Mr Robertson has made a point of approving the original Megrahi decision and condemning the action of Kenny MacAskill in releasing Mr Megrahi. His argument, and Lockerbie expertise, are so persuasive that he won over some commenters to The Guardian website. Clearly a man with such expertise and QC after his name must know what he's talking about.

So let us examine his extensive knowledge of the Lockerbie case
 

"I have read the judgment of the Lockerbie court and the two appeal judgments upholding it and al-Megrahi's guilt seems plain beyond reasonable doubt. "
 

Well, that seems quite persuasive. An English lawyer - indeed a senior and very well-respected English lawyer has taken the time to read the Lockerbie judgment and the two appeal judgments and is convinced that Megrahi is guilty. My regular reader will know that I have no firm views on megrahi's guilt. I think there was enough revealed in the judgment to construct a case of guilt, but not being there and hearing the evidence it's hard to know. But Mr Robertson has read the original court judgment and two appeals and is convinced of Megrahi's guilt.

Sadly for the learned gentleman there is one problem.

Now, here is where you find the Lockerbie judgment (the court chaired by Lord Sutherland).

And here is where you find the appeal judgment (a five judge bench chaired by the Lord Justice General)

if you're interested in the background to the Megrahi case read both. They're very informative.

But where is the second appeal judgment referred to by the learned mr Robertson?

Do you know?

Have you guessed yet? I'll leave it a few lines for you to think about it.
















So, have you worked it out yet? Where does this second appeal judgment exist? Well, my loyal reader, it exists in mr Robertson QC's head - because there was no second appeal. There have been procedural hearings in the now dropped second appeal - and Professor Black has covered those in his blog. But as for anything that can persuade or dissuade of guilt, well I'm afraid it doesn't exist.

So, Mr Robertson QC's Lockerbie expertise is slightly misleading. Now this isn't to criticise his arguments on international human rights law. That is a far away legal area of which I know little. But surely getting such a fundamental fact relating to the case wrong is something that ought to be drawn to reader attention to allow proper consideration of a piece by a well-regarded and persuasive individual.

Given that the Guardian has a proud record in correcting factual errors I wrote to their readers editor seeking correction. My hugely inflammatory correspondence read as follows:
 

"In Geoffrey Robertson Qc's article on Saturday about the release of Mr megrahi by Kenny MacAskill at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/22/lockerbie-bomber-megrahi-release-debate?commentpage=3 he wrongly states that

Discuss...

livetletlive86

So what should be done about Tommy Sheridan's law exams?

Would appearance on Big Brother for purposes of self-promotion be special circumstances sufficient to justify non-attendance comparable with having a dead granny or illness?

If it is treated as special circumstances and you were another student on the programme would you feel aggrieved?

Will someone please tell the guy from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council on Five Live talking about the decision in R v Davis (that you have not received a fair trial if convicted on the evidence of anonymous witnesses) 

(1) that the decision was not from the Court of Appeal (as he said on at least three occasions in a three minute interview) but from the House of Lords; and
(2) did not quash the conviction (as he suggested twice, once in answer to a direct question) but remitted the case back to the Court of Appeal for further procedure.

While his ponitificating may impress an ill-briefed journalist it looks (to someone that has read the case) like he hasn't read the case, or indeed the news reports on the case, or indeed listened to the questions he was asked (which talked about Law Lords).  

 Curse the new Consumer Protection Regulations.  My planned new business venture to face the oncoming recession

LOVE AND GARBAGE FROM LOVEANDGARBAGE, THE HAPPY MEDIUM

has fallen foul to the new regs. 
I'd practised all the chat:

"Is someone with a vowel in their name important to you?"
"Do you remember an old person with glasses?  Well, they're here now and want to tell you it's all right.  They forgive you."
"Does the letter J mean anything to you?  T?  S?  Well, maybe R?"
"He's here, and he knows about the pictures, and he says it's okay."

And of course, the most important

"That'll be [insert appropriate sum] pounds please."

