The same bad science and the same bad scientists

An item from this blog, two years ago today:

[Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just published on its website a long interview with Gareth Peirce, the solicitor for the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, and a related news item. What follows is an excerpt from the latter:]

Peirce says that the construction and maintenance of the discredited case against Megrahi has required active participation from those at all levels of the criminal justice system, with both tacit and overt support from the top of the political hierarchy.

“In the most notorious cases, everyone played their part, absolutely everybody,” she says.

“A big part of the blame lies within those who form the criminal justice system. It looks as if in the prosecution of the Lockerbie case, the defendants met the same fate, even to the extent of the same personnel featuring, in the person of the forensic scientists.”

The principal forensic analyst, Thomas Hayes, employed by the Crown to testify against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was the same discredited analyst who was proven to have fabricated his evidence in the manufactured case against the Guildford Four.

He and Alan Feraday testified that the key forensic evidence, a fragment of circuit board, survived the explosion of Pan Am 103 and left traces of clothing connected to a shop in Malta. The owners of that shop provided the identification of Megrahi to the court, and were later found to have been paid in millions of dollars for their testimony. This testimony has been widely discredited ...

“That was the most shocking revelation to me,” Peirce says.

“Exactly the same forensic scientists who produced the wrongful conviction of Guiseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played. Yet here they were. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far less a conviction in Lockerbie.

“What shocked me most was that I thought that all that had been gone through on Guildford and Birmingham, the one thing that had been achieved was that nobody would be convicted again on bad science. But yet in the Lockerbie case, it isn’t just the same bad science, it is the same bad scientists.”

In July 2007 former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit claiming that he had manufactured the crucial circuit board evidence and passed it to named individuals charged with investigating the Pan Am 103 case during 1989.

“All of this is screaming out for an inquiry. The ingredients that make up the prosecution’s case are really so rotten. They can’t and they shouldn’t sustain the weight of a presumed safe finding. You can see that they are utterly contaminated. They have no integrity. The forensic findings lack all the ingredients that should make them safe. The continuity of exhibits is all over the place. The only other pillar on which it is held up is this non-identification. It is just a catastrophe. The whole edifice is rotten, and it is astonishing it was ever stood up in the first place.”

[Further contributions from Gareth Peirce to the Lockerbie debate can be accessed here.]

Pinned on Libya despite flimsy evidence

[What follows is an excerpt from a long article entitled Let’s Play Benghazi – A Game of Double Standards published yesterday on the Daily Kumquat website:]

After the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland – an event that was pinned on Libya despite flimsy circumstantial evidence – Qaddafi became an international pariah. Keen to be liberated from UN and US trade sanctions, and to have his country removed from the State Department’s list of terror sponsors, Qaddafi eventually took responsibility for the bombing (without acknowledging culpability) and agreed to set up a $2.7 billion reparations fund. Not coincidentally, this came in 2003, when the Bush Administration was demonstrating to the world its willingness to topple world leaders it didn’t like. Trade sanctions quickly evaporated, and all the western companies that had been chomping at the bit to enter Libya were off to the races. Indeed, it would not be long before BP started lobbying the British government to release Libyan prisoners to protect its commercial interests. The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing,  Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was released on claimed medical grounds in 2009, with BP denying any involvement in his case. Apparently, however, that wasn’t enough to placate Qaddafi. Later that same year, Qaddafi threatened the security of the big oil companies’ leases if they did not fork over approximately $1.5 billion to help him cover the Lockerbie reparations.

According to Russ Baker’s reporting, the figure demanded by Qaddafi did not just come out of thin air. In early 2008, Libya placed $1.3 billion into a complicated investment fund with Goldman Sachs. The crash soon erased 98% of that fund’s value. As the pugnacious Matt Taibbi reported, Goldman executives were so frightened by Qaddafi’s possible response to their misrepresentation and incompetence that they decided to sell their soul to the devil, offering Qaddafi a huge equity stake in Goldman itself. When that offer was spurned (and one must take a moment to ponder the deliciousness of the irony here), Goldman continued to make other proposals, including one deal that included a sweet $50 million payment to an investment firm “run by the son-in-law of the head of Libya’s state-owned oil company.” As Taibbi puts it:

This is classic modern investment banking. You pitch some kind of deal to a city, state, or country, and it may or may not be a good deal for the actual citizens/residents whose money is at stake. But you can make it objectively a great deal for the individual officials with the power to sign off on the deal by sending a big fat check either to the politician in question or to some local slimeball consulting firm of his or her choosing. Anyway, there is some reason why we journalists are not supposed to call things like Goldman’s proposed “$50m payment” bribes, but I can’t remember what it is.[...]

