Libyan Government requests transfer of Megrahi

[On this date in 2009 the Libyan Government submitted an application to the Scottish Government for Abdelbaset Megrahi to be transferred to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. The relevant post on this blog reads as follows:]

The Libyan authorities have applied for the transfer of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the Scottish government said today.

The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.

"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."

[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:]

'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.

'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.

'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."

'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.

'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."

'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.

'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.

'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.

'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.

'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.

'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.

'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.

'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."

'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.

'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.

'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.

"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.

'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.

'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."

'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'

[RB: The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]

Labour ex-justice spokesman stands down from Scottish Parliament

Richard Baker MSP, who was for some time the Labour Party’s justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, has today stood down from the parliament. His contributions to debate on the Lockerbie case were far from distinguished. Here is what I wrote about him in a blogpost on 15 May 2011 when he was calling for Abdelbaset Megrahi’s medical records to be published:

“Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.”

SNP plans law change over Lockerbie files

[This is the heading over a report published today on the Independent on Sunday website. It reads in part:]

New laws to allow the publication of Lockerbie files are to be brought in by the SNP. (...)

The SNP wants to change the law to allow the publication of papers from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

That paved the way for Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction, which he dropped shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, after he was given three months to live.

Currently the release of the SCCRC papers can be blocked by one or more of the parties who gave evidence to the review.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the SNP now plans to bring forward new legislation.

First Minister Alex Salmond said in February that he would change the law if the SNP won a second term.

Mr MacAskill told the Scottish Sunday Express: "This is something the new SNP Government will do in early course. We have always been as transparent as possible.

"And following the announcement last December that the SCCRC was unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to current legislation we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome those problems presented by the consent provisions."

Labour MSP Richard Baker said: "We need to know what Kenny MacAskill's reason for this change in the law is.

"He has always maintained that Megrahi was properly convicted by a Scottish court and that he had no reason to doubt his guilt.

"Now he appears to be casting doubt on his own assertion and if that is the case then Mr MacAskill needs to explain whether that influenced his decision to grant compassionate release.

"The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

"He doesn't need to wait or change the law to get these documents in the public domain."

He said that medical evidence on the condition of offenders is heard in court every day in Scotland and Megrahi's case should be no different.

[Every time Richard Baker MSP opens his mouth about Lockerbie and, it has to be said, many other justice-related subjects, one's views on the abysmal calibre of most Scottish Labour MSPs are resoundingly confirmed. Prisoners (and ex-prisoners) share the same rights in respect of medical confidentiality as any other inhabitant of Scotland. For Kenny MacAskill to release the medical reports relating to Abdelbaset Megrahi would, quite simply, be illegal. If Mr Baker does not know this, he should not be Labour's Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament. When reports on an accused (or convicted) person's medical condition are referred to in court, these reports are not released to the general public, but are for the use solely of those professionally engaged in the proceedings.

I note that Kenny MacAskill again refers to the law being changed by primary legislation. As has been pointed out more than once on this blog, primary legislation is unnecessary. The necessary change could be made, quickly and efficiently, in secondary legislation by statutory instrument.

A similar article appears on the website of the Scottish Sunday Express. It is reproduced on the Newsnet Scotland website, which I encourage readers to access because of the responses that follow the article. More welcome pressure, from primarily SNP supporters, for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.

This story has now (Monday) been picked up on The Scotsman website. It also features on the website of the staunchly pro-Labour Daily Record.]

Full details of Megrahi appeal case promised

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's chief Scottish political correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. What is being referred to is, of course the SCCRC report on the Megrahi conviction, not Megrahi's appeal case. Details of the latter have already been published on Mr Megrahi's own website. The article reads as follows:]

Alex Salmond has personally pledged to change the law to allow publication of the details of the appeal by the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The First Minister insisted that while believing a full public inquiry would be of limited value because of devolution restrictions, he could ensure that the full “statement of reasons” by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) in its support for an appeal could be published. He said: “We will be introducing primary legislation to enable that report to be published in full.

“It was an investigation that took several years and I believe the full statement of reasons, if not answering every question about this affair, nonetheless will shed substantial light and give information that the families and indeed the general public are entitled to have.”

But Dr Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim who has been an outspoken critic of the Megrahi conviction, had doubts about the latest concession and believed the Scottish Government was continuing to stall.

He said: “I had a nasty shock when I discovered that the Government had made it more difficult to get at the material that the SCCRC had assembled – something they changed by secondary legislation that they are now proposing to change back by primary legislation.”

The Scottish Government insists that at every stage it has moved towards fuller disclosure, ending a legal bar on SCCRC publishing information and now looking to block any external veto on release.