Apparently, I will need to give caveats if promoting my new business indicating that cold reading individuals, making wild guesses so general in nature they could apply to anyone,  and maniuplating the bereaved and vulnerable for profit is "for entertainment purposes only". 

Lesson ONe - ensure you get the judges names correct.  After all you'd look a right Charlie if you pictured the senior judge in Scotland and named him as the second most senior as the Beeb have done at the moment.  Particularly when Lord Hamilton's name appears in the big document you link to from the webpage where you identify him as Lord Gill.

Lesson One leads directly to Lesson Two - while judges claim that wearing wigs in criminal cases protects their anonymity, you do not need to add credence to this view by implying that when wearing wigs all judges look alike and can be identified with on general catch-all name.

ETA

The Arlene Fraser murder case has been something of a cause celebre in Scotland.  The appeal by Nat Fraser was today rejected, and the summary of the decision filmed for the delectation of the public.  The Beeb have made part of it available on-line here.   Unfortunately they've chosen to excerpt Lord Johnston's summary - when the meat of the argument was in Lord Justice Clerk Gill's speech.  Never mind.  I guess a quick soundbite of agreement is better for the telly than the more substantial reasoned summary of Lord Gill.

Property law lies at the heart of capitalist legal systems.  Where a system is based on facilitating commerce property law provides a mechanism whereby prospective purchasers can determine that the seller of an asset owns the property, and to allow prospective creditors to determine, first, that an individual borrower owns an asset (and can therefore grant a security or charge over it), and second, what securities or charges affect property owned by the debtor because this determines the available equity in an asset, and whether lending should take place.  Property law (and consequently commerce) therefore depends on a system whereby property rights are publicised.  For land this publicity is achieved through a system of property registration - where land ownership and rights over land are listed in a register.  And to have any value in facilitating commerce this register must be publicly searchable.  If it is not publicly searchable in a manner which allows identification of owners and securities (and for other purposes other rights affecting property) then prospective purchasers have to rely on personal undertakings by sellers that they own the property and prospective creditors on personal undertakings that there are no other securities (and we know from the past experience of former trade ministers that such undertakings are not always worth much).

In Scotland a system of property registration was set up in 1617.  The relevant statute is sttill in force and is in old Scots

"Oure Souerane Lord Considdering the gryit hurt sustened by his Maiesties Liegis by the fraudulent dealing of pairties who haveing annaliet thair Landis and ressauit gryit soumes of money thairfore Yit be thair vniust concealing of sum privat Right formarlie made by thame rendereth subsequent alienatioun done for gryit soumes of money altogidder vnproffitable whiche can not be avoyded vnles the saidis privat rightis be maid publict and patent to his hienes liegis FOR remedie whereoff and of the manye Inconvenientis whiche may ensew thairupoun HIS Maiestie with aduyis and consent of the estaittis of Parliament statutes and ordanis That thair salbe ane publick Register In the whiche all Reuersiounes regresses bandis and writtis for making of reuersiounes or regresses assignatiounes thairto dischargis
of the same renunciatiounes of wodsettis and grantis off redemptioun and siclyik all instrumentis of seasing salbe registrat . . ."

which means that without a system of property registration there is an opportunity for fraud because individuals can claim they own property when they do not, they can sell property twice or more, and purchasers have no protection.  Property registration then gives certainty to the system and reduces the risk of fraud.

Now in England property registration is relatively new.  For years in England you had to rely on the word of the seller, pay your money, and cross your fingers that no person with a better entitlement would come along and chuck you out of the property.  I once asked an English lawyer how they dealt with land purchases for unregistered land.  "How do you know you're getting ownership?" I asked.  "How do you know your client's investment is safe?"  He smiled, "I don't."

Property registration then is a good thing.  Publicity is a good thing.  It makes lending safer.  It makes purchasing more secure.  

