Scotland. Lockerbie case referred to High Court.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has today referred the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to the High Court of Justiciary.
As a result of the Commission's decision Mr Megrahi is entitled to a further appeal against his conviction for the murder of 270 people who died following the bombing of Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988.
In response Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC said:
"While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the Commission's decision or the appeal against conviction which will now follow, I wish, as Lord Advocate, to reaffirm publicly the commitment of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to respond to this decision and the appeal with the same commitment and independence as was shown during the trial and first appeal.
"I have appointed Crown Counsel for the appeal: Ronald Clancy QC and Nick Gardiner, Advocate. We will also be setting up a team of prosecutors and support staff for the appeal, which will include prosecutors with experience of the case.
"The nature of this crime and its victims meant that the criminal investigation and proceedings were international in character. The team will continue to work closely with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the authorities of other countries, including those of the United States of America. Our focus remains fixed, as it always has been, on ensuring that justice is done in the public interest. Of course, my thoughts are with the families of the 270 victims."
The SCCRC has sent a statement of the reasons for its decision to the High Court, to Mr Megrahi, his solicitor, and the Crown Office. A brief summary of some of the Commission's main findings in the case has been made publicly available.
SCCRC Chairman the Very Rev Dr Graham Forbes CBE said:
"The Commission has a very special role within the Scottish Criminal Justice system, and has been given extensive statutory powers to enable it to carry out this role. The function of the Commission is not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of an applicant. We are neither pro-Crown nor pro-defence. Our role is to examine the grounds of review identified, either by the applicant, a third party or by our own investigations, and to decide whether any of the grounds meet our statutory test. I am satisfied that the Commission has vigorously and independently scrutinised the many grounds of review in this particular application, and has now produced a lengthy and detailed statement of reasons which I believe comprehensively deals with all of the issues raised."
"It would have been impossible for us to have completed our investigation without the cooperation of other public and government bodies both at home and abroad, and we readily acknowledge this help. I would emphasise however that neither Scottish Ministers nor the Scottish Executive Justice Department, nor for that matter any other official body, has at any time sought to influence or interfere in the Commission's investigations; and all requests for appropriate grant aid to enable a full and comprehensive investigation and review have been properly met, without question.
"This has been a difficult case to deal with. The Commission's enquiry team have worked tirelessly for over three years. Some of what we have discovered may imply innocence, some of what we have discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide.
"The Commission is of the view, based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. The place for that matter to be determined is in the appeal court, to which we now refer the case."
Gerard Sinclair, the Chief Executive of the SCCRC, said:
"This has clearly been a unique case for the Commission in many ways, not least, in terms of the universal press and media interest. It has certainly been the longest, the most expensive and singularly most complex case we have had to investigate and review.
"I am pleased that after a full and thorough investigation we are now able to produce our statement of reasons. It has been difficult at times to ignore, and to refrain from commenting upon, the almost constant speculation regarding this review, much of which I have to say has been either inaccurate or simply incorrect.
"I hope however that the comprehensive statement of reasons which the Commission has now produced for the parties will answer the many questions which have been raised over the last three years. The Commission's involvement in the case is now at an end. It is a matter entirely for those representing the Crown and the defence at any future appeal to decide whether they wish to rely upon the conclusions reached by the Commission, or develop arguments of their own. Thereafter, it will be for the appeal court to decide whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
As a result of the Commission's decision Mr Megrahi is entitled to a further appeal against his conviction for the murder of 270 people who died following the bombing of Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988.
In response Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC said:
"While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the Commission's decision or the appeal against conviction which will now follow, I wish, as Lord Advocate, to reaffirm publicly the commitment of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to respond to this decision and the appeal with the same commitment and independence as was shown during the trial and first appeal.
"I have appointed Crown Counsel for the appeal: Ronald Clancy QC and Nick Gardiner, Advocate. We will also be setting up a team of prosecutors and support staff for the appeal, which will include prosecutors with experience of the case.
"The nature of this crime and its victims meant that the criminal investigation and proceedings were international in character. The team will continue to work closely with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the authorities of other countries, including those of the United States of America. Our focus remains fixed, as it always has been, on ensuring that justice is done in the public interest. Of course, my thoughts are with the families of the 270 victims."
The SCCRC has sent a statement of the reasons for its decision to the High Court, to Mr Megrahi, his solicitor, and the Crown Office. A brief summary of some of the Commission's main findings in the case has been made publicly available.
SCCRC Chairman the Very Rev Dr Graham Forbes CBE said:
"The Commission has a very special role within the Scottish Criminal Justice system, and has been given extensive statutory powers to enable it to carry out this role. The function of the Commission is not to decide upon the guilt or innocence of an applicant. We are neither pro-Crown nor pro-defence. Our role is to examine the grounds of review identified, either by the applicant, a third party or by our own investigations, and to decide whether any of the grounds meet our statutory test. I am satisfied that the Commission has vigorously and independently scrutinised the many grounds of review in this particular application, and has now produced a lengthy and detailed statement of reasons which I believe comprehensively deals with all of the issues raised."
"It would have been impossible for us to have completed our investigation without the cooperation of other public and government bodies both at home and abroad, and we readily acknowledge this help. I would emphasise however that neither Scottish Ministers nor the Scottish Executive Justice Department, nor for that matter any other official body, has at any time sought to influence or interfere in the Commission's investigations; and all requests for appropriate grant aid to enable a full and comprehensive investigation and review have been properly met, without question.
"This has been a difficult case to deal with. The Commission's enquiry team have worked tirelessly for over three years. Some of what we have discovered may imply innocence, some of what we have discovered may imply guilt. However, such matters are for a court to decide.
"The Commission is of the view, based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. The place for that matter to be determined is in the appeal court, to which we now refer the case."
Gerard Sinclair, the Chief Executive of the SCCRC, said:
"This has clearly been a unique case for the Commission in many ways, not least, in terms of the universal press and media interest. It has certainly been the longest, the most expensive and singularly most complex case we have had to investigate and review.
"I am pleased that after a full and thorough investigation we are now able to produce our statement of reasons. It has been difficult at times to ignore, and to refrain from commenting upon, the almost constant speculation regarding this review, much of which I have to say has been either inaccurate or simply incorrect.
"I hope however that the comprehensive statement of reasons which the Commission has now produced for the parties will answer the many questions which have been raised over the last three years. The Commission's involvement in the case is now at an end. It is a matter entirely for those representing the Crown and the defence at any future appeal to decide whether they wish to rely upon the conclusions reached by the Commission, or develop arguments of their own. Thereafter, it will be for the appeal court to decide whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."
0 comentarios