
Advertisement
Front and Centre
Read more |
Hope and courage
Read More |
Stephen Lawrence, Chokhar and...
Read More |
We would like to hear from you.
|
Gareth Peirce, the specialist human rights campaigner previously involved in wrongful conviction cases such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, has said that the “wrongful conviction” of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was “blatantly wrong” and calls for an inquiry under international law.
A petition for such an inquiry has been placed before the United Nations, but has yet to be adopted.
“I have looked at the case and the transcripts and was simply appalled at the echoes of classic wrongful convictions – including the same methodology and same personnel in terms of forensic scientists. I was quite shocked at how much of the case seemed blatantly wrong,” she said.
“It blazes out that this is a wrongful conviction. That is not to say that addressing the conviction and addressing the need for an inquiry are an exact equation, but if this is the basis upon which he was convicted, in my view the relatives have never had the true picture placed before them. They have not had their right under international law, where there has been an unnatural death, to have a proper, independent inquiry into what happened. It seems to me they have been cheated.
“In other cases where evidence has been questioned or demolished, it has been deemed appropriate to have far-reaching public inquiries. At the very least that is what the relatives of the victims of Lockerbie deserve.”
Peirce, whose interest in the case first attracted attention in October when she authored a wide ranging analysis of the case in the London Review of Books, adds that the obligation is on the state for initiating an inquiry, now that no criminal proceedings are before the courts.
“If there was one unnatural death, particularly where the state may have had a role in adequately investigating the circumstances, they are responsible for correcting that and putting in place an adequate inquiry. The Fatal Accident Inquiry was completely circumscribed in what it felt it was allowed to look at. Its remit was very narrow because of the ongoing criminal investigation.”

