Lockerbie
We come now to the Lord Advocate's statement on the Lockerbie trial. The Lord Advocate will take questions after the statement, so there should be no interventions during it.
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
Presiding Officer, with your permission, I would like to make a statement on the end of the Lockerbie trial.
I am grateful to the Parliament for an opportunity to speak today, following the conviction of Mr Al Megrahi yesterday. I regret that I was unable to speak to the Parliament yesterday.
The Lockerbie disaster was something of a defining moment in Scottish history. It is one of those tragedies that anyone who is old enough to remember will never forget. Two hundred and fifty-nine passengers and crew aboard Pan-Am 103 were killed, along with 11 residents of the town of Lockerbie. We cannot begin to imagine the distress that that dreadful criminal act caused many family members. Our thoughts have been with them throughout the trial and its long preparations. I have been honoured to meet many family members in this country and in the United States, but especially at Camp Zeist.
It is appropriate that I should pay tribute to those who investigated the crime. They include successive chief constables of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, senior investigating officers, and the many police officers—some now retired—from all the Scottish police forces, as well as from Northumbria constabulary and the Metropolitan police, who worked hard to investigate this most difficult of cases. It is only because of the painstaking search procedures that were put in place and carried out from the first days of the investigation that it was possible to make the breakthroughs that led the investigation to Malta, to the timer that detonated the bomb, and, ultimately, to the accused.
The inquiry was truly international. Many countries gave us unprecedented support. If I single out a small number, it is only because of the level of assistance that they gave. To the authorities of Malta, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, and those of the many other countries that were involved, I wish to record my gratitude. I pay a special tribute to the United States. The plane was American and was on its way to America. The majority of those who were killed were American. The courts in the United States had jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, the investigation became a joint one. We co-operated with the United States authorities in the preparations for the trial. I was especially pleased to have the assistance of Department of Justice attorneys before and during the trial.
Ours is a system in which prosecutors play an important role in major criminal investigations—never was there a case in which that was so clearly demonstrated. In any case of suspected homicide, the procurator fiscal must immediately be notified, and he or one of his deputes will attend the scene of crime and give directions to the police. In this case, the then procurator fiscal at Dumfries, Mr James MacDougall, established a temporary office alongside the police and remained there until January 1992, working full time on the investigations. He was assisted at different times by two experienced members of the procurator fiscal service, both of whom later played a very important part in the trial preparations.
When we first took office in 1997, Lord Hardie—the Lord Advocate—instructed that the evidence in the case be reviewed by an advocate depute to consider whether it stood the test of time and whether the case could be presented in a third country. It was clear, as previous Lord Advocates had concluded, that there was still a sufficiency of evidence. It was also becoming clear that there was no prospect of the accused being surrendered for trial in Scotland or in the United States. Accordingly, in consultation with—and with the consent of—the Lord Advocate, the United Kingdom and the United States Governments brought forward the initiative for trial in the Netherlands before a bench of Scottish judges.
When the initiative was launched, we started to prepare for a trial, senior Crown counsel were appointed and the team of three members of the procurator fiscal service engaged on the case at the time was increased to four. That formed the core team that met on a weekly basis, chaired by me, then the Solicitor-General. Later, when the accused were surrendered, junior counsel were brought into the team and seven other members of the procurator fiscal service, drawn from all over Scotland, were brought in to assist with the precognition of particular chapters of evidence. It was by far the largest team that the service had ever deployed in any one case. In this case, the Crown Office team discharged the traditional precognition role of the procurator fiscal and, in doing so, it employed the same values and professionalism that it uses week in, week out, in other cases across Scotland.
I wish to pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and skill of the Scottish prosecution team, including both Crown counsel and procurator fiscal staff. I am proud of what they achieved in laying this complex case before the court. The Crown Office worked closely with Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, which provided essential support to the team, especially during overseas inquiries. As had happened in the earlier investigation, officers from Strathclyde police and Lothian and Borders police were seconded into the police team.
