Lockerbienews

1988

21 December - Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York explodes at 31,000 feet over Lockerbie in southern Scotland, killing all 259 on board and eleven people on the ground.

1989

19 September - UTA Flight772 from Brazzaville to Paris explodes in the desert in Niger, killing 171 people.

1990

10 May - Pan Am is reported to have reached out-of-court settlement with the families of Lockerbie residents who were killed or had property destroyed in the crash.

July - UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch report is published, concluding that the crash was the result of "the detonation of an improvised explosive device located in a baggage container".

1 October - Fatal Accident Inquiry opens in Dumfriess Sheriff Court, lasting a total of 55 days and with 132 witnesses.

1991

30 October - A French examining magistrate issues warrants against six Libyan officials over the UTA explosion.

14 November - The Lord Advocate obtains a warrant for the arrest of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah on charges of conspiracy and murder. An indictment in similar terms is issued in the US.

27 November - The French, UK and US governments issue a ststement calling on Libya to surrender all the accused for trial.

8 December - The Libya authorities state that they will try the accused in Libya.

1992

21 January - The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 731, requesting Libya to cooperate with the three governments.

3 March - Libya files an application against the UK and USA in the World Court about the applicability of the Montreal Convention of 1971 to the dispute about the prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing suspects.

23 March - Libya offers to surrender the suspects to the Arab League.

31 March - The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 748, imposing air and arms sanctions on Libya if it does not surrender the suspects within 14 days.

14 April - The World Court decides that it will not give Libya provisional protection as the case involves no urgency.

30 April - Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, states that he will not surrender the suspects, but that they are free themselves to surrender for trial.

1993

29 September - Libya states that it has no objection to the two suspects standing trial in Scotland but that the decision is for them to take.

11 November - UN Security Council adopts Resolution 883, extending sanctions against Libya to a freeze on Libyan assets abroad and an embargo on oil-related equipment.

21 December - The fifth anniversary of the Pan Am bombing is marked in ceremonies in the United States and Britain.

1994

29 January - Libya maintains its refusal to to forcible surrender the suspects.

1995

24 January - MPs call for an investigation into the allegations contained in US intelligenmce documents that Iran (and not Libya) was responsible for the Pan Am bombing.

1997

2 November - Libya states that it does not object to a trial under Scots law or by Scots judges, while maintaining that it does not think that the suspects can get a fair trial in the UK.

22 December - A report by a UN team of legal experts concludes that the Libyan suspects would receive a fair trial in Scotland, while expressing reservations about juries.

1998

27 February - The World Court decides that it has jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Libya against the UK and USA about the applicability of the Montreal Convention of 1971 to the dispute about the prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing suspects.

20 April - Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black secure agreement from Muammar Gaddafi that he will support a trial of the suspects in a neutral country by an international bench with a Scottish judge presiding.

21 March - In a UN Security Council debate, a number of members, including China and Russia call for the removal of sanctions against Libya and for trial of the suspects in a neutral country.

9 July - President Mabarak of Egypt visits Libya in the face of the embargo on firect flights.

21 July - The UK and US governments indicate that they are willing to accept the trial of the Lockerbie suspects in a third country under Scots law.

By the time of the trial of the two Libyan nationals accused of placing an explosive device on Pan Am Flight 103, resulting in a total of 270 deaths, over eleven years will have elapsed. While this seems a long time, it appeared, until August of 1998, that there might never be a criminal trial, so entrenched had become the positions of the states involved. Libya argued that it had no legal obligation to surrender the suspects, and the United Kingdom and United States argued that nothing short of a trial in either Scotland or the United States was acceptable. This stalemate was broken only by a compromise whereby the Libyans would be tried in a neutral venue, the Netherlands, before a panel of Scottish judges (with no jury) under Scots criminal law and procedure.

In the evening of 21 December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was en route from London Heathrow to JFK New York when it blew up in mid-air and fell to the ground at Lockerbie in the Scottish Borders. All 259 passengers and crew on the �plane were killed instantly, and a total of eleven local people also died in the crash.