I’ve talked to a lot of people who got on the wrong end of a bad Goldman deal, and I never heard any hint of Goldman coming back with flowers and chocolates after the date rape. What makes the Libyans deserve such special attention? One wonders if you get better service from an American investment bank if the threat of beheading is behind your business deals.

Call for fresh inquiry into Lockerbie bomb conviction

An item from this blog, one year ago today:

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Times (behind the paywall).  It reads in part:]

Religious leaders, politicians and relatives of some victims of the Lockerbie bombing have called for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man found guilty of the attack.

In an open letter, the campaigners claimed the case against al-Megrahi “held water like a sieve” and was compromised by both the “bribing” of a witness and “the very real possibility” that key evidence in his trial had been fabricated.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, formerly the Archbishop of Canterbury’s special envoy, and Sir Teddy Taylor, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, signed the letter, along with the journalists Kate Adie, Ian Hislop and John Pilger, and 35 others.

Al-Megrahi died at the weekend, almost three years after he was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government because he had [prostate] cancer.

The Scottish government denies that it granted his freedom in 2009 only after he decided to drop a second appeal against his conviction. It said that its decision was humane, in accordance with Scottish law.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said that al-Megrahi would answer to “a higher power”.

The campaigners ironically quote Mr MacAskill in their letter, which criticises the Scotttish government. “Fine words are not enough. Action is required,” say the authors.

“If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government acts by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair.

“As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.” (…)

Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey, who both lost daughters on the flight, are among the signatories, who criticised the actions of the Crown Office (the equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales).

“The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about,” write the authors.

They allege a serious of failings in the prosecution case, including the bribery of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who was a key Crown witness; the possibility that forensic evidence was fabricated; the retraction of some testimony; and the non-disclosure of other evidence. The letter adds: “Evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.”

The Scottish government rejected the inquiry and said that the issues being raised related to the conviction and “must be a matter for a court of law”.

A Scottish government spokesman said that Al-Megrahi’s relatives, or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity, were all entitled to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis.

He added: “Ministers would be entirely comfortable with that.”

A spokesman for the Crown Office said that the only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence was the criminal court.

[A similar article appears today in The Scotsman. A report in today’s edition ofThe Herald contains the following:]

Mr [Tam] Dalyell, a former Father of the House of Commons, told The Herald: "The SNP Government and Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill in particular are burying their heads in the sand on the Lockerbie issue. If they were to admit that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime of Lockerbie they would then by implication condemn the very institution which shows Scotland to be most separate from England – the justice system.

"The reason to pursue an inquiry after Megrahi's death, is that to not do so would leave an indelible stain on the Scottish justice system. It is about pursuing the truth. I simply do not think party politics should be played on this. If people or parties have to be embarrassed then so be it because they will have brought it on themselves by being less than candid. For the sake of the Scottish justice system we cannot let this go."

[It is sad, but entirely in character, to see the Scottish Government and the Crown Office repeating the tired old mantra that the only proper way to address concerns over the Megrahi conviction is through a court of law. It is indeed true that the only way that the verdict can be overturned is through a further appeal. But we have clear evidence now of flaws -- indeed wrongdoing -- in the Lockerbie investigation and in the conduct of the prosecution. It is quite certainly not the case that only way in which these matters can be ventilated is in an appeal against the verdict. They are matters which have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern; and that is precisely the test that must be satisfied for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It would be outrageous if police and Crown wrongdoing in a case could be exposed only if the accused person chose to exercise his right of appeal. Such wrongdoing is a matter of public concern and it is to address such concerns that the 2005 Act exists.  Moreover, such an inquiry could lead to a royal pardon (indeed royal pardons almost invariably flow from inquiries into cases in which there has been a conviction). A royal pardon does not overturn the verdict, which technically still stands, but it is an official recognition that the conviction was flawed. So there really is no constitutional or legal problem about asking for an inquiry into what went wrong in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case.]