I want also to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Court Service and officials from the justice department. A tremendous amount of work was done in converting and adapting the facilities at Camp Zeist to provide secure prison and court accommodation, facilities for members of the families of the victims and accused and state-of-the-art facilities for the media. It is a remarkable tribute to the registrar of the Scottish Court Service, Gordon Beaton, and his team—supported greatly by the Dutch Department of Justice—that those facilities were ready for the start of the trial. The site required—and continues to require—police and prison officers, and we should recognise the important part that they are playing in the justice system at Zeist.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the verdict itself. However, the terms of Megrahi's conviction make it clear that he did not act alone. He has been convicted of committing murder while acting along with others and in furtherance of the purposes of the Libyan intelligence services. The question then arises whether it might be possible to bring further proceedings against those who are alleged to have been acting along with Megrahi. As in any case, proceedings can be brought against an individual only where there is a sufficiency of evidence linking him with the crime. In this case, we had a sufficiency of evidence against only two individuals. Before the trial, I said that we would consider the position against others once the trial was over. We will of course look carefully at the evidence and the judgment of the court, but my judgment at present is that there is insufficient evidence to justify further proceedings at this time. Clearly, if new evidence becomes available, we will reassess the position and, in doing so, I would want to continue to act in close co-operation with our American colleagues.
What are the lessons from the trial? I believe that there are many, but three immediately come to mind. The first is the general one that, where the international community stands together, those who commit the most atrocious acts can be brought to justice. In this case, that was facilitated because we were prepared to be flexible in our domestic procedures and set up a court in a third country, but we must also look to international forums such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the new international criminal court.
Secondly, we had to deal with a large number of family members who sought information on the progress of the case and support during the trial. We were fortunate to have the services of the office of victims of crime, part of the US Department of Justice. A member of the procurator fiscal service was seconded to that office and worked closely with our American colleagues in providing advice, support and assistance to the victims. We will use that experience and the lessons from the case in the establishment of a victim liaison office as part of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service.
Thirdly, we have learned much about the use of technology. Simultaneous transcripts were provided through the use of LiveNote, allowing counsel and judges to highlight text and make notes on a laptop as the case progressed. We also had to deal with a mountain of documentary productions. At an early stage, we decided that it would be impracticable to proceed on the traditional basis of using exclusively paper copies of documents. The court would quickly have become completely swamped, and the lawyers and judges would have had to carry round unmanageable quantities of paper. Accordingly, the Crown Office developed a system for scanning, retaining and viewing all the documents in the case. That enabled counsel to instruct that any document or image be brought up on the screens in court in seconds. It also meant that the lawyers could have easily portable access to every document in the case via laptop computers, and the judges were able to have similar access to every document that had been introduced in evidence.
The facilities, together with the simultaneous interpretation for the accused and for witnesses, shortened the length of what would otherwise have been an even longer trial. I believe that we have seen the future, at least for lengthy, complex trials.
The prosecution involved dealing with the most complex case in Scottish, and indeed British, legal history. The prosecution had 220 witnesses from 13 countries, including air traffic controllers, forensic scientists, police officers, hotel staff, airport workers, intelligence agents, a Northumberland housewife and a Maltese shopkeeper. Everything was done in a foreign country in the glare of international publicity.
Some said that the prosecution was flawed from the outset, but the prosecution demonstrated that there was a case to answer. As Lord Advocate, I am proud of what has been achieved by the Scottish prosecution service. As a whole, the Scottish criminal justice system has had to meet a formidable challenge in the glare of international scrutiny. I believe that we rose to the challenge and I record my thanks to all who were involved.
I hope, Presiding Officer, that you will give me, as the constituency member representing Lockerbie, a little bit of leeway.
I add my congratulations to those in Dumfries and Galloway constabulary on all the tremendous work that they did in bringing the case. I also pay tribute to the community of Lockerbie, which coped tremendously well, not only with the terrible and horrific event 12 years ago, but with all the repercussions and publicity that have gone on since then. I want to put that on record, because it has been a tremendous community.
