"Deliberate malpractice", obstruction and delaying tactics by the Crown Office, and a justice system corrupted by self interest. Dr Jim Swire tells Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, enough is enough.

Dear Kenny,

Meeting you in early July was a refreshing change from meetings with so many other politicians over the past 20 odd years. Despite the taxi driver’s comments (!) you didn’t talk at us, you listened. As was the case then, so now, this letter is simply my personal attempt as a bereaved father to define how the situation looks to me, and what is likely to happen when Baset’s dreadful predicament has resolved, either through your decision or through his death. You will be aware that for me the top priority as things stand at present is to get Baset home to his family as soon as possible since I believe him to be innocent. The latter part of this letter however is an attempt to describe the possible course of events after the unfortunate Baset’s predicament has been resolved.

Unlike representations from some others it is not intended to be in any way threatening. The attempt is simply to ensure that as much information as possible is available to you before your decision on Baset is made.

I have no political affiliations, only a pride in my Scottish connections.

I know that this letter comes at a time when you are being exposed to extreme pressures over the question of Baset’s fate. His is a solitary human tragedy, but if we are right that he was never involved in the atrocity – and here you will remember the doubts expressed by the SCCRC and so many others – then I know you will understand why it would be an awful burden on the reputation of our country of Scotland, if knowing all this, he were to die in our prison and later be proven innocent.

You will also be aware now of the threatening of legal action by the US relatives, and I would be astonished if both you and the First Minister are not experiencing pressure from our mighty ally across the Atlantic, some of it no doubt mediated through Whitehall, and indeed by your own civil servants, and maybe even the police forces and intelligence agencies involved. It may be prudent to wonder why some of these entities should be so desperate to maintain the verdict against Baset.

The US relatives are easily understood, and should not be criticised, for they have been carefully groomed by their successive administrations to believe the Zeist story. You may be aware that paid representatives of the US Justice Department have briefly attended the current appeal, you may not be aware that one of those representatives then sent an email containing disparaging remarks about those UK relatives who were also attending, to a US attorney, Frank Duggan, who now acts as ‘president’ of one of the US groups.

Someone must be paying his salary. It is a small matter but points perhaps to subtle manipulation. I have found it impossible to discuss Lockerbie issues with him on a reasoned basis, He seems unable to consider the weaknesses in his own position logically.

Most US relatives have based ‘closure’ in their grieving on the presumption of Baset's (and Libya’s) guilt. For that reason it is painful for me to be in a position where that apparent solution must be challenged in the search for the truth.

As you know, I hope that Baset goes home very soon on compassionate release. The word release seems to free him more readily to be with his family than does ‘prisoner transfer’ which implies some sort of incarceration in Tripoli, perhaps with limited visiting hours.

Compassionate release would also allow Scotland greater relief from the odium which will descend on her should the man die without the reversal of the verdict against him. Compassionate release would be honourable, but use of a hastily contrived transfer agreement hatched against a political background of commercial gain in the Libyan oil industry would not seem so.

Should he be repatriated without the second appeal being withdrawn, I would have to wait, with already mounting impatience and frustration, for the appeal to complete.

After the appeal stops, whether or not it results in the overturning of the verdict, that will be when the ‘fallout from Lockerbie’ must at last be responsibly addressed.

It is possible that the First Minister will be able and willing to set up a satisfying inquiry, but matters have now reached a point where that inquiry would have to be very penetrating indeed.

Earlier this year I wrote to the Lord Advocate, the letter made three requests:

1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had known about the Heathrow break-in all along from its immediate discovery by the Heathrow and Metropolitan police, until we first heard about it from the lips of the Heathrow night security guard, Manly, during the first appeal at Zeist, a period of more than 12 years.

2.) If the Crown Office really claims that it did not know, why didn’t it know, in view of the availability of records of it at Heathrow and the activities of the Metropolitan police concerning it?

3.) Since Sheriff Principal John Mowat’s Fatal Accident Inquiry was denied knowledge of the Heathrow break-in, and since it was clearly capable of being a factor which might have influenced how the deaths had occurred, could we have the FAI either reopened or a new one set up. The failure of Heathrow to close down flights until the details of the break-in were clear may well have sealed my daughter’s fate.

I was not concerned here directly with the significance or otherwise of the Heathrow break-in as a likely portal of entry for the IED, since this could not be argued in the main trial because it was concealed from the court, but with the apparent concealment itself.

The Crown Office answer to these questions was in my view provocatively disingenuous.

