
ii) The Special Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.
QUESTION 4. What changes should be considered for the better administration of justice in Scotland?
ANSWER 4.
1. Whilst Scotland retains an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial system, the existence of a real equality of arms is crucial to the delivery of justice. Following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) the responsibility for ensuring a fair trial, which includes equality of arms, lies with the Court itself. Although this judicial obligation is already enshrined in the law, it could usefully be spelled out in an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
2. It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998.
3. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be amended to oblige the Crown to disclose all prosecution witness statements. The current system, whereby the Crown’s disclosure obligation is met by simply supplying a list of possible Crown witnesses, encourages the fruitless expenditure of defence time, money and effort.
4. The absence of a particular and dedicated Criminal Appeal Court, especially when, unlike in civil matters, there is no further appeal available to a higher Court, renders the appeal system vulnerable to serious criticism.
16 September 2008
Dr Hans Koechler, President of the International Progress Organisation (IPO), Vienna.
Prof Robert Black QC, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law, University of Edinburgh.
Convener –
Robbie the Pict, Lockerbie Justice Group.
The participants were invited to reply to four questions put by the Convener in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988.
The questions asked were answered as follows:
QUESTION 1. Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office arrangements for a trial at Kamp Zeist deliver an independent and impartial tribunal?
ANSWER 1.
No. We draw attention to five principal defects:
a) It would have enhanced the appearance of independence and impartiality if the Judicial Bench had been composed of Judges from countries other than the United Kingdom with a Scottish Judge in the Chair. This is principally because the case involves the interests of more than one state and the appointment of all the Judges from only one of the concerned states does not meet the required standards of independence and impartiality. The Consultants present today would both have preferred a tribunal wherein a Scottish Judge chaired a panel of Judges from other countries but this was rejected by the relevant UK authorities. It should be kept in mind that there was an ongoing political dispute between the UK and Libya at this time which had led to the severing of diplomatic relations.
b) The presence of American advisers in the well of the Court, later identified to the IPO as FBI agents, having frequent discourse and consultation with the Crown prosecution team contributed to the appearance of outside influence on the conduct of the prosecution. These persons were not identified at any point and their names did not appear on the official brochure which, amongst other things, named the prosecution and defence teams. Concerns were raised in the course of the trial that these persons appeared to be guiding witness responses by facial gestures.
c) We are of the view that if, in an adversarial system, the defence does not properly play its antagonistic role, the interplay of forces is set off-balance. This demands both equality of arms procedurally, and a determined and dedicated wielding of these arms. We draw attention to the new burden placed upon all Judges under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to ensure that there is indeed an equality of arms in their Court.
d) Whilst we accept that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to convict, we are not satisfied that the Court, in its written judgment, adequately explained its reasons for accepting incriminating inferences from that evidence and rejecting or dismissing evidence that supported non-incriminating inferences.
e) We have good reason to suspect that rewards and benefits of a direct or indirect nature have been paid to prosecution witnesses.
QUESTION 2. What should happen now?
ANSWER 2
a) In the event that the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate is upheld by the Court and evidence is withheld from the Defence, we consider that this would render the conduct of a fair appeal impossible. We believe that, in actuality and in the public perception, such a denial compromises the principles of a fair hearing, which depends significantly upon equality of arms. In this context we would like to draw attention to the position adopted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter, as contained in a letter written to the IPO on 27 August 2008. It reads:
“Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Court has a duty to act in compliance with Convention rights in terms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the right to a fair trial. The UK Government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately.”
b) In the event that the present appeal proceeds, we recommend the following:
i) That the pending decision by the Appeal Court, regarding the scope of the appeal, be delivered with urgency. Preparation by both the appellant and the Crown is impeded whilst the precise parameters of the appeal remain unsettled. It is clearly desirable that any decision defining those parameters should give reasons for the rejection of any grounds submitted by the appellant.
ii) The phrase ‘the trial and any appeal’ in the Agreement between the Governments of the UK and the Netherlands concerning a Scottish Trial in the Netherlands permits the view that this further appeal should also take place in an international framework; however we consider that unlikely. We urge that the relevant Scottish and UK authorities take such steps as are necessary to secure the presence of international observers at any further appeal hearing.
c) Irrespective of the outcome of the current appeal, there should be a re-investigation of the incident by the Scottish authorities. A further Fatal Accident Inquiry would not be inappropriate given the amount of material that has become available since the original FAI took place. When the restricted scope of an FAI is considered perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a wider-ranging public inquiry.
d) Allegations have been made in the Press and elsewhere of incidences of tampering with evidence material to the case. The Lord Advocate should instruct that these allegations be investigated.
QUESTION 3. If Scotland was charged with managing such an international event in the future, what model is recommended?
ANSWER 3.
a) Although this is a hypothetical question it offers the opportunity to advise the Scottish public of developments since the Lockerbie incident. The UK is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This would mean that such matters could be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
b) Where, for whatever reason, the ICC cannot be resorted to, the possibility exists of inviting non-Scottish Judges to participate in a Scottish trial. The following are illustrative precedents for such an approach:
i) The Special Court for Sierra Leone, established by agreement between the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone.
ii) The Special Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.
QUESTION 4. What changes should be considered for the better administration of justice in Scotland?
ANSWER 4.
1. Whilst Scotland retains an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial system, the existence of a real equality of arms is crucial to the delivery of justice. Following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) the responsibility for ensuring a fair trial, which includes equality of arms, lies with the Court itself. Although this judicial obligation is already enshrined in the law, it could usefully be spelled out in an amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
2. It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998.
3. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be amended to oblige the Crown to disclose all prosecution witness statements. The current system, whereby the Crown’s disclosure obligation is met by simply supplying a list of possible Crown witnesses, encourages the fruitless expenditure of defence time, money and effort.
4. The absence of a particular and dedicated Criminal Appeal Court, especially when, unlike in civil matters, there is no further appeal available to a higher Court, renders the appeal system vulnerable to serious criticism.
16 September 2008
Friday 27 January 2017
Lord Advocate should not be head of prosecution system
[I am grateful to Robbie the Pict for drawing my attention to the following section in the Wikipedia article Lord Advocate:]
Calls for reform
In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professors Hans Köchler and Robert Black said—
It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998.
The judges of Scotland's highest court came to share this view. In a submission to the commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommended that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. They noted various ways in which the Lord Advocate's roles had caused problems for the judicial system, including the ability "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction."
The judges proposed three alternative solutions: stripping the Lord Advocate of responsibility for prosecutions, exempting the Lord Advocate from compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, or changing the law on criminal appeals. While not specifically favouring any of the three, they noted that the third proposal was radical enough to "generate considerable controversy".[5]
[5] Judiciary in the Court of Session (Just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)