The exchange comes at the end of a week when Labour has accused the SNP Government of “dealing” over the Megrahi release, and Mr Salmond has denied that, pointing to “hypocrisy” in Labour’s stance north and south of the Border.

SNP backbencher Christine Grahame gave a “cautious welcome” to the First Minister’s announcement but questioned the necessity of primary legislation, a Bill which takes far longer to pass than an order. “I think this could be done by secondary legislation which could be done sooner but whatever happens I am told there will at least be fewer obstacles to full disclosure. I have been pushing to have impediments removed. There will be no closure on this until we have full disclosure of SCCRC evidence.”

Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who helped broker the Camp Zeist trial but came to believe the Megrahi conviction was unsound, has already expressed concern that even if the law is changed there could be data protection rules which continue to prevent full disclosure of SCCRC information. [RB: The view that I have consistently expressed, on this blog and in the media, is that if the Scottish Government proceeds by statutory instrument, then any relevant data protection rules are overridden (because that is what the enabling legislation, the UK Parliament's Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194K(4), specifically provides). The position is not quite so clear if the Scottish Government proceeds by Act of the Scottish Parliament. The cynic in me wonders whether that is precisely why the Scottish Government is choosing -- quite unnecessarily -- to proceed by the cumbersome method of primary legislation rather than by the much speedier and easier route of secondary legislation. It is yet another stalling, diversionary manoeuvre.]

A Government spokesman insisted they had been as open and transparent as possible, adding: “Following the announcement last December that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been unable to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case due to the constraints of the current legislation, we now intend to bring forward primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions.”

Labour’s Richard Baker said: “The documents that need to be released are the medical evidence that Mr Salmond relied on before he released Megrahi some 18 months ago and the minutes of the meeting between himself and Jack Straw where the First Minister reportedly asked for a deal on the prisoner transfer agreement.”

For the Tories, John Lamont said: “Al Megrahi dropped his appeal and was convicted of Britain’s biggest mass murder. Alex Salmond is barking up the wrong tree and if he wants to treat the Lockerbie bomber as a special case then far better that he publishes all the medical advice.”

[The Herald also today publishes an editorial headed Lockerbie report must go public. It reads as follows:]

It is not known exactly who prevented publication of the report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the conviction of Adelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

Neither do we know why.

The SCCRC’s statement of reasons for reaching its conclusion that his conviction may have been unsafe, cannot be published without the “unqualified consent” of all key parties – including the police, the Foreign Office and Megrahi himself. [RB: Megrahi's stance on disclosure is set out in a statement dated 30 June 2010 which can be read here.]

One or more of these parties has vetoed publication. It is yet another barrier in the way of a true understanding of the events which led up to the terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 in 1988.

Now Alex Salmond has pledged to introduce new primary legislation to enable the SCCRC report to be published, should the SNP form a Government after the Holyrood elections in May.

The statement of reasons is a substantial document, although it is not clear whether Mr Salmond’s personal pledge includes the full 800-page dossier detailing Megrahi’s grounds for appeal, which formed part of the Commission’s four-year investigation into the case.

Nevertheless, Mr Salmond argues that its publication is the best way to satisfy some of the outstanding questions and “shed substantial light” on the case against Megrahi and the verdict that was reached.

He argues that a public inquiry – called for by relatives of some of the 270 people who died in the attack – would not be useful. Not least due to the international element of the case, such an inquiry would be “hugely” limited in its remit and powers, Mr Salmond argues, particularly in its ability to call witnesses and seek documents.

That may be true. [RB: It is not. An inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 has greater powers of compulsion than the SCCRC has. Still, the SCCRC managed to conduct a wide-ranging investigation -- domestic and international -- into the Megrahi conviction. The Scottish Government's claim is nothing more than a shabby pretext for inaction.] But the bereaved father Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing, questions the Scottish Government’s sincerity. Scottish Government ministers previously changed the rules to make publication harder, now they want to make it easier, he says.

So, is Mr Salmond’s announcement merely political posturing? Or stalling for time? Some opponents feel the SNP are more than happy to keep the issue in the spotlight, to highlight Labour’s acute embarrassment over a clear difference between Labour ministers’ private negotiations in London and Labour MSPs’ public criticisms of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds in 2009.

But as to posturing or electioneering, any electoral benefit from the pledge to legislate is likely to be little better than neutral.

There have also been reports that the SCCRC report could be more readily published, simply by changing the rules which allow others to veto publication. Even if Mr Salmond can pass a new law, some say the data protection act could make it very hard to publish, as the SCCRC deliberations contain considerable personal information. There are also concerns that the report may be uncomfortable for the Scottish legal establishment – but the possibility of embarrassment is no reason to block the information.

