CAMPAIGNERS who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 have said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the Crown Office should play no part in considering a Police Scotland report into criminal allegations they have made over the case.
And Len Murray, a leading figure in Scottish legal circles, said Mulholland’s position was “untenable”, although any question of resignation was a matter for him.
The comments were made at a news conference in Edinburgh yesterday, organised by Justice for Megrahi (JfM), chaired by Murray. He was joined by former top Scottish prosecutor Brian McConnachie QC, Alan Page, a professor of public law at Dundee University, Green MSP Patrick Harvie and John Finnie, a Liberal Democrat MSP and member of Holyrood’s Justice Committee.
JfM made nine allegations of criminality in September 2012 against police, Crown Office officials and forensic scientists involved in the original investigation into the bombing and the subsequent trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. They included perjury and perverting the course of justice.
However, JfM said the Lord Advocate and Crown Office personnel subsequently described them as “conspiracy theorists” and dismissed the allegations as “defamatory and entirely unfounded”.
“We feel very strongly that in the light of the sometimes scandalous outbursts that have come from Crown Office and the office of the Lord Advocate, they have disqualified themselves from considering the report which Police Scotland will be making following their inquiry into the nine allegations,” said Murray.
“It is perfectly obvious from these outbursts… that both the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have already taken a view on the matter, and therefore there is no prospect of that police report being considered fairly and impartially.”
McConnachie, a former principal advocate depute, said: “We know that Crown Office and the Lord Advocate have expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about the matter and that perhaps is simply symptomatic of the fact that Crown Office these days seem to consider as part of their job to pronounce in relation to pretty much any case or any profile at all.
“But the difficulty here is that if the Lord Advocate has expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about a matter, it is very difficult to see any way in which justice can be done or be seen to be done if the person who is deciding whether or not there are to be proceedings is the person who has already told us that the allegations are defamatory, unfounded and false.”
Finnie added: “Justice for Megrahi have posed a series of questions about how the police inquiry will be responded to by Crown Office – eight entirely reasonable questions, and I suspect had there been replies to these questions that you wouldn’t be sitting here today.
“What we maybe should do is tear the top of the paper off that says Justice for Megrahi and say ‘what does this mean for the ordinary citizen who makes serious and significant allegations against very senior people who are involved in our criminal justice system?’”
Page said the issue was about public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and that the allegations made by JfM had been dismissed “out of hand as unfounded, false and misleading”.
“This calls into question whether or not the Crown Office is capable of approaching them with the open mind that the administration of criminal justice, which in my view and I think in everyone else’s view, requires.”
Harvie said independence and impartiality were key to the issue: “This is simply about whether an allegation of criminal conduct should be investigated and decisions made on the basis of that investigation by someone who gives every appearance of having made their mind up already.
“I think that is something that has wider applicability for people throughout Scotland who may find themselves for whatever reason encountering the criminal justice system and want to know that decisions are being made in a fair and impartial manner.”
A Crown Office spokesman said: “The Lord Advocate has repeatedly made it clear that he has no involvement in dealing with the allegations nor will he have any involvement.
“Arrangements have been put in place to ensure any prosecutorial function in relation to this matter is dealt with by independent counsel who has had no involvement in the Lockerbie investigation.”
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