The Megrahi conviction
Selected writings by Matt Berkley, and related
links
7 June
2011: Did Mr Megrahi waive any right to be considered for transfer to a Libyan
prison, by accepting the terms of the trial?
If so, then perhaps both those who believe the UK committed itself
before the trial to refusing transfer, and those who believe otherwise, might
agree that the application should have been refused at the start, or the Libyan
Government should have been told even earlier that it was not going to
succeed.
Why age and
height details may be of significance for assessing Gauci evidence.
7 June 2011.
"....the Abdusamad passport
said he was born in 1957 rather than 1952. If that was thought credible, maybe
he looked younger than 36 at the time, and Mr Gauci's initial evidence on age
might weigh even more against Mr Megrahi being the purchaser."
Those two sentences are expanded on
in article of 7 June above. Note: The
word "initial" not necessary.
10 December 2010.
Possible influence of police on the witness Tony Gauci
10 December 2010.
Conflicting
information on rain in Malta
30 November 2010.
Proposal
for quick and cheap initial inquiry into the conviction
By 7 July 2009, judges at the second appeal were procedurally entitled to quash
the conviction on grounds already heard in full. Therefore, Mr Megrahi had pursued the case to
the point where judges could free him, and the tasks were in the judges'
hands. The judges' tasks of deciding
whether to rule on conviction on those grounds, and if so to make a ruling,
could be finished.
21 and 30 October 2010.
Prisoner
transfer treaty only mentions delay if ministers cannot notify decision in 90 days.
So how was Mr MacAskill within due process?
21 October 2010.
Who thinks Giaka
was a reliable witness?
Originally from 27 August 2010.
European Commission says it has lost
trial observer reports
"No record found" of result of expensive mission to monitor trial -
in spite of, apparently, copies having been sent to eight or ten staff in
several countries. Original purpose of
invitation from UN Sec-Gen was clearly to monitor fairness of trial (see Request to European Commission of 16 September 2009).
1 February 2010.
Proposal: Legislation for cases
where people affected by a crime doubt the verdict
Mr Salmond
said, "What [victims' families] have experienced no family, no person,
should ever endure." To further that aim, how about legislation to
something like the following effect?
"If, in respect of any criminal
case, a significant number of persons who
a) are deemed by the court to be victims of a crime, and
b) have no clear potentially corrupting relationship to the convict,
state that they consider the conviction to be unsafe, then that conviction
will be investigated judicially by a process available independently of, and
alternative to, the standard process of appeal by the convict, and with the
power to quash the verdict."
17 October 2009.
Suggestion
to Scottish Parliament Justice Committee
Committee
could consider whether Mr MacAskill took care to avoid influencing criminal
case through delay, ie acted promptly enough to avoid tempting ill prisoner to
give up his appeal; and gave unbiased information to the prisoner. Includes compilation of Scottish Government
documentary evidence. 28 September 2009.
Abandonment
of appeal and Mr MacAskill's actions. 30 September 2009.
Newspaper report based on the submission, 1 December
2009.
Request to European Commission for trial observer reports
Includes documentary evidence on original purpose of observers.
16
September 2009.
A new appeal is legally
possible even after appeal dropped
28 August
2009.
Delaying transfer
decision more than necessary risks inducing prisoner to drop appeal. Suggest warning prisoner of significant risk
of refusal would avoid political influence on judiciary and be ethically
unproblematic.
6 July 2009.