The Lockerbie bombing and the trial of the only man convicted of the outrage remain a lasting stain on the Scottish legal system and without greater openness, one which will not easily be removed – even when Megrahi dies. [RB: My emphasis.]

Practicalities aside, a way should be found to publish the SCCRC’s findings. Mr Salmond’s commitment to ensure they are brought into the open is a step forward towards transparency and openness, and as such, it should be welcomed.

[A pretty representative example of current US views on Megrahi is to be found in a column headed Lockerbie bomber having a good laugh by Roger Simon published today on the website of the Chicago Sun Times.]

Christine Grahame on the WikiLeaks Megrahi cables

The SNP's Christine Grahame MSP was interviewed on this morning's edition of BBC Radio Scotland's Newsweek Scotland programme about the WikiLeaks cables relating to the UK Labour Government's attitude in the run-up to Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation. Richard Baker MSP, the legal affairs spokesman of the Labour Party in Scotland was "not available" to take part and the party declined to provide a substitute. The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer.

10,000 letters over Lockerbie move

[This is the headline over a report issued today by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]

The Scottish Government has received about 10,000 letters and emails about the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

A response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Labour Party revealed the Government has received the equivalent of 190 items of correspondence each week since terminally-ill Megrahi was freed in August 2009.

The Government said it did not have a comprehensive record of all communication received, and it is not known how many of the letters were against or in favour of the decision to release him.

Labour asserted much of the correspondence was in protest against the Government's decision to allow Megrahi to return to his native Libya, and called on ministers to produce a breakdown of the nature of the letters and e-mails.

The party's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "The decision to release Megrahi was flawed and this volume of complaint shows just how much offence has been caused. The medical evidence has been shown to be wanting and the sight of the Lockerbie bomber being hailed as a hero in Tripoli produced outrage across the world." (...)

A Scottish Government spokesman said Labour's assertion of 10,000 complaints was "entirely misleading", adding: "Responses received were both supportive and unsupportive - for example a letter from the Nelson Mandela Foundation carried his support for the decision - and other issues have generated far greater levels of response, such as the consultation on the then-proposed smoking ban which attracted tens of thousands of responses."

[This story has now (Monday, 24 January) been picked up by The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.]

WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release

[This is the headline over an opinion piece in today's edition of The Herald by Professor James Mitchell, head of the School of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University. It reads in part:]

We may never get to the root of the appalling events almost 22 years ago when 270 innocent people died as PanAm flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie.

But the WikiLeaks papers tell us much about the way in which public authorities across a number of countries behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the bombing. In the fullness of time, we can expect to see more such papers. It may take years, even decades before other papers are released but we can assume, on the basis of past experience, that we will get a fuller picture of the manner in which this awful event was handled by public authorities.

The picture that emerges from WikiLeaks may encourage a cynical view of government actions. We can, though, take some comfort from the documentary evidence that the devolved Government behaved impeccably. The leaks provide evidence that the Scottish Government did, indeed, make its decision on compassionate grounds and refused to be bullied into releasing Megrahi by the UK Government. The evidence of extraordinary cynicism on the part of the UK Government and its supporters is shocking. This is best summed up in a communication from US officials in the London embassy who informed Washington that “the UK Government has gotten everything – a chance to stick it to Salmond’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and good relations with Libya” while Scotland got “nothing”.

It is clear from the documents that expectations of Megrahi’s approaching death prior to his release were shared by more than the Scottish Government. Preparations were in hand for the likely consequences of the Libyan prisoner’s death in Scottish custody involving an “immutable timeline”, as American officials wrote seven months before his release. UK officials had prepared for the prospect of Megrahi’s death in custody and were “focused on transfer under PTA [prisoner transfer agreement]”, believing time was short. The Libyan reaction to the arrest of one of Gaddafi’s son’s in Switzerland had been a sobering experience. Against this backdrop, Libya’s intention to cease “all UK commercial activity in Libya” immediately, reduce political ties and encourage demonstrations against “UK facilities”, as well as implicit threats to UK citizens in Libya, could not be taken lightly. It is impossible to know how long Megrahi would have lived had he not been released but the indications are that UK and US officials were preparing for an imminent and serious backlash.

While US Government spokesmen have portrayed the Lockerbie bombing as an essentially American event, US officials took a very different view prior to the release of Megrahi. They feared that US interests would be attacked in the event of the Libyan prisoner’s death if the Libyan Government “views the Pan Am 103 case as a joint US-UK issue”. American officials wrote of repercussions “even if we remain neutral”, a discussion of neutrality that sits uncomfortably with the subsequent US official position.

