AN attempt to appeal the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi by families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing has failed.
Judges at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh said legally the bid had to be rejected as the families could not be considered to have a “legitimate interest” in the appeal.
The group of relatives believe al-Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and want to see his conviction overturned. He was found guilty of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the south of Scotland on December 21, 1988, which killed 270 people.
Kenny MacAskill, the former Justice Secretary, released al-Megrahi on “compassionate grounds” in 2009 after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Al-Megrahi himself dropped his second appeal shortly before being freed. MacAskill has denied that there was any deal between the Scottish Government and the Libyan who died in 2012.
Yesterday’s hearing came about after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which is looking at Megrahi’s conviction, asked the Appeal Court in Edinburgh for guidance on whether members of the victims’ families can take forward an appeal.
Previous rulings mean a post mortem appeal can only be requested by the executor of a dead person’s estate or their next of kin.
The panel of three judges had heard legal arguments from Ailsa Carmichael QC on behalf of the SCCRC and Gordon Jackson QC for the relatives.
Carmichael told the court the SCCRC needed to determine at an early stage if relatives of victims were considered to be a “person with a legitimate interest to pursue an appeal”.
This, Carmichael said, was necessary to know before the SCCRC could decide to refer the case back to the High Court for a third appeal.
She said: “It would be a waste of public funds for the [SCCRC] to move into a full consideration of whether to make a reference and carry out all the investigations that would be required in order to take that decision if they have a reasonable apprehension as to whether there will be anybody to pick up an appeal in the event a reference was made.”
Jackson said it wrong to worry about the public funds given all the work that has already gone into the case.
He said: “If [the families] believe, as they do, that a miscarriage of justice has happened and there has been a wrongful conviction, as they do believe, in the case of the death of their relative then that in my submission is a legitimate interest.”
Delivering his report yesterday, the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Brodie and Lady Dorrian said the law was “not designed to give relatives of victims a right to proceed in an appeal for their own or the public interest” and the relatives of those who died could not be considered to have a “legitimate interest”.
Dr Jim Swire and the Reverend John Moseley, who both lost relatives in the Lockerbie bombing stood with Aamer Anwar, the solicitor for the Megrahi family and 26 British relatives of Lockerbie victims, to deliver a statement outside the court.
Anwar said: “It is regularly claimed that we place victims at the heart of our justice system.
“So why should the families of murder victims not have a legitimate interest in seeking to overturn the wrongful conviction of a person convicted of the murder of their loved ones? Justice does not die with the accused in this case Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
“Despite 26 long years since the Lockerbie bombing the families will not give up their fight for justice and the truth.”
Anwar said that the legal battle was not concluded, as he remains instructed by the family of al-Megrahi who seek to overturn the conviction.
The SCCRC has been considering a fresh, joint application from members of Megrahi’s family and the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, which includes relatives of British victims of the bombing, to review the conviction.
It was the first time in UK legal history relatives of murdered victims have united with the relatives of a convicted deceased in such a way.
However, the SCCRC previously said that they have struggled to get proof from al-Megrahi’s family members of their wish to be involved in any appeal.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here