First anniversary of death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died one year ago today.  Here is the statement that Justice for Megrahi issued on that occasion:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has now died without having been able to clear his name of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 on the 21st of December 1988 during his lifetime. Now all those politicians and Megrahi-guilt apologists who regard compassion as being a weakling's alternative to vengeance, who boast of their skills at remote medical diagnosis, and who persistently refuse to address the uncomfortable facts of the case, will doubtless fall silent. Finally, the ‘evil terrorist’ has been called to account for himself before a “Higher Power”.

The prosecution case against him held water like a sieve. We are expected to believe the fantastic tale of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow transfer of an invisible, unaccompanied suitcase which miraculously found itself situated in the perfect position in the hold of 103 to create maximum destructive effect having eluded no fewer than three separate security regimes. There is no evidence for any such luggage ever having left the ground in either Malta or Germany, it is mere surmise. Not only that but we have accusations of the key Crown witness having been bribed for testimony; a multitude of serious question marks over material evidence, including the very real possibility of the crucial fragment of PCB having been fabricated; discredited forensic scientists testifying for the prosecution; Crown witness testimony being retracted after the trial and, most worryingly, allegations of the Crown’s non-disclosure of evidence which could have been key to the defence. Added to which, evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.

The judges were under immense pressure to bring in a verdict of guilty. Zeist was the most high profile trial that the Scottish High Court of Justiciary had ever presided over. There was massive international interest, and this was compounded by the fact that the judges played the dual roles of judge and jury in a case in which the indictments were brought by the same official body that had appointed them as judges in the first instance, the Lord Advocate. Anyone hoping, therefore, to discover an application of sound, empirical reasoning based on concrete evidence being exercised in the field of jurisprudence would do well to avoid the Zeistjudgement. Indeed, the most exceptional of Zeist’s many exceptional features is the judgement. Anyone reading this extraordinary document could be forgiven for thinking that in Scotland there is a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the defence. In the words of Professor Hans Köchler (UN appointed International Observer at the Kamp van Zeist Trial) commenting on the second appeal: “[it] bears the hallmarks of an intelligence operation.”

The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about. Some in the legal and political establishments may well be breathing a sigh of relief now that Mr al-Megrahi has died. This would be a mistake. Many unfortunates who fell foul of outrageous miscarriages of justice in the past have had their names cleared posthumously. The great and the good of western civilisation who have clamoured for Mr al-Megrahi’s blood of late may find it a salutary experience to reflect on the case of Derek Bentley: convicted and hanged in 1953, aged nineteen, for a crime for which in 1998 he was acquitted on his posthumous appeal. However long it takes, the campaign seeking to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed will continue unabated not only in his name and that of his family, who must still bear the stigma of being related to the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’, but, above all, it will carry on in the name of justice. A justice which is still being sought by and denied to many of the bereaved resultant from the Lockerbie tragedy.