Public US opposition to the release occurred when it suited US officials. The US Government played a two-level game: maintaining a low profile in opposing Megrahi’s release for fear of provoking a Libyan reaction while strongly condemning the release to appease understandably distraught relatives and playing to a domestic agenda. (...)

UK officials in Libya were under no illusion as to their role from the start. They sought to facilitate the return of Megrahi to Libya. America suspected Tony Blair was behind the deal. Earlier this year, a UK official expressed concern that Libya would use Megrahi’s funeral and discussed using “all possible levers” to discourage this. He noted that Mr Blair was one who had a “personal relationship” with Gaddafi.

Opposition parties at Holyrood attempted to milk the issue. The liberalism of the Scottish Liberal Democrats was quickly thrown aside in pursuit of a headline. The Tories managed to tie themselves in knots with what was at least an effort to cut out a distinct position supporting Megrahi’s release but keeping him in Scotland. Scottish Labour’s uber-cynicism was led by Richard Baker. Mr Baker may initially have been unaware that his own party in government in London had been leading efforts to return Megrahi to Libya, though this had been obvious for at least two years. He became the chief figure in the “stick it to Salmond’s SNP” agenda.

He was effective, in that most limited way that now comes to be expected of politicians, playing what the late Bernard Crick referred to as “student politics” – but failing miserably in the politics of aspiring to govern. In his memoirs, Mr Blair reflected on how New Labour had behaved in opposition, acknowledging that “some of the tactics were too opportunistic and too facile”. These tactics “sowed seeds that sprouted in ways we did not foresee and with consequences that imperilled us”. These words ought to be imprinted on the foreheads of all who play cynical games in opposition.

"Disappointed with Scotland in nabbing the wrong guy to begin with"

[This is the first of the readers' comments on an article headlined Bomber's freedom damaged Scotland in today's Scottish edition of The Sun. The article reads in part:]

Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber has damaged Scotland's standing in the US, a new poll has revealed.

The troubling survey shows almost a third of Americans feel less positive towards this country because of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release.

And 17 per cent of those quizzed said they are now less likely to visit Scotland - a potential hammer blow to our tourist industry.

Exporters are also affected, with 15 per cent of Americans saying they're less likely to buy Scottish goods.

The YouGov poll shows 29 per cent of Americans feel less positive towards Scotland because of the release, 61 per cent say it hasn't affected their view, while just three per cent are more positive towards us. (...)

Within Scotland, the Megrahi scandal appears to have split opinion.

His release made 15 per cent more positive about their own country and 15 per cent are more negative, while 68 per cent say it hasn't changed their feelings.

Only one per cent of Scots say they are now less likely to purchase Scottish products as a result of the Megrahi decision, while six per cent are more likely to buy and 90 per cent say it's had no effect.

Last night Labour shadow justice minister Richard Baker said: "It is obviously very disappointing that our standing seems to have been diminished by MacAskill's misguided decision.

"It's time for him to apologise to all the families - particularly those in America - who have been traumatised by it."

Calls for release of Megrahi records ignore Data Protection Act

[This is the heading over a letter from Mrs Jo Greenhorn in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Given calls by Labour’s Richard Baker for the release of the medical records of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, I believe he, and his party, have questions to answer ahead of the Scottish elections next year (“Row sparks new Megrahi records call”, The Herald, October 1).

Can we assume that the Labour Party disapproves of Data Protection laws?

This is what Mr Baker implies every time he calls for the full publication of a particular person’s medical records. These laws either cover all of us or none.

Such laws exist to ensure no medical professional, or indeed, politician, can breach the rights of any patient.

So, are medical records covered by Data Protection law? Yes or no? If yes, Mr Baker should fall silent on the matter. If no, Labour needs to clarify its policy.

The authority to make such a change does not exist at Holyrood. It would need to be made from Westminster.

Were this not the case the Scottish Government could have authorised, for example, the release of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) report on Megrahi’s case some time ago.

Labour in government in London prevented this by using Data Protection laws to withhold vital evidence for Megrahi’s appeal. I would admire Mr Baker more if the doubts surrounding Megrahi’s guilt provoked equally strenuous demands from him for clearing the route to that very thing happening.

The SCCRC stated in 2007 that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the original trial. That statement is not hidden by Data Protection laws.

Mr Baker and his party do not seem interested in the serious doubts about Megrahi’s conviction. That they choose instead to back a foreign government that paid some $2 million (£1.26m) to the star witness at that trial.

That same government in Washington breaches international protocol by attempting to interfere in Scottish affairs.