The Investigation
A major police investigation was mounted immediately and run for a period of years, involving not only the local force from Dumfries and Galloway, but law enforcement officers from around the world, including the FBI. CAA Air Accident Investigation Branch investigated and reported in July 1990 on the circumstances of the crash. It concluded that "the detonation of an improvised explosive device led directly to the destruction of the aircraft with the loss of all 259 persons on board and eleven of the residents of the town of Lockerbie."

As is normal in circumstances of this kind, a Fatal Accident Inquiry was held. The Sheriff Principal convening the inquiry like wise had no doubt about the cause of the tragedy. In his findings in fact of February 1991, Sheriff Principal John Mowat Q.C. found that a Semtex-type plastic explosive contained in a Toshiba radio-cassette player in a Samsonite suitcase had been carried by Pan Am from Frankfurt to London Heathrow and then transferred to Flight 103; that this and other inter-line baggage had not been counted, weighed, reconciled with passengers travelling on Flight 103 or x-rayed; and that the cause of all the deaths was the detonation of this device in the left side of the forward hold of the �plane. He concluded that "the primary cause of the deaths was the criminal act of murder."

By early 1991 it was absolutely clear that the tragedy was not the result of mechanical failure or pilot error, but was instead the direct consequence of an explosive device placed in luggage in one of the plane�s holds.

The Impasse
On 27 November 1991, the Lord Advocate obtained a warrant for the arrest of two Libyans, Abdelbasset Ali Ahmed al-Megrahi and Ali Amin Khalifa Fhimah, on charges of conspiracy to murder, murder and breaches of the Aircraft Security Act of 1982. An indictment in similar terms was handed down by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on the same day.

Thereupon, the British and American governments demanded that the two Libyans be surrendered so that they could stand trial in either Scotland or the United States. Libya refused to surrender the suspects, claiming that it had no extradition treaties with either the U.K. or the U.S. and that, in any case, Libyan law prohibited the extradition of its own nationals.

The two governments then went to the UN Security Council, which in Resolution 731 of 21 January 1992 requested the surrender for trial of the suspects. After that request was refused, the Security Council adopted Resolution 748 on 31 March 1992, this time in the form of a demand that Libya renounce terrorism and surrender al-Megrahi and Fhimah for trial. The resolution gave just over two weeks to comply after which a range of sanction would be - and in the event were - imposed sanctions on Libya. When the two Libyans were still not handed over after a further 18 months, the sanctions were extended and tightened by the Security Council in Resolution 883 of 11 November 1993..

In the meantime, Libya applied to the International Court of Justice against the U.K. and U.S.A., claiming that the matter was governed by an international agreement, the Montreal Convention of 1971. Libya claimed that it had fulfilled all its obligations under the Convention by detaining the suspects and investigating the matter. The UK and US countered by arguing that the Security Council resolutions over-rode the Convention.

The Compromise
The Court decided in October 1992 that the matter was not of sufficient urgency to grant Libya provisional measures of protection. In the Court ruledFebruary 1998 the Court ruled on a number of preliminary objections made by the two governments and declared that it had jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute between Libya and the U.K. and U.S. The Court is currently engaged in considering the merits of the case and its decision is expected sometime in 2001.

It was thought that a breakthrough had been made in early 1994, when Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University and Dr. Ibrahim Legwell, the head of the Libyan defence team, agreed on a trial in a neutral venue before a panel of international judges. Britain and America refused to accept this compromise, demanding a trial in either Scotland or the United States.

It became clear at the beginning of 1998 that, despite sanctions, the two Libyans would not be surrendered for trial. On 24 August, the two governments went back to the Security Council, proposing that the trial should be held in the Netherlands before a panel of three Scottish judges and with no jury. This offer was broadly accepted by Libya, which reiterated its stance that it was for the two suspects and their legal advisers to decide whether they would appear in the Netherlands for trial.

