I HOPE I am not alone in feeling disturbed by comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).
Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.
Why? Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans have denied us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie?
Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to address the fact that Megrahi dropped his last appeal. I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that, for it has been claimed the Scottish authorities told the Libyan authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. He was a dying man. Did he have a choice?
As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it. Dr Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.
As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal, is he ignorant of the situation in Libya? Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in? Is he aware of their financial position? So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal?
What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as chief executive of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference", is justice. That should answer another question he posed, as to whether it was in the interests of justice to allow this appeal. The SCCRC had already found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since.
Mrs Jo Greenhorn,
45 Broompark Road, Blantyre.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article