Row sparks new Megrahi records call

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]

The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.

The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.

“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”

After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.

The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)

Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.

“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”

Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.

“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”

The Scottish Government spokesman said it had published “everything we can, except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations, and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary’s decisions to reject the prisoner transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone – and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors”.

[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]

It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.

It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.

If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?

Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.

I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.

Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.

The Megrahi effect

The following story in the [Edinburgh] Evening News gives the perfect insight to the tactics opponents of Independence will use. Prospective Labour Councillor Bill Cook, believes the path to defeating the SNP is the 'Megrahi effect'. We released him, we did it for BP oil, on Westminster orders, we've embarrassed the nation, the USA hates us, our name is muck, we pander to terrorists, in short we're utterly useless and sanity will only be restored when Richard Baker goes to Libya, grabs Megrahi by the scruff of his neck and throws him back into his Greenock cell to die of his pretendy cancer.

The 'Megrahi effect' will be dribbled out day-after-day until the poor bastard dies, and other than 'compassion' and 'higher authority' our Scottish Government have run out of excuses. The startling lack of clarity in defending the release or even proffering a nod to the possibility that Megrahi might possibly be a victim of injustice is left ignored and unsaid. Everyone and his dog knows that the pressure on the Scottish Justice System (not for the first time) by Westminster and Washington to achieve a conviction on either of the two Lockerbie accused was immense. It didn't matter which one, as long as the West had a hate figure to blame for the destruction, we could all go back to sleeping soundly in our beds.

The stakes have increased with the senators who are vainly attempting to conflate Megrahi's release with BP winning licenses to drill for oil in Libya. All the while ignoring the fact that US oil giant Occidental have an operation in Libya twenty times the size that of BP's, all the while ignoring that fact that non US citizen employees of Occidental were moved to the Libyan Oil agency when the UN sanctions kicked in, and conveniently moved back to Occidental when they were lifted. The shell companies that Occidental set up in Switzerland surprisingly continued operating in Libya during the sanction years are, guess what, back in Occidental hands. Some might say that the USA oil grab never really ceased during the sanction years. All the while trading in black oil with the man their government are convinced ordered the murder of everyone on board Pan Am 103. (...)

The 'Megrahi Effect', how do we counter it, when our own government doesn't appear to have the balls to consider that something might be wrong with the Scottish Justice system?

[The above is from Newsnet Scotland's re-publication of a post from Mark MacLachlan's blog The Universality of Cheese.]

Alex Salmond accuses US Lockerbie bomber inquiry of lacking credibility

[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]

Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.

In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”

Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.

He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.

The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.

But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)

In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.

But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.

He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.

“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.

Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.

He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.

To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.

Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”

He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”

Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.

[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]

Hague snubs US inquiry into Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed online only by subscribers to the newspaper's website. The article reads in part:]

The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.

The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.

While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)

The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.

Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.

Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.

“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”

[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]

Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.

The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.

"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."

Jack Straw dismisses US invitation to answer Lockerbie questions

[This is the headline over a recent report on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Jack Straw, the former justice secretary, has rejected a demand from a US senate committee to appear in Washington next week to answer questions about the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

As Labour MPs accused the senators of "grandstanding", Straw wrote to the chairman of the senate committee to decline his "kind invitation" on the grounds that he played no role in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. (...)

"I had absolutely nothing to do with [the] decision," Straw wrote. "Indeed I was on holiday at the time and only learned about it from an item on the BBC News website. It follows that I do not see how I could help your committee 'understand several questions still lingering from this decision' … You will therefore excuse me if I do not accept your kind invitation." (...)

Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the foreign affairs select committee in the last parliament, attacked the decision to invite Straw. "We, in our parliament, have never tried to summon Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. I think it is political grandstanding by some US senators."

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, endorsed the decisions by Straw and MacAskill. "As a matter of principle a British government or a Scottish government should not submit to the jurisdiction of an American congressional committee," Meyer told Radio 4.

"That does not mean that they can't in some way co-operate with the committee's enquiry, either privately or in correspondence. It is what the Americans would do if the boot was on the other foot. They have done it already. A number of them were approached to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry. They declined to do so. But they have co-operated in private. I just don't think it is right for members of a sovereign government, albeit a very close ally, to be required in public under oath to give evidence to an American congressional inquiry."

Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, said: "The senate committee clearly is on a witch-hunt against BP. They would be highly annoyed if one of our select committees demanded to see an American politician put before us. They need to be careful because they are trying the patience of good friends of the US. I include myself as one."

[What, I wonder, will Richard Baker MSP, Scottish Labour's intellectually-challenged justice spokesman, say now? Watch this space.]

