MOJO
  • Home
  • About
  • News
  • Contact
  • Comment
  • Testimonials
  • Donate
Megrahi
January 19 2021

Lockerbie Appeal Refused

Euan Comment, News

In a decision that surprised no-one, the Appeal Court on Friday (15 January) refused the latest appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.   Mr Al-Megrahi died in 2012.

The case had been sent back to the Appeal Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, who were satisfied that an appeal was merited on two distinct grounds.

One of those grounds was that “no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned a guilty verdict” on the evidence heard.  This was, in itself, a remarkable development.   There was no jury in the trial, where the verdict of guilty was reached by three senior Scottish judges.  The startling import of the referral by the SCCRC was that three senior Scottish judges had delivered a verdict that was outwith the bounds of reason.

Much has been made, and is being made, of the Appeal Court’s rejection of that argument.  It is widely interpreted, and presented, as an endorsement of the trial verdict, a re-affirmation of the correctness of that verdict, and confirmation of Mr Al-Megrahi’s guilt.  It is nothing of the sort.

To understand this, you need to understand the role of the Appeal Court in hearing the appeal.   Their task was simply to rule on a loaded question.  That question, to be clear, was whether a reasonable jury could have reached a guilty verdict.  Not whether a reasonable jury would, or should, have reached it.   These alternatives would require examination of the objective correctness of the verdict, in the face of the evidence heard.  The question addressed by the court was not whether the verdict was correct, but whether it could be justified on any basis.   It is not for the Appeal Court to substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the jury (or, in this case, the three senior judges); its task is simply to determine whether the guilty verdict was a possible outcome.  

This is a reversal of the notional “benefit of the doubt” afforded to an accused person at trial, by the equally notional presumption of innocence.  At appeal, the benefit of any doubt goes to the prosecution. 

When you consider that reality, it becomes clear that the test to be met in challenging an unreasonable verdict is so high as to be almost impossible to satisfy.  The court hearing the Al-Megrahi appeal recognised this, and said so.  But to be clear, the Appeal Court did not say, either expressly or by implication, that the guilty verdict in this case was the correct verdict.  That was a question they simply didn’t have to address.

There are, in the view of this organisation, huge doubts about the legitimacy of this conviction.  The recent decision by the Appeal Court may have legitimised it as a matter of law, but as a matter of justice the doubts remain, unresolved and undiminished.   In that sense, the decision tells us what we already knew – that “law” and “justice” are not the same thing.   We have to find a way for our law to be the servant of justice, in its essential form.  The opposite is currently true.

Just £10,000 paid out to victims of wrongful conviction in two years Edinburgh Conviction Referred to Appeal Court

Related Posts

Guildford 4

News

Birmingham bombings inquest whitewash repeated at Guildford

The decision by the coroner at the Birmingham bombings inquest to exclude from scrutiny the very matters that might have allowed the victims’ families some degree of closure – a decision that also denied justice to Paddy Hill and the other unwitting victims of the atrocity – rendered that exercise effectively pointless and, depending on […]

3990

News

Prisoners denied access to forensic evidence in bid to prove their innocence

For miscarriage of justice victims looking to overturn their wrongful convictions, one of the most significant challenges they encounter is the refusal of police and Crown to allow access to crucial evidence that could fatally undermine the case against them. From The Guardian online yesterday (10 July), we reproduce an interesting article that highlights this […]

community

News

MOJO Community Project Launches

The MOJO Aftercare and Reintegration Team are pleased to report the successful, long-awaited launch of our MOJO Community Project. The MOJO Community is an extension of our client-led reintegration programme which aims to bring clients together to seek to mitigate the consequences of wrongful imprisonment and to offer an alternative to commonly encountered feelings of […]

Latest Tweets

  • We reproduce this article by Samuel Osbourne from the Independant 30 May 2019. mojoscotland.org/carbon-credits…
    4 years ago
  • We reproduce here a worrying piece from the Guardian from 29 May 2019 by Sian Cain about austerity and it’s potenti… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    4 years ago
  • There is a debate on going regarding the not proven verdict in Scotland. In an article from the Times, Gordon Jacks… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    4 years ago
→ Follow us

Archives

Search

  • Home
  • About
  • News
  • Contact
  • Comment
  • Testimonials
  • Privacy Notice
© Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Scotland) 2023 - Company No SC239555 - Registered Charity No SC033820 The work of MOJO is financially supported by the Scottish Government