On 5 April 1999, after some months of discussions on concerns from the accused and their lawyers, al-Megrahi and Fhimah surrendered for trial in the Netherlands at the Dutch military airbase of Valkenburg, just outside The Hague. They were swiftly extradited to Scottish jurisdiction at Camp Zeist, just outside Utrecht. Camp Zeist, a former American airbase, had been agreed between the British and Dutch governments as the most suitable site for the trial. On the second of two appearances before Sheriff Principal Graham Cox Q.C., sitting at Camp Zeist, they were committed for trial on 14 April 1999. The normal period under Scots law within which the trial must commence, 110 days from the date of full committal, has been extended on application to the High Court, again sitting at Camp Zeist. The trial proper begins in early 2000 and is expected to last for at least a year. The trial will be the international trial of the decade - but it will be the Scottish trial of the century.

It involves allegations of the largest mass murder in Scottish legal history. It willbe the first occasion that a Scottish criminal court has sat abroad. It will be the first time that charges of this seriousness have been heard without a jury. It will probably be the longest and most expensive trial in Scottish legal history.

But, in a sense, all these "firsts" do not matter. What is important is that those thought responsible for the tragic loss of 270 lives should be brought to trial; the families of those who perished in Lockerbie in 1988 deserve no less. And it is equally important that two suspects have their day in court.

Procedure in Scots law
dictates that at the
conclusion of evidence
the prosecutor will address
the jury in a solemn trial
and that s/he is followed
by counsel for the accused.
The defence is always entitled to speak last. The accepted purpose of submissions is to allow each side to put forward points favourable to their case. The submissions can only refer to those matters that were led in evidence and the prosecutor has since 1996 been able comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence. As the onus of proof in a trial is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, there is no obligation on an accused to give evidence and his/her failure to do so does not allow an inference of guilt to be drawn.

When a case and therefore, the submissions are based on circumstantial evidence, the fact finders are asked to draw an inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence they have heard. In regular murder trials this task is, and can only, be carried out by a jury. The unique aspect of the Lockerbie trial is that the 3 judges are acting as both the finders of fact and the adjudicators on points of law.

It can not ofcourse be predicted how the trial would have proceeded if a jury had been present. Reflection on murder trials where there has been a jury suggests that one difference would be that the purpose of evidence, as it was being heard, would be made more explicit to the jurors. This means that the significance of evidence and even the reason why a question was asked may be more apparent. A comment often made by spectators of the Lockerbie trial was "why are they asking that? As the reason for particular questions was not always clear. In addition, the difficulty faced in co-ordinating witnesses sometimes resulted in related witnesses giving evidence at different times.

The Crown submissions have served to clarify the nature of the case they were trying to present to the court. The evidence is summarised in a digestible form which provides a clear outline of what they believe they have proved to the court. Clearly the submissions by either the prosecution or the defence invite the judges to infer the outcome favourable to their side. The Crown are asking the judges to infer guilt beyond reasonable doubt whereas the defence have invited the judges to acquit.

The complexity of a case based on circumstantial evidence is illustrated when the submissions of the prosecution and the defence teams are reviewed. Each presents a different narrative and conclusion based on the same evidence that has been heard in court. Each wish to emphasise some and play down other aspects of evidence. Review of the submissions is very informative in that they provide a clear account of what the prosecution set out to prove and how they think they have achieved this. Similarly, the defence submissions highlight the flaws in the prosecution case and question the credibility and reliability of some witnesses.

Another insight gained from the submissions is available from looking at the judge's questions. As submissions in murder trials are made to a jury, rather than judges, this insight is not usually available. The judge's questions during the submissions illustrated that they had detailed knowledge of the evidence that had been presented during the trial. The submissions in this trial were unusual for a second reason, namely, that they included reference to case law. This would not occur in a jury trial as it is the judge's role to direct the jury on the law which s/he does during the charge to the jury.

While the world awaits confirmation of when the verdict will be delivered and most importantly, the verdict itself, those who have followed the trial are left to contemplate the evidence and the submissions.