My constituents want to move on to a future where Lockerbie is known for its potential and its location rather than for the tragedy that bears its name. Nevertheless, there are a number of unanswered questions. I would therefore like to ask the Lord Advocate how he and the Executive will be able to contribute to the UK Parliament's discussions on the feasibility of a public inquiry. I am aware that there is considerable interest in a public inquiry and I know that the issues surrounding that may be very complex.
I join Dr Murray in her tribute to the town of Lockerbie. I led some of the witnesses from Lockerbie in the first couple of days of the trial and I know what an effort it was for them. I know something of what they went though at the time.
With regard to a public inquiry, some of the families met the Foreign Secretary in the middle of last month. I understand that he has listened to their concerns and is considering them with colleagues. I will meet some of the families later.
With regard to my remit, I have responsibility for bringing criminal prosecutions and for considering whether there should a fatal accident inquiry. As the member knows, there has already been a fatal accident inquiry, so that option is not open. If I may say so, I believe that it is for the UK Government to consider whether there should be any further inquiries of the nature that has been suggested.
It is important to recognise that while some people express strong views on the nature of an inquiry, it would appear that not all families have the same agenda. In particular, the American families are focused on further criminal proceedings and on civil proceedings, which have been raised in the United States district court. It would appear that there is not unanimity of view about the best way forward, even among the relatives.
I make a special tribute to the courage and persistence of all the bereaved families who, throughout the past 12 years, have worked tirelessly. In no small part, they have been part of the process of getting us to where we are today. I join in the tributes being made to all those involved in the trial, from the local police officers, who would, of course, have been among the first on the scene, right through to the members of the legal teams, a number of whom are known personally to me and all of whom have worked extremely hard over a very long period.
I know that the Parliament will agree with all the tributes that have been made and with me when I say that this trial has shown the Scottish justice system to be robust and effective in the eyes of the world. A small jurisdiction it may be, but it can certainly stand proud in the international community. Despite the overwhelming international publicity and pressure, the three judges have steadfastly maintained their independence and have abided by the fundamental principle of our law, that it is the task of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the task of the accused to prove innocence. Sometimes, that can make things difficult in the eyes of the public, but it is extremely important.
I have two questions. First, I add my voice to the concern expressed by the local member that we do not close our minds to the idea of an inquiry in the future. I would like at least to hear from the Lord Advocate that, should there be an inquiry, he will pledge his full support and will indicate his intention to co-operate fully. That should be put on the record. Other questions need to be answered that cannot be answered in the context of a criminal trial.
Secondly, I was interested in the Lord Advocate's comments about the international criminal court. Does he agree that any such court would have to reassure the international community, as it was reassured in the Lockerbie trial, of its independence from political pressure, particularly the independence of its judges? Such a court would also have to establish rigorous rules of evidence that would be acceptable right across the board, which is something that might be more difficult in the doing than it is in the saying. I would appreciate the Lord Advocate's comments on how, from the Scottish perspective, some of that could be built into any future international criminal court.
I will deal with Roseanna Cunningham's last point on the international criminal court first, if I may. I agree entirely with her that any court has to be seen to be independent. I believe that it is not just the judiciary, but the prosecution, that has to be seen to be independent. The United Kingdom Government was instrumental in ensuring, during the negotiations that produced the Treaty of Rome, which is the foundation of the international criminal court, that there was independence.
Independence is not just something that is written down; it requires people of integrity, honesty and independence of mind to make it a reality. I am sure that Roseanna Cunningham will agree that often the building of the independence is as important as what may be stated in a statute or in rules.
I would have to consider the terms of any inquiry and whether there was the prospect of further criminal proceedings. Having said that, if a decision were taken that there should be an inquiry, I would want to co-operate with it to the best of my ability while ensuring that it did not compromise the independence that I would have to protect, which Ms Cunningham talked about. With those caveats, if there were an inquiry, I would wish to be as positive as I could be towards it.
Does the Lord Advocate accept that his leadership, along with the work of his team of prosecutors, in bringing the Lockerbie case to a successful conviction has brought great credit to Scotland's legal system and to our resolve that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done?
