More like this
Megrahi: death in custody was part of his punishment, says Geoffrey Robertson
The distinguished liberal QC says the release of Megrahi was unwarranted and foolish
One of Britain's most respected lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson QC, has waded into the row over the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, saying that there was no requirement to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, and that part of the punishment in a case of this kind is that the perpetrator will die in custody.
That is because death in jail "is the most humane alternative to demands that they die on the scaffold or at the hands of vigilantes," writes Robertson in an article for today's Independent.
Robertson's intervention is critical because he has impeccable liberal credentials and his argument appears to be diametrically opposed to that of Gordon Brown and David Miliband, who, we now know, did not want Megrahi to die in jail because of the potential damage to long-term relations with Libya.
Documents released yesterday in an effort to bring closure to the Lockerbie row have achieved quite the opposite because they reveal that the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary both hoped Megrahi would not "pass away in prison". That message was conveyed to the Libyans by Bill Rammell, a junior foreign minister, in a meeting in February 2009 with Libya's Europe minister, Abdulati Alobidi.
The disclosure is embarrassing for Number 10 because until now Brown and other ministers had refused to disclose whether they agreed or disagreed with the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi.
The Rammell revelation makes it quite clear which way they wanted things to go - and we know the Rammell story is accurate because David Miliband confirmed it on the Today programnme this morning. "We did not want him to die in prison," said Miliband. "We were not seeking his death in prison."
Geoffrey Robertson's article was presumably written before the release of the documents revealing Brown and Miliband's wishes. But that does not detract from Robertson's central argument, which he puts forcibly.
Far from being an act of compassion, required by "due process" under Scottish law, the decision by the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to free Megrahi was, he writes, "an act of foolishness that undermined due process".
Robertson goes on: "The readily foreseeable consequences have included a triumph for state terrorism, more suffering for the victims and a wide-world boost for the death penalty."
Robertson, whose landmark court appearances down the years stretch from the Oz trial to the Matrix Churchill trial, writes: "The bombing of Pan Am 103 was a crime against humanity, a particularly heinous offence which every state as a matter of international law has a duty to prosecute and punish and has no power to pardon.
"For perpetrators of such crimes there can be no forgiveness: there is no time bar on their prosecution and no provision for their early release. We show mercy to the merciless by abjuring torture and the death penalty and by affording them expert medical treatment and family visits when terminally ill.
"It is part of their punishment that they shall die in some form of custody, because this is the most humane alternative to demands that they die on the scaffold or at the hands of vigilantes."
Robertson concludes that if Kenny MacAskill refuses to admit his error, he should be removed from office. "Only in this way can Scotland the Stupid regain its reputation as Scotland the Brave."
Geoffrey Robertson's entry in the latest Times Top 100 lawyers list'Megrahi should never have been freed': Robertson's article in full ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Hilary: I agree it would have been far better to have had the appeal which, with fresh evidence, would have exonerated him and pointed the finger elsewhere. But there would have been the same fuss over him getting bail as there is now, since so many seem unaware he isn't a mass murderer, and are unwilling to address that issue. With little time to live, the quickest way for him to spend the remaining time with his family was this fudge. There needs to be a judicial enquiry into how and why he was convicted in the first place. It's just as compassionate to release an innocent man who's been wrongly incarcerated for eleven years as it is to release a guilty one who is dying.
But surely, Mr Simmons, it is not correct to release him on 'compassionate' grounds when the real reason is to stop him from lodging an appeal that could well succeed? The appeal should have gone ahead and he should have been released on some kind of bail pending the result. This way the truth will never be known and also other prisoners whose crimes were far less serious are seen to be suffering an injustice by not being released. This way a mockery is being made of the justice system.
I think Robertson has lost the plot. I always thought him intelligent, but to be unaware that Megrahi was fitted up by the US when the actual bombers were a Palestinian cell funded by Iran indicates he hasn't been paying attention. Kevin McGrane, comparing mass murderers is a waste of time, Megrahi isn't, so your argument is spurious. Try reading the actual evidence presented at the trial. Few of the British relatives are convinced of Megrahi's guilt, unlike the preposterous Robinson who doesn't address why, of two people charged with conspiracy to bomb, one was aquitted. So Megrahi was supposed to have conspired with himself. Truth is, the judges couldn't justify a circumstantial case but couldn't find them both innocent with all the pressure at the time from the US. The conviction was always contentious, and only the American relatives seem happy with an innocent man serving time, as long as somebody pays eh? But then the US does have a history of stringing 'em up without too many questions. Geoffrey may have 'impeccable liberal credentials', but he's taken his eye off the ball with this one. Or perhaps he's so much a part of the establishment now that he thinks it best for an innocent man to die in prison than for the state to be further discredited by revelations of fixes and cover ups.
I would be interested to hear Geoffrey Robinson's thoughts on whether the Rainbow Warrior bombers should have also rotted in jail. State terrorism is never pretty, but is it more OK when performed by a Western democratic government than when performed by another government?
Child murderer Myra Hindley died in the West Suffolk Hospital in Bury St Edmunds in 2002, being in prison right up until her death. I don't recall that this was a massive security problem for the police at the hospital - business as usual. Hindley showed remorse for her murders, but was in jail until her death. Many other mass murderers will have shared the same fate.
Megrahi was responsible for many more deaths and showed no remorse. He served a fraction of the time that Hindley did and got special treatment.
It seems that this government is quite happy that Hindley and other mass murderers should be incarcerated until they peg out, but for some strange reason did not want the same fate to befall Megrahi. At the very least this inconsistency should be explained.