In the main trial at Zeist, their Lordships had had to concede that the absence of any evidence as to how Baset was supposed to have breached the security at Luqa airport was a difficulty for the prosecution. Had they had to compare that with the established fact of the Heathrow break-in occurring at a time and sector of the Heathrow perimeter highly relevant to the loading of PA 103 that evening and to the technology of terrorist IEDs known to be available, surely their Lordships would have had to stop the case.

The Crown Office reply to this was that since when presented to the first appeal this Heathrow break-in did not affect the verdict, therefore it was irrelevant.

What junior office boy thought that one up?

The reply contained no credible answer to any of my three questions. This is the last straw.

I agree with Professor Koechler’s public statement that ‘deliberate malpractice by the Crown Office is the only explanation’. One must add to that the quite extraordinary delaying tactics exhibited in the High Court by the Crown Office during the current appeal, and of course the SCCRC’s belief that failure by the Crown Office to pass material to the defence might have contributed to a miscarriage of justice. We do not even know what else the SCCRC may have added in their partially unpublished findings..

On top of that is my own analysis of the conduct of the Lockerbie case, and knowledge of the McKie case also. So many are those who believe the case should not have led to Baset’s conviction (look at the poll conducted by ‘THE FIRM’ magazine among Scottish lawyers for example) that I now have it in mind reluctantly to look at two projects:

1.) To take action against the Crown Office under Human Rights legislation, since I now believe that the Crown Office has deliberately obstructed my rights to know who killed my daughter and why she was not protected, and continues to do so.

2.) To seek annulment of the findings of the Lockerbie FAI on grounds of withholding of evidence about Heathrow, and then to seek a new FAI or legitimate equivalent in its place.

You will know of course that there are other aspects of this case which cast doubt on the integrity of those conducting the criminal investigation, and those who supplied information to them (many of those out of reach in the US), in addition to the Crown Office itself. It would be likely therefore that a cascade of subsidiary actions would result.

Rather than having to initiate legal actions, it might be better were there to be an inquiry ordained by the Scottish Parliament. Sensitized as we are by the behaviour of Whitehall over the past years, it would be necessary to go through the structure of such an inquiry with a fine tooth comb, to search for limitation of remit, possible bias in the leader of it, and limitation of its powers, which would certainly have to include public hearings and evidence given under oath, with appropriate penalties for perjury. The inevitable inclusion of some members of investigating Scottish police forces in the inquiry’s hearings would also have to be catered for. The conduct of the Crown Office (and indeed the sluggishness of the SCCRC) would also dictate that the inquiry must have adequate resources and skill base to ensure rapid yet impartial and comprehensive progress.

When I ask people in Scotland whether they have confidence in how their Crown Office works there is a huge pool of dissatisfaction, in tandem with the widespread and growing scepticism over the verdict. Yet there is no more important factor in the relationship between citizens and their government than that those citizens believe that their justice system will be impartial, even when it comes to disputes between them and their government itself.

As Scotland perhaps stands on the threshold of much greater independence, it is not just individuals like myself who need to feel that the judicial system can be trusted; it is the whole nation.

I sincerely hope that you will not find this letter in any way threatening, it is intended to give an idea of what may be entailed in certain eventualities. But do not underrate the determination behind it either. I am going to find out who killed my daughter, why they were not prevented from doing so, and why this case has become so distorted.

When I went to talk to Colonel Gaddafi all those years ago it was to ask him to allow his citizens to submit to what I then believed was one of the best criminal justice systems in the world bar none. Sadly I have finally become convinced that the system has become corrupted by self interest and an insupportable determination to protect some of its members against criticism. It seems that I am far from alone in believing that.

Not just the UK victims families of Lockerbie but all Scotland will be the losers if we don’t use this dreadful case to rebuild our system. The days are gone when one person could burn himself out trying to redress a situation such as this, the people can share in the process now at the touch of a button,

To those ends I have already sought some professional advice, and on one recommendation have sent copies of this letter to a number of distinguished people so that, should I not personally stay the course, the intent will not be lost.

I have asked those who will receive this letter now to keep it from the public’s knowledge until Sunday, 16th August, when I shall release at least the central points to the media.

I would of course be willing to discuss these or any other matters with your goodself at your convenience, meanwhile I again wish you strength, wisdom and integrity as you face the extraordinarily difficult problem of how to deal with Baset’s individual tragedy.

With warmest best wishes,

Dr Jim Swire.