Can the Lord Advocate confirm that the meticulousness of the police in collecting all the evidence in Scotland was invaluable during the inquiries? Can he describe the procedures and time scale for the anticipated appeal? Finally, can he give the Parliament his own assessment as to the prospects of obtaining a generous compensation package from Libya for the families of the victims of this appalling tragedy?
I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for those comments. I can confirm that the case was finally solved as the result of a painstaking and methodical police investigation; I sometimes get the impression that many people have not appreciated the scope of the investigation. Vital pieces of evidence were taken from the countryside some considerable distance away from Lockerbie, including a charred piece of shirt, which contained within it a piece of what turned out to be the timer and part of an instruction manual for the radio into which the bomb had been packed.
A lady from Northumberland found a piece of the same instruction manual in her garden and alerted the police. That shows the scope of the police investigation and the public-spirited nature of the response to this awful crime.
Compensation is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the negotiations that may follow in relation to the outcome of the trial. Formally, sanctions are still in place and it requires a resolution of the United Nations Security Council for sanctions to be finally lifted. From what I have read in the press, it would appear that the UK and US Governments are keen to ensure that adequate compensation is paid. As I have mentioned, a civil action is proceeding against Libya in the United States.
I extend congratulations from the Liberal Democrat benches to the Lord Advocate and the many people, including the families, who brought about yesterday's conclusion at Camp Zeist. The nation can take quiet pride in the achievement of bringing to justice one of those involved in the foul conspiracy that killed everyone on board Pan-Am 103.
Should the facilities in the Netherlands be retained in case new evidence that could lead to further prosecutions becomes available? Furthermore, will prosecution evidence be made available for the civil proceedings that have been initiated in the US courts?
On the first matter, the treaty with the Dutch provides that the court facilities revert to the Dutch once their immediate use is at an end—that is, once the trial and any appeal process have finished. It is therefore not open to us to keep the facilities for any future proceedings. In any event, as no such proceedings are currently contemplated, we would presumably have to mothball the facilities and pay for that mothballing. However, what might happen—although this is for others, not for me, to decide—is that some other judicial use might be found for the facilities by the international criminal court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As I have mentioned appeals, I should have said in answer to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that we will know within 14 days whether there will be an appeal.
As for the question of making prosecution evidence available, that evidence is currently lodged with the court; it would therefore be a matter for the court as to whether any evidence in its possession should be released for other purposes. We should also bear in mind the fact that, as a result of agreements with other countries, we are obliged to use evidence from those countries for the purpose of criminal proceedings, unless they give consent. There is nothing unusual about that; it is the normal basis upon which international co-operation for the recovery of evidence proceeds. We would have to wait until after the conclusion of any appeal proceedings before we turned our minds to the release of productions.
Does the Lord Advocate agree that the victims' relatives are entitled to know the whole truth, and that the trial raised many unanswered questions that might be best addressed through a full judicial public inquiry? However, in view of reports that Downing Street has all but ruled out such an inquiry, can the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament order the setting-up of an inquiry with or without the permission of Downing Street?
We would have to wait until we know the UK Government's conclusions about an inquiry. As I understand it, the families who have been pressing for an inquiry have focused on matters to do with security agencies and aviation security, both of which are reserved to the UK Government. As a result, it is for the UK Government to decide in the first place whether there will be an inquiry.
I thank the Lord Advocate for his statement. Several members have referred to the possibility of a public inquiry. Should that inquiry take place and sufficient evidence become available, would the Crown Office consider it appropriate to undertake further prosecutions?
A public inquiry is not an evidence-gathering exercise: it considers the evidence that is already available. I have stated that there is not sufficient evidence to justify further proceedings. If further evidence comes to light, we will investigate it, but the investigation is not a matter for a public inquiry; it must be pursued by the police and other investigative agencies.
I grew up in Lockerbie and have lived there for most of my life. I have therefore not found it easy to be objective in this matter. Most people do not have to contemplate the way in which their community would react to such a terrible tragedy but, as Dr Murray said, the response has been remarkable. People's first thoughts have always been for the relatives of the victims and of ways in which to assist those who have pursued this inquiry over the years.