Scots won't testify to Congress about Lockerbie bomber's release

[This is the headline over a report just published on the ABC News website. It reads in part:]

Top Scottish officials have declined an invitation to appear before a Senate panel investigating allegations of fraud and corporate pressure that may have led to the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset al Megrahi, ABC News has learned.

In a letter sent yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass, formally invited Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill to appear before a July 29 hearing on the topic, chaired by New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez.

In response to Kerry's letter, Salmond denied the allegations levied by a group of US senators and said his letter explaining his government's position would suffice.

"I believe that I have offered all assistance that could reasonably be expected of an overseas government and respectfully decline your invitation for Scottish ministers to appear at the hearing," Salmond wrote in a letter dated today.

[A report on the Telegraph website contains the following:]

Susan Cohen lost her only daughter, Theodora, in the bombing. Speaking from her home in New Jersey, she said: “This is just the sort of stonewalling governments do.

“He doesn’t want to be asked any tough questions and see his lies unravelling. I think they want it to go away. How can they believe BP had nothing to do with it?”

Annabel Goldie, Scottish Tory leader, said: “A no-show would only fuel suspicion that they have something to hide. We need clarity, not confusion.”

Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said: “Kenny MacAskill is running away from criticism as fast as Alex Salmond is running away from responsibility for the decision.

“Only Kenny MacAskill can explain his decision to release the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity committed on Scottish soil.”

[The report on the refusal to attend on the BBC News website also contains comments from Dr Hans Koechler.]

Fresh demands to see Megrahi medical files after health improves

[This is the headline over a report recently published on The Scotsman website. It reads in part:]

The clamour for full disclosure of the Lockerbie bomber's medical files grew last night after it emerged that the son of Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi has claimed that his condition has "greatly improved".

The health and life expectancy of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the subject of renewed speculation after Saif Gaddafi suggested he was doing much better now that he was home in Libya.

Seven months after the man convicted of the worst mass murder in British legal history was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, Saif Gaddafi said he was in "good condition".

His remarks follow reports that the Libyan intelligence agent, convicted of murdering 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, has been prescribed chemotherapy treatment Taxotere after returning to Libya.

Mr Gaddafi, who is tipped to take over from his father as Libyan leader, told the Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat that Megrahi "was sick and was released for humanitarian reasons, and was soon in better health and in a good condition. His future is now in God's hands."

Mr Gaddafi also claimed the convicted killer's release had dominated trade talks with Britain [RB: Britain, not Scotland. As far as I am aware there have been no trade talks between Libya and the Scottish Government or Scottish business interests]. Mr MacAskill has always insisted that Megrahi was released purely on compassionate grounds. (...)

Richard Baker, Scottish Labour spokesperson for justice, said: "It's time for the SNP to stop the secrecy surrounding the medical reasons for this man's return to Libya. If Megrahi is responding to treatment, then it calls further into question his compassionate release by Kenny MacAskill."

Bill Aitken, the Conservative justice spokesman, said: "The longer this goes and the more tales that come out of Libya, the more Kenny MacAskill must be cringeing. We are now over eight months after the prognosis that Megrahi had three months to live. The medical evidence was not nearly sound enough and MacAskill has embarrassed Scotland big time."

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "Mr Megrahi has terminal prostate cancer and he was sent home to die based on the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor, all of which has been published by the Scottish Government."

From Sunday newspapers

This is becoming embarrassing – for Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. His problem is that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, is, at time of writing, still defiantly alive in Libya, when he was supposed to be dead by now. When MacAskill released Megrahi in the teeth of world opinion, it was under the humanitarian convention whereby prisoners with less than three months to live may be set free.

The problem for our Kenny is that Megrahi has not done the decent thing. This Friday will see the expiry of his supposed three-month maximum lease of life, but it looks likely he will not have shuffled off this mortal coil, as MacAskill assured us he would.

[The above are the first five sentences of an article in Scotland on Sunday by regular columnist and right wing ideologue Gerald Warner. For those who have the stomach for it, the remainder of his diatribe can be read here. The readers' comments that follow the article are worth reading even if the article itself is not. It is, of course, untrue to say that Kenny MacAskill assured us that Mr Megrahi would die within three months. What he said was that the medical reports submitted to him were to the effect that three months would be a reasonable estimate of his life expectancy.

The following are the first four paragraphs of an article headed "Scots outraged over bomber's release" on SFGate, the website of the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Do not believe that Scotland was united behind Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to grant "compassionate" release to the terminally ill convicted Pan Am 103 bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in August.