However, there have been complaints that a public register leads to identity theft and (irony or ironies) fraud.  In response the Land Registry in England and Wales has stopped providing on-line copies of deeds.  IN response to this Dizzy wrote that,

"From an Identity Theft point of view such documents would be invaluable and should not be freely available to all and sundry.

"However, it's worth noting that for £3 you can still do a search and find out the full names of the people in a given address, how much they paid for their house and who their mortgage provider is. "

IN reply I made some of the points above and noted that 

"The alternative [to a freely searchable public register] is to provide that the register is not searchable - which can have implications for the provision of finance to individuals ... - or that it is freely searchable only by designated individuals, which would require state intervention in deciding who had an interest to look.

"What there was no excuse for was the reprinting of account details on the deeds, although the problem there lies with the lenders who required the details on the security deed for their own administrative purposes. This is not an inherent problem in the Land Register, but in the practice of those that use it."

IN my view the response - in removing information from public availability on the Register, defeats the purpose of land registration.  A register must be fully searchable to have value.  How we then deal with fraud which may or may not arise involves different policy considerations.  For the systems of land registration in both Scotland and England and Wales currently prioritise the purchaser from a fraudster, not the original owner who loses out.  That is where the policy problem lies, not in the public register.  The Land Registry decision undermines the register and consequently undermines sound commerce.

The people charged with the Glasgow car bomb attacks appear in the Old Bailey today.  Now, I'm no criminal lawyer but how can attacks by Scottish residents, carried out in Scotland be tried in England?  On what basis do the Englsh courts have jurisdiction?  Do they not trust a Scottish jury to get the right result, or do they not trust the Scottish prosecution service?  Or perhaps some crucial evidence is based on fingerprints (and recent events indicate this may not be ideal evidence in a Scottish court)?  And why is wee Eck and the SNP government so keen to pick fights on other matters relating to the independence of the Scottish system apparently not bothered, given that the sending of the accused to London was authorised by the government?

The legal community in Scotland has been intrigued by the public debate between the Lord Advocate and Lord Justice General on the question of the prosecution of the World's End murders (on which see here).  This morning the following contribution was published in the letters page of The Scotsman

Clash of cultures?

I am amazed at the furore surrounding the Lord Advocate's remarks in parliament (your report, 28 September), which, at worst, could be interpreted as being mildly critical of Lord Clarke's handling of the World's End murder trial.

I find the public overreaction to these comments by the Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, amazing. It is as if Elish Angiolini had bullied a vulnerable and defenceless junior official. The impression I have of the Law Lords who sit in our High Court is that the ravings of the devil himself would not trouble this group.

When, in 2001, I researched the all-male Speculative Society of Edinburgh, I found two-thirds of our law lords came from this privileged group of public schoolboys who all attended Edinburgh University, where they spent three years of winter Wednesday nights in gaining the "extraordinary privileges" of the Spec. Lord Hamilton is Spec member No 1793, and Lord Clarke member No 1857.

An integral part of the Spec's apprenticeship for greatness involves a member delivering an essay of their choice, which is then rudely ridiculed by the other members, who are suitably fortified by claret. Since both lords Clarke and Hamilton survived this trial by ridicule, it can reasonably be assumed that neither is a shrinking violet.

Their sensitivity in this affair may be more to do with a clash of cultures. The New Club boys might accept all sort of flamboyant and outrageous behaviour from one of their own (remember Spec member No 1677, former solicitor general Nicky Fairbairn) but do not take kindly to being chided, however mildly, by a coalman's lassie from Govan.

TOM MINOGUE

Victoria Terrace

Dunfermline

Just a quick update on this topic I've referred to a couple of times previously.  I'm still not aware of Murray's site being operational but Tim Ireland is currently operating from here and has posted a very interesting timeline on the legal threats and webhost responses that led to the removal of Murray's website as well as bloggerheads and others.

