The Appeal - week 1
The Lockerbie Bombing Trial
Start: 15/10/2001 *** Updated: 15. 10. 2001
This page will keep you informed about the first week (15.10-19.10) in the appeal of the Lockerbie Bombing Trial in Camp Zeist.
Latest and updated news at bottom of page.
Come and join the discussion: Was the verdict of the Lockerbie bombing trial unjust ?
What is going on inside and outside the court ? Is Al Megrahi going to win his appeal ?
Lockerbie Crisis Discussion Room - your opinion !

Appeal hearing started

15/10/2001 GUARDIAN UNLIMITED
Lawyers representing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent sentenced to life for blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, are launching legal proceedings today aimed at overturning the conviction handed down earlier this year.

At a preliminary hearing in the Netherlands, where his first trial was held before three Scottish judges, the lawyers will discuss preparations for a full appeal and a panel of judges will set a date for the proceedings which are expected to begin early next year. Megrahi's legal team includes not only his Libyan lawyer but also a Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz, who defended OJ Simpson, the British barrister Michael Mansfield QC, and Frank Rubino, who represented General Manuel Noriega of Panama when he was convicted in the US of money laundering and drug trafficking.
 

  • Top law experts hired for appeal case - special coverage  (02-09-2001)

    • Packed with information, pictures, interviews and background notes on the top legal experts for Megrahi´s upcoming appeal hearing team.

    Megrahi, 49, maintains he is innocent. The precise terms of his appeal remain sketchy; but Mr Rubino has said it is likely to centre on allegations that evidence was improperly removed or planted at the scene of the crash.

    The defence team claimed during the trial that the CIA had tampered with evidence. Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted, has said he believes the entire affair was a set-up. "I'm convinced that the crown was directed by the CIA, and actually was misdirected, maybe led by the CIA," he told the Scotsman. Mr Rubino has also suggested that the defence may question the way the Scottish judges handled witnesses.

    Megrahi's lawyers are said to question the testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper, Anthony Gauci, which was crucial in securing a conviction. Mr Gauci said that a man resembling Megrahi had bought the clothes from him which were found to have been in the suitcase containing the bomb.

    The defence is also likely to question the judges' acceptance that the suitcase was loaded in Malta, from where it is supposed to have travelled to London via Frankfurt. Once the judges have given their ruling, the legal teams, representing both Al Megrahi and the Crown will attempt to speed up the eventual appeal by sorting out technical matters. Some of the relatives of those killed, including Dr Jim Swire and the Rev John Mosey, who both lost daughters, have travelled to Holland for the hearing.

    The preliminary hearing before five Scottish judges - Lords Cullen, Kirkwood, MacFadyen, Nimmo-Smith and McEwan - will consider various procedural and adminnistrative matters.It is costing up to £2m a month to keep Al Megrahi in the Netherlands. This is the first time he will have been seen in public since his conviction and security at Camp Zeist has been considerably strengthened following the September terrorist atrocities in the United States.

    Marina LarracocheaRelative to make Lockerbie plea (BBC NEWS(!))
    An American woman will petition the panel of five judges for the right to be heard during the appeal. Marina Larracochea lost her sister Maria, a cabin crew member, in the 1988 bombing. As Al Megrahi's appeal gets under way she is expected to become the first bereaved relative to go into the well of the court, just feet from the man convicted of murdering her sister. She will ask the judges to allow her to address the full appeal when it takes place in the new year. It is an unusual request in an unusual case, but it is common practice in the United States.

    However, a news item dated february 2001, says her chances to take part in the trial are almost none:
    Lockerbie victim's sister 'to lose appeal bid'
    14/02/2001 ANANOVA (UK) The sister of one of the American victims of the Lockerbie bombing is to lose in her bid to take part in the appeal of the Libyan found guilty of the atrocity. Justice officials will tell Marina de Larracochea she is not entitled to participate in the process under Scottish law. Ms Larracochea's sister Maria was an air stewardess on PA AM Flight 103. A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service has confirmed papers have been lodged with the High Court in Edinburgh but the details of the application were not known.

    She said the application would be forwarded to the Scottish court at Camp Zeist in Holland, but would not be allowed to proceed under law. The spokeswoman said: "We understand a relative of one of the American victims has lodged papers at the High Court in Edinburgh. However, she does not have any locus to participate in any appeal. "The only persons who can do so under Scottish law is the person or persons appealing, or in a situation where prosecutors appeal against a point of law. "American law may be different, but this woman is not entitled to appeal under Scottish law. The Courts Service will be writing to this woman explaining the situation to her."
     

  • More info about the killed crew on Pan Am 103


    • Later today - sister asked for new inquiry:
    The sister of a stewardess killed in the Lockerbie airliner bombing has urged an independent review of the criminal investigation into the 1988 attack, saying the full truth had not come out at the trial. Spanish-born Marina de Larracoechea made her unusual plea on Monday at a pre-appeal hearing for Libyan former secret agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, sentenced to life in January for murdering the 270 victims of the blast over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

    De Larracoechea, who lost her 39-year-old sister Maria Nieves when the New York-bound jet exploded, said there had been "important omissions" in the proceedings, alluding to conflicts of interest and the "true political nature of the case". Alleging that governments failed to act on prior intelligence of the bombing of Pan Am 103 on December 21, 1988, she requested a new inquiry or permission to participate personally in the appeal.  "I only seek the full justice and truth of the case," she told the five-panel bench of Scottish High Court judges, sitting at the specially-built Scottish court at a former U.S. airbase in the central Netherlands that heard the nine-month trial.