It took almost half a century to resolve the Bentley case. With the Zeist justice campaign now in its twelfth year, one has to ask, when faced with such intransigence, precisely whom the democratically elected, executive arm of state represents. Historically, all the major parties, both in Holyrood and Westminster, must shoulder equal responsibility. However, since first coming to power in 2007, the SNP government has actively taken measures which hinder any progress towards lifting the fog that lies over events, much to the dismay of its own party supporters and activists who take an interest in the case. In 2009, a statutory instrument which was supposed to remove the legislative prohibition on publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons for the second appeal (a document that cost tax payers in excess of £1,000,000 to produce) was so drafted as to render publication effectively impossible. In 2010, the government also fired new legislation through parliament (‘Cadder’ Section7) that makes any prospect of opening another appeal in the interests of justice a forlorn hope. Even today, ignoring the fact that, with the support of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, campaigners finally forced the government to admit that it does in law (under the Inquiries Act of 2005) have the power to open an inquiry into the case, the government persists in sending out correspondence claiming that it doesn’t; this, of course, is accompanied by the hackneyed old mantra of their not doubting the safety of the conviction. Furthermore, during the consultation period of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, campaigners established that the Data Protection Act posed no legal obstacle to the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for the second appeal, however, the government maintained otherwise with the result that it was ultimately left to the courage and commitment of members of the journalistic community to test the government’s position to destruction. All of the aforementioned, and the regrettable habit of appointing Crown Office insiders to the position of Lord Advocate, are not reassuring signs that this matter is being treated with a sense of balance and objectivity by the authorities. The record has stuck. The longer this goes on, the more the doubts over the government’s true loyalties will increase.

This case has now become emblematic of an issue which affects each and every one of us and poses some profoundly basic questions which we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve? Our laws and how we apply them to our society are the most fundamental descriptor of how we function as a cohesive and coherent entity. They are effectively a portrait of our identity as a people. If, through complacency, we permit cosy, established authority to dictate the terms and to brush under the carpet concerns over how justice is defined and dispensed for the sake of convenience, expediency and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, says that “Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it.” Scotland’s independent and professional arbiter in the matter of referrals to the Court of Appeal, the SCCRC, believe that, on no fewer than six grounds, Mr al-Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice at Zeist. Whether or not the courts are the right and proper platform to deal with this case, the conviction has been in the hands of the High Court of Justiciary since 2001 producing no resolution whatsoever and, moreover, how amenable are the courts now likely to be towards sanctioning another appeal given that they have been invested with new powers which allow them to reject applications which question their own judgements? Fine words are not enough. Action is required. After all, the government took executive action to release Mr al-Megrahi following the dropping of his appeal (something he was under no legal obligation to do). 52% of respondents to an opinion poll conducted by a major Scottish national newspaper supported the call for an independent inquiry into the case. Over a two week period, and with minimal publicity, 1,646 individuals put their names to a petition for an inquiry, which still remains open before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee. If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government act by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.

Signed:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ and co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Secretary of Justice for Megrahi).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Secretary Depute of Justice for Megrahi).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor on the 21st of December 1988).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm’).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Kenneth Roy (Editor of ‘The Scottish Review’).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).

Scots deserve to know the truth... even 25 years on

[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary Robert Forrester in today’s Scottish edition of the Sunday Express.  The published version can be read here.  The text originally submitted reads as follows:]

The 21st of December will mark a quarter of a century since Pan Am 103 came down on Lockerbie killing all 259 people on board and a further eleven on the ground. The following month will see the twelfth anniversary of the day on which the Scottish judiciary convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi of bombing the plane. Mr al-Megrahi has been dead for exactly a year. So what relevance does the Lockerbie/Zeist justice campaign have in the here and now?

Dying acquits no one of a crime, therefore, unless something is done to change it, Mr al-Megrahi will remain convicted of 270 murders. The fundamental question mark which lies at the very heart of Zeist is whether or not one believes in phantoms. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) managed, by Oscar winning guile, to persuade the court that a fantasy bomb suitcase travelled to Heathrow from Luqa via Frankfurt. The judges were deprived of evidence, which, if presented, would have driven a juggernaut festooned with blue flashing lights and wailing sirens straight through the case against Mr al-Megrahi, namely: witness statements given to police, later reiterated in sworn testimony at the Fatal Accident Inquiry, describing the existence at Heathrow of a rogue suitcase as not only being in precisely the location forensic investigators concluded the bomb had been in but, equally notable, identifying its colour and type before forensics revealed these details. Furthermore, this rogue suitcase was observed prior to the Frankfurt feeder flight’s arrival at Heathrow. Exactly what drove the effort to divert attention away from Heathrow and a real rogue bag to Luqa and an imagined one is anyone’s guess. That it happened is indisputable.

