UK 'interfering' in Lockerbie bomber appeal
The UK Government was today accused of “interference” in the appeal of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Scotland’s top prosecutor would be prepared to release a mystery document which could help overturn Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s conviction, his lawyers said.
However, the move is being blocked by the UK government, the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh heard.
Lawyers representing al Megrahi accused the government of interference and argued their position is incompetent.
The official papers, handed to prosecutors by an undisclosed foreign government, have been requested by al Megrahi’s legal team to help with his appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity.
However, the Advocate General, the top UK law officer in Scotland, has lodged a Public Interest Immunity plea after the government in question refused to grant its disclosure.
Al Megrahi’s lawyers argue that only Scotland’s top prosecutor, Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, has the authority to make that decision on behalf of the public.
Margaret Scott QC told judges that the paperwork would be disclosed to the defence but for the intervention of the Advocate General.
She said: “It’s clear that the Lord Advocate has decided that disclosure of the document ought to be made for the purposes of the appeal.
“It also appears that no public interest objection has been taken or raised by the Lord Advocate.
“In these circumstances, the only reasonable inference is that... the Lord Advocate on reflection does not consider that there is in her opinion a well-founded public interest objection to the disclosure of the document sought.”
She continued: “In these circumstances, were the Advocate General entitled to intervene to prevent disclosure by the Lord Advocate, this would amount to direct interference by the UK Government in the pursuit of independent prosecution in Scotland by the Lord Advocate.”
She added that where the Lord Advocate has decided not to withhold the document on the basis of public interest grounds, it is “incompetent” for the Advocate General to raise a public interest objection.
