As the Times is now behind a paywall, much of its content remains under the radar. So it was with an opinion piece written by the late Paul McBride QC, published on the day of the book’s publication, 28 February, which I only saw last week and to which I have been unable to respond until now.<\/p>\n
McBride was, by all accounts, a very gifted and popular advocate. It’s sad that what was almost certainly his last published article should be so poor.<\/p>\n
My comments are in normal typeface.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Abdul <\/em>Baset <\/em>Ali <\/em>al-Megrahi’s book <\/em>is <\/em>called <\/em>You <\/em>The <\/em>Jury <\/em>and <\/em>in it <\/em>he, <\/em>of <\/em>course, maintains his innocence, <\/em>and argues <\/em>that <\/em>he <\/em>was framed <\/em>by <\/em>the <\/em>authorities <\/em>for <\/em>a <\/em>crime <\/em>of <\/em>which <\/em>he was <\/em>innocent. Furthermore, <\/em>he <\/em>maintains that <\/em>he <\/em>had been persuaded <\/em>to <\/em>drop his <\/em>appeal <\/em>by <\/em>the Justice <\/em>Secretary <\/em>to <\/em>ease <\/em>his <\/em>passage <\/em>back <\/em>to Libya. Both of these <\/em>assertions <\/em>are <\/em>complete self-serving <\/em>nonsense. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Abdelbaset has never claimed that Kenny MacAskill persuaded him to drop his appeal, rather, he claims that Libyan minister Abdelati al-Obedi told him that MacAskill had said privately that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if Abdelbaset abandoned the appeal.<\/p>\n Al-Megrahi <\/em>is <\/em>happy <\/em>to <\/em>set <\/em>forth <\/em>his detailed <\/em>account <\/em>to <\/em>a <\/em>friendly <\/em>journalist <\/em>while not <\/em>on <\/em>oath <\/em>in <\/em>front <\/em>of his <\/em>imaginary <\/em>jury. <\/em>He <\/em>chose <\/em>not <\/em>to give <\/em>evidence <\/em>at <\/em>his <\/em>actual <\/em>trial, <\/em>where <\/em>he <\/em>would <\/em>have been <\/em>the subject <\/em>of <\/em>cross-examination <\/em>and <\/em>have the <\/em>opportunity <\/em>to <\/em>tell <\/em>the <\/em>court <\/em>his <\/em>account. <\/em>Accordingly, <\/em>his claims <\/em>are <\/em>easily dismissed <\/em>as <\/em>self serving <\/em>and <\/em>worthless untruths.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n When writing the article McBride could have had no idea of Abdelbaset\u2019s detailed account because he hadn\u2019t read the book, which was not published until the day after.<\/p>\n While <\/em>I <\/em>have never been <\/em>of <\/em>the <\/em>opinion <\/em>that Kenny <\/em>MacAskill <\/em>should have <\/em>visited <\/em>the prisoner <\/em>at <\/em>Greenock prison <\/em>– <\/em>in his <\/em>own <\/em>interests, <\/em>if nothing <\/em>else <\/em>– <\/em>it <\/em>is obvious <\/em>he acted <\/em>in <\/em>good <\/em>faith to <\/em>assess <\/em>the <\/em>condition of <\/em>a <\/em>dying <\/em>man. Furthermore, <\/em>al-Megrahi’s <\/em>claims <\/em>about <\/em>Mr MacAskill <\/em>cannot <\/em>stand <\/em>up <\/em>to <\/em>any reasonable <\/em>scrutiny. <\/em>If <\/em>the <\/em>Justice <\/em>Secretary had been <\/em>minded <\/em>to release <\/em>al-Megrahi but <\/em>insist that <\/em>he <\/em>drop his <\/em>appeal, <\/em>it <\/em>would <\/em>have been open <\/em>to <\/em>him <\/em>to <\/em>use <\/em>the <\/em>prisoner transfer treaty, given <\/em>birth <\/em>to <\/em>by <\/em>Tony Blair, <\/em>the <\/em>former <\/em>Prime <\/em>Minister, <\/em>where <\/em>there is <\/em>a <\/em>requirement that <\/em>an appeal has to <\/em>be <\/em>abandoned <\/em>before <\/em>a <\/em>transfer.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Any \u2018reasonable scrutiny\u2019 of Abdelbaset\u2019s decision should take into account the fact that he was terminally ill and stuck in a foreign prison with little prospect of accessing the best quality medical care. He was, in short, desperate and willing to take any course of action that increased his chances of returning home.<\/p>\n The Justice <\/em>Secretary, <\/em>however, <\/em>chose <\/em>to <\/em>release <\/em>al-Megrahi <\/em>on <\/em>the ground <\/em>of compassion, <\/em>where <\/em>there <\/em>is absolutely no requirement <\/em>for <\/em>an appeal <\/em>to <\/em>be <\/em>dropped. Indeed, far <\/em>from <\/em>covering <\/em>matters <\/em>up, <\/em>the <\/em>Justice <\/em>Secretary is <\/em>bringing forward legislation <\/em>to <\/em>allow <\/em>the <\/em>public to <\/em>see <\/em>the <\/em>documentation <\/em>of <\/em>the Scottish <\/em>Criminal <\/em>Cases <\/em>Review Commission’s referral to <\/em>the appeal <\/em>court. <\/em>Hardly <\/em>the <\/em>actions <\/em>one <\/em>might <\/em>think <\/em>of <\/em>a <\/em>man <\/em>involved <\/em>in <\/em>a <\/em>cover-up.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Other, better informed, legal commentators have pointed out that the Scottish government could have taken a far less tortuous route to publication of the SCCRC report.<\/p>\n Furthermore, <\/em>al-Megrahi’s <\/em>lawyers <\/em>would <\/em>have <\/em>informed <\/em>the <\/em>Libyan <\/em>that <\/em>he <\/em>