Tuesday, 9 Jan, 2001
Crown Submissions

Crown submissions in respect of the murder charge before the court were based on 4 principal submissions. First that the occupants of PA103 and the 11 residents of Lockerbie were murdered, second that this was acheived by a suitcase containing an explosive device being placed on board this flight and detonating above Lockerbie, third that each of the accused was involved with others in concert in the commission of the crime and fouth that there is no evidence to support the special defence lodged by the accused.

The submissions reviewed in some detail the evidence which had been led during the trial. This began with an overview of the forensic evidence, reference to the clothes said to be in the suitcase with the bomb, processing of baggage at Luqa, Franfurt and Heathrow airports and the processing of interline baggage at Frankfurt and Heathrow Airports. The security screening of baggage was also referred to.

Judges interrupted occasssionally to clarify matters raised. This included matters of credibility and reliability of evidence. The Advocate Depute undertook to address these issues later in his submissions. These interruptions demonstrated that the judges are familiar with details of the evidence which has been presented to the court.

The crown submission tied together evidence previously presented to the court and included reference to the individuals previously billed as star witnesses, namely, Giaka, Bollier and Gauci. Alistair Campbell, the Advocate Depute, argued that while Gauci and Giaka should be recognised as credible witnesses certain parts of Bollier's evidence relating to the supply of MST 13 timers to the Stasi was not credible.

When the court adjourned he indicated that further submisions in relation to the liability of the two accused and the final submission relating to the special defence not having been supported by the defence case would be made tomorrow. At this time the indictment will be 'tidied up' which includes two of the charges being formally deleted and the reference to the second accused, Fhimah, as a member of the Libyan Secret Service being deleted.

In respect of the special defence of incrimiation, although only 3 witnesses have been led by the first accused, evidence relating to the Autumn Leaves Investigation was agreed by the Crown and both defence teams prior to the closure of the defence case. This minute of agreement accepts that the investigation took place, that certain items were uncovered and that certain individuals including Abo Talb were convicted of offences. It does not, however, make any reference to the same individuals or organisation being responsible for the Lockerbie disaster. There is not, however, any onus on the defence to prove this special defence to the court.

Monday, 1 January, 2001:

The moderator had received an invitation from the Scottish Prison Service and would not visit Camp Zeist before the middle of February. [BBC]

Trial Adjourned Until January 2001

The defence case for the first accused, Al Megrahi, started today at the Lockerbie Trial. At the close of the day's proceedings the court adjourned until 8 January as no other witnesses were available who could give evidence prior to the first accused.
Last Wednesday, following the refusal of the 'no case to answer submission', Bill Taylor addressed the court. He referred to the fact that the judges had allowed him until Tuesday of this week before the defence case for the first accused was to be presented. He indicated that as the Syrian matter was, as yet unresolved i.e. the defence have not yet had sight of the information which is being retrieved using a letter of request to Syria and that difficulties in starting the defence case have arisen. These difficulties relate to the fact that the rules of procedure dictate that an accused must be the first witness in the defence case if he elects to give evidence. There is, ofcourse, no obligation on an accused to give evidence in his own defence, however, if he chooses to do so cause must be shown and permission sought from the court if other defence witnesses are to give evidence prior to him.
Bill Taylor indicated that he would wish the Syrian matter to be resolved before his client gave evidence and the court agreed to other witnesses appearing prior to the first accused on the understanding that these witnesses would not be giving evidence of the same nature as the accused. Lord Sutherland underlined that the motivation behind the rule was to prevent the accused tailoring his evidence in light of other information he had heard. Taylor undertook that the intended witnesses did not fall into this category and the motion was granted.
It is now clear that Taylor intends to call the first accused as a witness and it appears that this will take place around 8 January 2001. The judges today indicated that they would not be willing to grant any further adjournments to the defence.
Earlier in the day the court heard from a meteorological expert who said he was 90% sure that it was not raining on 7 December 1988. It was on this date that Mr Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, said that he had sold an umbrella to a man, who bore a resemblance to the first accused and also Abu Talb. When he gave evidence earlier in the trial Gauci told the court that the man who purchased the umbrella had promptly opened it when he went outside. As the meteorologist was based at the airport the prosecution, in cross-examination, suggested that there were no precise records of weather conditions across the island. The other witness was an FBI agent who referred to transcripts of interviews he had conducted with Marweenareesha who was said to be a member of the Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine - General Council. This man had refused to attend the trial and give evidence and was said to be involved with Jordanian intelligence and associated with the autumn leaves investigation.
Taylor told the court that other witnesses had not required to be called due to a minute of agreement between the prosecution and the defence. The trial will continue in January.