As Dr Murray made clear, the community now wants to move on, although there is talk of other inquiries in other forums. I ask the Lord Advocate and the Executive to do what they can to ensure that as little attention as possible is focused on that community, as events move into the different forums, so that it can return to the normality and anonymity that it seeks.
I understand the point that David Mundell makes. Yesterday, a great deal of media attention was focused on Lockerbie; unfortunately, that was something over which the Executive had no control. I am sure that the Parliament endorses the view that Lockerbie should now be allowed to get on with its life and, if possible, return to the type of community that it was before this dreadful incident occurred.
As a sometime procurator fiscal depute, I add my congratulations to the prosecuting team as well as my sympathy to the victims. I have two domestic issues to raise.
First, in recognition of what the Lord Advocate said about the experiences of the victims, will those experiences and a record of the incident be compiled in a report to the Parliament on the way forward in the Scottish context? Many lessons have been learned, and it is important that people's experiences are made use of.
Secondly, will procurator fiscal resources be freed up so that they can be deployed back to Scotland, where there has been some pressure on the service because of the demands of the Lockerbie trial?
We must learn lessons from the way in which we have been able to deal with the victims. One of our full-time members was seconded for that purpose, and much of that experience is being put into the victim liaison office. I shall consider providing more information to the Parliament on the victim liaison office.
At one stage, almost a dozen procurators fiscal were working on the case. That number has been reduced to a core team of four, which will be scaled down further. Rather than the sheer numbers, the greatest problem has been the fact that it is the more experienced people who have been taken away from their ordinary duties. I am keen that the experienced people who gained further experience through the exercise get back into the service.
I would like to associate myself with the acknowledgement of the competence and compassion that were shown by our criminal justice system during the trial.
Dennis Canavan and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about compensation and further investigation. The responses from the Lord Advocate show that, in a trial of this sort, the law and politics interface, and the judgment that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi committed murder in conjunction with others in pursuance of the Libyan intelligence services' interests also suggests that it is difficult to disentangle the law from the politics of the case. Given the experience of Camp Zeist and the status that is now enjoyed by Scots law in terms of the credibility and independence of its judges, what opportunity exists for the Scottish legal system to shape directly the construction of the international criminal court?
The impact will come over time: there is no defining moment. When people from other jurisdictions whom I meet find out that I am involved in the Lockerbie trial, there is an immediate interest as the case resonates throughout the world. We can be sure that many people will have seen what happened yesterday and appreciated the worth of the Scottish criminal justice system and—I hope—the Crown Prosecution Service.
I do not know whether there will be a particular outcome in relation to the international criminal court. We have to think about raising the profile of Scots law and influencing the international criminal court in a number of ways, especially through the international forum. I went to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia two weeks ago and happened to be there when Mrs Biljana Plavsic was arraigned. I spoke to the president of the tribunal and the chief prosecutor, both of whom expressed great interest in my experience of the Lockerbie trial. We must work at that kind of contact and ensure that we use our experience for the greater international good.
I congratulate the Lord Advocate and those to whom he referred. He referred to the appeal process. Will he say something about the effect that an appeal might have on the Scottish judiciary and the system in Scotland?
An appeal has to be lodged within 14 days of yesterday, so we will know quite quickly whether there is to be one. Grounds of appeal will be lodged and that will allow us to tell what the focus will be. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has the right to be present at any appeal. If he exercises that right, as I imagine he will want to, the appeal must be heard at Camp Zeist, where he will remain until any appeal has finished.
The appeal would be conducted before five judges and would have to wait until five judges could be got together and the cases were finally prepared. It is impossible for me to say at this stage when that might be—although it might be in the latter part of the year—and I cannot say how long the appeal might last because I do not know what the grounds of appeal are. However, the appeal will not be on the same scale as the trial. It is limited to legal issues, so it might take two or three weeks rather than months.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—