The allegations of criminality lodged by campaigners against officials from police, COPFS and forensic backgrounds last November concern the above issue and other instances of suspected serious criminal wrongdoing associated with Lockerbie/Zeist. These allegations support the call for an independent inquiry into the investigation and all the legal processes involved in the case.

In a letter to the Scottish Parliament of 7 January 2011, the Scottish Government finally admitted that it had the power to institute an independent inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist under the Inquiries Act of 2005. It, nevertheless, refuses to sanction this on the ground that such an inquiry would not take account of the case’s international dimensions. Campaigners strongly maintain, however, that more than ample evidence falls within the sway of Scottish jurisdiction to shred the COPFS case with ease and establish Mr al-Megrahi’s innocence. The government knows this but responds only with obfuscation.

Moreover, by refusing to invoke the same law, Justice Secretary MacAskill’s reaction to the campaigners’ request for these allegations to be investigated by an independent body entertains a blatant conflict of interest. Incredibly, it invites COPFS and the Scottish police to be judge, jury and accused! This novel approach to justice is not restricted to the Justice Directorate. Lord Advocate Mulholland and COPFS have sought to publicly vilify campaigners in an attempt to dismiss their allegations out of hand. In so doing, Mr Mulholland has brought massive discredit upon his office and it could be argued comprehensively failed to reach the standards of probity and impartiality laid down by the International Association of Prosecutors.

In the name of putting victims first, the government’s current criminal legislative programme, staunchly supported by COPFS, is creating a dangerous mirage of justice and improved crime clear up rates via: the abolition of the prohibition on double jeopardy, disposing of corroboration, and ‘Cadder’ section 7 (appeals). This will inevitably produce a significant increase in the numbers of miscarriages. Thus, COPFS the police and the government may improve their images through this charade, but will be doing so by incarcerating the innocent.

The role of COPFS is not to aggressively prosecute cases for the sake of expedience and reputation, thus creating even more victims, but to serve the interests of justice and prosecute cases impartially without fear favour or prejudice. For too long the former has prevailed at Chambers Street, and it shows little sign of changing.

Is Zeist relevant today? Given the direction that the Scottish criminal justice system is moving in, as it sleepwalks its way towards even more miscarriages of justice, the answer must be demonstrably yes. With 270 miscarriages emanating from a single process, it is emblematic of the parlous state of our criminal justice system.

The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will review the call for an independent Lockerbie inquiry on 4 June.

Two years of Frank Mulholland as Lord Advocate

[Today marks the second anniversary of the appointment of Frank Mulholland QC as Lord Advocate.  Here is what I wrote on this blog at the time:]

This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister). 

The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.

[The Mulholland tenure of office has been just as undistinguished as anticipated. The melancholy history of his Lockerbie involvement can be followed here.]

Events marking publication of James Robertson's Lockerbie novel

The following events have been scheduled to mark the publication in June of James Robertson’s new novel The Professor of Truth:

Boswell Book Festival, Auchinleck: James Robertson in conversation with Tam Dalyell, Sunday 19 May. Link here for more info: http://www.boswellbookfestival.co.uk/index.php/programme/sunday-19-may/item/james-robertson

Hay on Wye: James Robertson, Jim Swire and Philippe Sands, 10am Friday 31 May. Link here for more info: http://www.hayfestival.com/p-6071-jim-swire-and-james-robertson-talk-to-philippe-sands.aspx

London Literature Festival: James Robertson, Jim Swire and Alan Little, 1pm Saturday 1 June. Link here: http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/james-robertson-73931

Edinburgh: James Robertson book launch 7pm Thursday 6 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

Kirkcaldy: James Robertson event Saturday 8 June. Link here: http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/whatson/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatson.display&themeid=&id=659C55FD-BFFC-4A34-0A5FE68605CB982E

Dundee: James Robertson event Tuesday 11 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

Biggar: James Robertson event Thursday 13 June. Link here: http://www.atkinson-pryce.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=28494

Ayr: James Robertson event Wednesday 19 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

A review of the novel in The List by Kevin Scott can be read here.  Further reviews can be read here and here.]