    Miss de Larracoechea told the court that the Crown's case needed further scrutiny because the full truth behind the bombing had not come out during the trial. She told the five judges that "key and central aspects of the case were repeatedly shielded" during the fatal accident inquiry into the disaster for fear of prejudicing future criminal proceedings and in the understanding that these would be fully addressed at the trial.

    However, she said many issues remained unaddressed and could only be dealt with through an independent review of all evidence. She said: "My view is thatwhat is necessary is an  independent review of everything that came out in the original criminal investigation - that's the first step and then depending on what's found it may be necessary to proceed further.  "I only seek the truth and justice of the case as soon as possible like most of the relatives."
     

    Denied requiry
    Judges then denied De Larracoechea's petition, however, saying the appeal could only examine evidence heard at the trial plus any extra evidence presented by Megrahi's counsel. In measured tones, presiding Judge Cullen questioned whether he was empowered to order a fresh examination of all available evidence -- drawing a spirited reaction from De Larracoechea, who suggested the judge was shooting himself in the foot. "But wouldn't that be relevant?" she asked. "As we say in Spain, that's like the cat that bit its tail." She went on: "I understand that Mr Megrahi's appeal is the other side of the coin -- and yet there is one coin."

    Rejecting De Larracoechea's petition -- which was also opposed by the prosecutionn -- Judge Cullen said her request was for an investigation into "the alleged failure of certain governments to act on certain prior intelligence". "The present proceedings are not and cannot be made into a public inquiry into such matters," he said. "This court can only be concerned with the appellant's appeal against conviction."

    Appeal date set - 4 weeks for preparations of appeal lodging
    At a preliminary hearing at the Scottish court in the Netherlands, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's counsel was given four weeks to lodge the outlines of its arguments. The prosecution side will then have four weeks to respond and the Camp Zeist court will begin to hear the case on 23 January. The move came as the sister of an air stewardess killed in the 1988 bombing failed in her attempt to have an independent review of the evidence gathered in the case.

    Lord Cullen said it was likely another procedural hearing would be necessary before the appeal began, and any such hearing would be held on 7 January, 2002. Drawing Monday's three hour hearing to a close, he said: "A decision as to whether there will be a further procedural hearing will be taken as soon as possible, and certainly by December 17."
     

    Preliminary Hearing - as reported by Lockerbie Trial Briefing Team
    The Petition by Marina de Larracoechea, whose sister was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, appeared before Lord Justice-Clerk Cullen and four other Judges of the Appeal Court at Zeist this morning. Her Petition to the Nobile Officium (ie extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction) of the High Court to be joined as a party to the Appeal proceedings was rejected by the Judges.

    The court explained that, under Scottish procedure, the sole function of the Appeal Court was to consider the grounds of appeal on the basis of the evidence which had been led at trail. The Petitioner had stated in her application to the Court that she wished the Court to order a fresh criminal investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. Lord Cullen explained that this was not the function of the Appeal Court in Scotland. The investigation and prosecution of crime is a matter for the Lord Advocate alone. The Lockerbie Appeal is to be dealt with according to the legal agreements which set it up as a normal appeal under normal Scottish procedure. Accordingly, Ms Larrachoechea’s application was incompetent and was refused on that basis.

    Lord Cullen commented that the Petitioner had presented her argument with clarity and sincerity.

    The Court then dealt with the procedural aspects of the Appeal hearing. After hearing submissions from Bill Taylor QC for the appellant, Megrahi, and the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, for the Crown, the Court ordered that the defence produce a skeleton argument of their appeal case within four weeks from today. The Crown then have to respond by lodging their skeleton argument within a further four weeks. Each party will then be allowed two weeks for any further alteration of their skeleton arguments.

    Submissions were made on Ground of Appeal Number B11, which relates to a security officer who has come forward saying that he has fresh evidence which was not heard at the trial. Mr Taylor made it clear that the defence were not alleging any fault on the part of the Crown. Defence investigations had already shown that, although the Police were in possession of a statement from this witness as long ago as 1988, the Police had not passed it on to the Procurator-Fiscal. However, Mr Taylor argued that this provided the “reasonable explanation” the law required for admitting this evidence before the Appeal Court.

    In reply, the Lord Advocate said that the Crown might well willing to consider that the defence had satisfied the “reasonable explanation” test, but the question of the “significance” of this evidence, which is the second arm of the test set out under Scots law, was a different matter. The Crown might well want to make submissions that this fresh evidence should not be admitted because, even taken at its highest, it could not be a ground in law for a successful appeal.

    Finally, the Court announced that the full Appeal hearing will commence on Wednesday 23rd January 2002. If there is any need for a further preliminary hearing, that will take place on Monday 7th January 2002. There are three weeks allocated to the hearing of the Appeal. It is expected that, even if the fresh evidence of the security officer is allowed to be led, three weeks will be sufficient for the whole Appeal. (LTB end)

    Court adjourned until January, 23rd, 2001, unless new prelimenary hearing is called for.