
The Crown Office is refusing to respond to questions about an email circulated to news editors in Scotland which accuses MSP Christine Grahame of defaming Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen.
The MSP has been pursuing allegations that testimony which may have been useful to the defence team in the Lockerbie proceedings was withheld from them.
The email, circulated on 17 July, states that the Crown Office have become aware of "serious allegations made by Christine Grahame against the Crown Agent, Norman McFadyen, in relation to the Lockerbie trial
"These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind," it adds.
"Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it."
The email makes no reference to the allegations it is referring to or where they may have appeared, and no clarification has been provided, despite repeated requests. It is understood that Ms Grahame expressed concerns about the manner in which Crown officials conducted themselves.
The email is not attributed, and the Crown Office have not responded to queries asking if it is intended as a publishable response to comments attributed to Ms Grahame.
The Crown Office routinely issue guidance notes to editors, making direct reference to the Contempt of Court Act, and usually counselling coverage of an active criminal case in accordance with the Act. However, statements such as this, directed against an MSP are without precedent.
The Crown Office were asked to confirm to whom the email was to be attributed, if an action for defamation was being pursued and if any action was being taken against the publications they referred to. The Crown Office have refused to respond to the query, provide a clarifying statement, or confirm if the email was intended for publication, or issued as a background briefing to editors.
They have also refused to advise if they are raising an action of defamation against either Grahame or any publications who may have defamed MacFadyen.