When al-Megrahi flew home to a hero's welcome in Libya, Member of Scottish Parliament Richard Baker recalls "universal outrage" among Scots at the sight of Scotland's flag "being waved to welcome home the Lockerbie bomber in Tripoli. It just turned stomachs" - and produced among sensible Scots "profound shame and embarrassment."

Al-Megrahi was released after the former Libyan intelligence officer served a mere eight years in Scottish prison for his conviction for the 1988 airline bombing that killed 270 people, including 11 souls on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament in Holyrood voted 73-50 in favor of a measure that determined that MacAskill mishandled the decision. A poll conducted for the BBC found that 60 percent of Scots were opposed to al-Megrahi's early release and 32 percent supported it.

[As far as Scottish public opinion on the release is concerned, a more accurate picture than that given in the BBC's rogue poll can be found here and here.]

When doing the Scottish thing backfires

[This is the headline over an article by Sarah Lyall in today's edition of The New York Times. It reads in part:]

Scots are very touchy these days about the decision to free the bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, and very worried about their international reputation.

Mr. Megrahi, the only person ever convicted in connection with the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, was freed from prison on compassionate grounds in August, having served less than a third of his 27-year sentence. Ill with terminal prostate cancer, he is now in intensive care at a hospital in Tripoli, his lawyer said. But the debate over his release rages on.

Indeed, there has been a great deal of talk about conspiracies and backdoor deals between Britain and Libya over Mr. Megrahi’s case. Britain wants to have better relations — both politically and financially — with Libya, and it is clear that the Megrahi issue came up repeatedly in discussions. As a condition of improved cooperation, Britain had to withdraw its demand to get Mr. Megrahi’s name removed as an exception when it negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

But the conspiracy theories ignore the parochial nature of Scottish politics, and also the political agenda of Alex Salmond, the leader of the governing Scottish National Party. Relations between Mr. Salmond and Gordon Brown, the British Labour prime minister, are said to be particularly frosty, and the last thing Mr. Salmond wants to do is appear to be taking orders from London.

He has enough troubles at home. In the Scottish Parliament, the justice committee is to conduct an inquiry into how the decision was reached, putting the nationalists on the defensive.

The National Party, which has a plurality but not a majority in Parliament and so clings to power tenuously, is at heart a single-issue organization: it believes that Scotland should be independent from Britain. As a result, its critics say, the party badly wants to prove itself, but has ended up looking foolish in the highest-profile decision of its governing time.

“They are desperate to be players on the international stage,” said Richard Baker, a member of the Scottish Parliament who is justice spokesman for the Labour Party here. “But there’s a huge arrogance within the S.N.P. in claiming that they speak for Scotland.” (...)

Even some people who believe Mr. Megrahi was unfairly imprisoned and deserved to be free are annoyed at the way the government handled his release. (...)

Although it means little to outsiders, particularly families of the victims of Flight 103, the Scottish government insists that there is a huge distinction between releasing Mr. Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement — which London may have tacitly supported had it happened, but which Scotland refused to allow — and releasing him on compassionate grounds, an extremely Scottish move.

In Scotland, opinion polls show a mixed reaction to the Megrahi release. A BBC poll found the majority were opposed to the decision. But polls in local newspapers found heavy majorities applauding it, and in an Internet poll conducted by the Firm, a magazine for lawyers, judges and others in the legal profession, some 69 percent of responders said they supported the release.

And, as a complicating factor, many Scots — including influential members of the legal establishment — feel that Mr. Megrahi was unjustly convicted and should never have been imprisoned in the first place.

Among them are Robert Black, the lawyer who helped broker the deal to hold the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands rather than in Scotland; and Hans Kochler, the United Nations observer at the trial, who called the guilty verdict “inconsistent” and “arbitrary,” and has been a harsh critic of Scottish justice.

Mr. Megrahi has always maintained his innocence. His first appeal failed, but an influential group called the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission then referred his case back for another appeal, saying that it believed he “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.”

Mr. Megrahi dropped the appeal in August, a tactic that he thought would help his chances of being released early, his lawyer said. But he has begun publishing on the Internet the legal arguments he had planned to use, as a way toward establishing his innocence.

In the Scottish Parliament, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s justice secretary, defended his decision to release Mr. Megrahi on compassionate grounds, saying that humanity “is viewed as a defining characteristic” of Scotland.

In fact, releasing terminally ill prisoners is fairly standard practice in Scotland. Since 1997, 31 prisoners, including Mr. Megrahi, have applied for compassionate release. Twenty-four have had their applications granted; the remaining seven did not meet the medical criteria, in which, generally, the prisoner is deemed likely to die within three months.

“Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available,” Mr. MacAskill told Parliament. “Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.”

On the Royal Mile, Gordon Nicolson, who owns a kiltmaking shop, said that Mr. MacAskill’s efforts had backfired.

“They’re trying to show that Scotland can be politically independent,” he said. “But if this is the kind of decision they make, this calls into question Scotland’s ability to make good decisions.”

MacAskill in row over prison visit to Megrahi

[This is the headline over The Herald's report on reactions to the Justice Secretary's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi. It reads in part:]

Labour has been plunged into a row over the party's criticism of the Scottish Justice Secretary's visit to the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Opposition politicians rounded on Kenny MacAskill after he met Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as he considers a request for him to be transferred to Libya. Labour's justice spokesman, Richard Baker, accused Mr MacAskill of setting a "dangerous precedent" by visiting the Libyan in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a 27-year sentence.

He said: "Does every convicted murderer get a chance to meet the Justice Minister if they fall ill? Megrahi's appeal is ongoing and Mr MacAskill should not be meeting this man."

But Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP who has long argued Megrahi's innocence, told The Herald: "I feel very strongly that Mr MacAskill was right to have gone to see Mr Megrahi.

"He was my opponent and I have disagreed with Mr MacAskill on many matters, but on this, I strongly support him."

When asked if criticism of his visit was wrong, he replied "totally" before adding of the Justice Secretary's decision: "He has already seen the relatives of victims of the bombing. He has already seen the US law officers and frankly it's a unique case.

"I believe Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime and that he was a sanctions-buster for Libyan airlines.

"But on this particular point, I think it's totally unfair to criticise Mr MacAskill for going to see him. I wish Labour members of the Scottish Parliament had shown more interest in the whole Lockerbie saga and clearly Mr Baker knows little about it." (...)

In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. However, for the transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal.

Last month The Herald revealed that Megrahi had applied to return to Tripoli on "compassionate release" because he is terminally ill.

Technically he could continue his appeal, but there is a growing expectation that he would be encouraged to first drop legal proceedings. (...)

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the trial at Zeist, said the visit was a "first" in Scottish legal history, but expressed concerns about any pressure being placed on Megrahi to drop the appeal.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Justice Secretary is quite clear that he must have the fullest picture possible before making this important decision.

"To suggest he may do the same for any other convicted prisoner is just ridiculous. This is a unique situation."

[The Scotsman's report on the issue can be read here. The Times's report contains the following:

'Yesterday, after a half-hour visit to the Libyan in Greenock Prison by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, it was revealed that a medical report on al-Megrahi's condition had been ordered by the Scottish government, and a spokeswoman said that it was expected soon. “The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she added.

'Clear signs that ministers are anxious to resolve the matter in the Libyan's favour if possible came when it was indicated that they intended to be “flexible” in interpreting the rules which govern the term “compassionate grounds”. Scottish Prison Service guidelines state that these mean that inmates with three months to live or less may be released. However, it emerged that these guidelines could be relaxed in al-Megrahi's case. (...)

'A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said he spent about half an hour with al-Megrahi during the visit, which had been arranged while the minister was considering the Libyan's application for a transfer. The Justice Secretary has already spoken to the US Attorney General and British and American victims' families as part of considering the request. The spokeswoman confirmed that the visit would be used, not only to consider the prisoner transfer issue, but al-Megrahi's subsequent plea for release on compassionate grounds.

'“We are seeking medical advice and medical reports which we would not have sought under the prisoner transfer application. We are hoping to get the reports as soon as we can. The Cabinet Secretary is keen to move on it as soon as he can,” she said.

'When asked if the decision would be dependent on whether al-Megrahi had three months or less to live, the spokeswoman replied: “They are guidelines, they are flexible.” The Times understands that Mr MacAskill is aiming to make an announcement before the end of this month.

'Supporters are hoping the Libyan will be granted compassionate release in order to allow the continuation of his latest attempt to clear his name. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the courts two years ago on six points that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. The first stage of the appeal has been heard in Edinburgh, but no ruling is expected until the autumn as one of the presiding judges is recovering from heart surgery.

'Pursuing a prisoner transfer, on the other hand, would force al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The terms of the deal permit deliberations, but forbid a final decision on the request while legal proceedings are taking place.']

Libya applies for transfer of Lockerbie bomb prisoner

The Libyan authorities have applied for the transfer of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the Scottish government said today.

The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.

"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."

[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:

'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.

'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.

'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."

'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.

'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."

'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.

'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.

'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.

'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.

'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.

'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.

'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.

'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."

'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.

'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.

'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.

"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.

'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.

'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."

'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'

The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]