January 22.2001
THE END OF THE TRIAL - THE VERDICT AND APPEALS
The judges have retired to consider their verdict. The options open to them and the procedure, should an appeal take place, are outlined below.
The provisions regarding the delivery of the verdict are contained within sections 5 and 6 of the Order in Council which state:
(5) At the conclusion of any such trial, the court shall retire to consider its verdict, which shall be determined by a majority and delivered in open court by the presiding judge.
(6) In the event of a verdict of guilty -
(a) the presiding judge shall pass sentence; and
(b) without prejudice to its power apart from this paragraph to give a judgement, the
court shall, at the time of conviction or as soon as practicable thereafter, give a judgement in writing stating the reasons for the conviction These provisions clearly state that a written judgement must be delivered in the event of a guilty verdict. It is ofcourse open to the court to deliver a written
judgement should the verdict be acquittal.
The judges have 3 verdicts open to them, namely, guilty, not guilty and not proven. The existence of the 'third verdict' i.e. not proven, in Scots law has attracted speculation that it operates as a reluctant acquittal. This is not accurate, as it is an unconditional acquittal, identical to a not guilty verdict. In light of this, if the judges are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the charge of murder has been proven, they may return an unequivocal acquittal, in the form of a not guilty verdict.
Appeals
Although special provisions regarding appeal are provided for in the Order in Council,
as noted below, the normal procedure employed in Scottish Criminal Appeals will
apply. There is no automatic right of appeal and therefore, an application for leave to appeal must be made. This process is outlined below, however, some aspects of who may appeal and on what grounds will be considered first.
The first point to be noted is that the only possible ground for appeal in this case would be by the defence against conviction should that occur. There can not be an appeal by the prosecution against acquittal and there can be no appeal, by eithe side, against a sentence which is fixed by law. The crime of murder has a fixed sentence of mandatory life and, therefore, neither the prosecution nor the defence can appeal against this.
The Order in Council states that any appeal would be before 5 judges and would be heard in Zeist if the accused wish to be present. Otherwise the appeal would be heard in Scotland (s.14). The following outlines the process in seeking leave to
appeal:
*Verdict Delivered
*Within 14 days notice of intention to appeal lodged
* Within 6 weeks of lodging notice, a note of appeal is lodged which must contain a full statement of the grounds of appeal and include all relevant documentation.
* On receipt of the note of appeal the Clerk of Justiciary sends a copy to the trial judge (in this case judges).
* The trial judges prepare reports giving their opinion on the case generally and the grounds of appeal. This is done as soon as is reasonably practicable.
* An appellant may apply for bail pending his appeal being decided.
* As there is no automatic right of appeal, each note of appeal is considered by a single judge of the High Court who decides whether or not an appeal will be allowed. This is called the 'sift' and is done in private, outwith the presence of the parties. It involves the judge considering if the documents lodged with the note of appeal disclose arguable grounds of appeal. If leave to appeal is granted the judge can make appropriate written comments. Written reasons must be given if leave to appeal is refused.
*If leave to appeal is granted a date is set for the appeal to be heard.
*If leave to appeal is refused the appellant may, within 14 days, apply to have the application considered by 3 judges. This is again done in private outwith the presence of the parties. If successful, written comments may be given and an appeal date will be fixed. If unsuccessful, reasons must be given in writing. The foregoing is the normal 'appeal' route in the Scottish criminal courts. Ofcourse, if an appeal was on a 'devolution issue' further appeal, with the leave of the High Court, may lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.