From a legal perspective there's been quite a bit of writing on the issues around alleged on-line defamation.  The most stimulating piece is this in Ministry of Truth, a long post - but a detailed consideration of how law should deal with alleged on-line defamation.  My own background is not in defamation but for what it's worth the law in this area is long overdue for reform (including one issue that affects Scotland but not England that even matters which are true can potentially found actions through the old Scottish action of convicium).  Those following the Murray case or having concerns about the removal of blogs by webhosts with little notice (something which seemed to be an issue in certain fan communities on LJ a while ago) should have a look at the article and Tim ireland's postings.

"It seems to me that the purpose of this show is to effect a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people whose lives are in turmoil."

He added that it was "human bear-baiting which goes under the guise of entertainment".

"It should not surprise anyone that these people, some of whom have limited intellects, become aggressive with each other.

"This type of incident is exactly what the producers want. These self-righteous individuals should be in the dock with you. They pretend there is some kind of virtue in putting out a show like this."

He also noted that the accused had been pestered by the production team to take part.  He was contacted six times and asked to appear.

This pestering is, of course, familiar to my regular reader who will recall that earlier this year I too was on the receiving end of a campaign by the Kyle production office to go on the show.  So if you want to let them know what you think what would you give for a direct means of contacting them?

As matters crank up prior to the December hearing before the Inner House more information has emerged from the Tommy Sheridan case in the Sunday Herald.  Given the timescale the grounds of appeal and other relevant information to argument will have to be presented to the court in advance of the case.  According to the Sunday Herald (the one paper still pursuing the case every weekend) the News of the World has lodged papers indicating that a new trial is necessary (to the delight of journos and Falkirk based livejournal bloggers everywhere).  

Their allegations include:

a suggestion (denied by Sheridan) that he had a sexual relationship with an SSP party worker not referred to in court; 
an allegation (denied by Sheridan) that the fragrant Gail lied to the court by imputing the character of Katrine Trolle (when alleging Trolle had told an SSP conference she'd been offered money to allege an affair - the Screws allege that Trolle was not at the conference and had no money); 
a worker at Cupid's (the club which Sheridan (and others) is alleged to have attended in Manchester) has come forward to say she had intercourse with Sheridan (which Sheridan denies); 
a prostitute from Birmingham has been traced who is alleged to have been one of the participants in a "Party" the Screws allege Sheridan attended (which he denies);
the mysterious pieces of information which emerged after the jury proof (the handwritten SSP minutes and the video of a hairy handed man - both of which are denied to be genuine by Sheridan, in the latter case through his invoking the CIA and others who digitally manipulated a video purportedly shot in Sheridan's best man's flat).  

To have some validity, the Screws need to show why this information was not available at the original proof, and why it should be introduced now.  Sheridan denies their allegations and according to the Sunday Herald,

"has rejected every one of the newspaper's reasons why the "alleged new evidence" could not be produced during the original trial, and has stated that the fresh charges "replicate" the original allegations which were rejected during the trial. The tabloid should have "duly and diligently" prepared its case before it tried to "ruin an honest man's reputation"."

The wording of this is interesting - focusing on the reasons why the new evidence should not be admitted (a matter on which many lawyers would have sympathy - the system requires prior preparation for your case, if you're too late in getting the information together then tough! (unless you have a good reason for it not being available).

Anyway, the police enquiries and preparations for the appeal continue.

 

"Now I sit and read in my local paper words of wisdom from the bench such as, ‘There is far too much of this going on.’ (There is always far too much of it going on.) Or, ‘I take a very serious view of this sort of conduct.’ (I bet he does, but not half as serious a view as the poor bloke before him.)

To add to the list of things to remind the first year students not to do in the introductory lectures:

Do not fake a judgment, e-mail it from a shop with a CCTv camera taking pictures of you removing your motorcycle helmet, and definitely don't e-mail it to a party litigant in a case in which you represent the other party, then in open court claim the judgment has been faked by the party litigant when he produces the judgment in court leading to the poor sod being investigated for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  If you do you will be found out, and you will get the gaol (probably).