Operation Sandwood has ensured that the accusations that were made by Justice for Megrahi are back on track, and I know that JFM has every confidence in—indeed, it has praised—the way in which Police Scotland has dealt with the matter.
First and foremost, given that the operation is live, the petition must be kept open. There are wider issues, and I do not think that any criticism can be laid at the door of Justice for Megrahi regarding the timing of the voluminous amount of papers that we have received today. Those papers relate to the timeframe of exchanges, not least with the Lord Advocate.
There is a significant issue of process that should be a concern for the Justice Committee regarding the administration of our criminal justice system. In this particular case, we know that there were nine criminal allegations. I know that we are going over ground that we have been over before, but it is important that we do so. It is important to note that the allegations have been made by highly respected public figures. I stress that the issue is about process, and it is to the Lord Advocate’s credit that he recognised that there was a conflict as a result of the appointment of the independent Crown counsel.
Quite reasonable questions have been posed, initially in a letter of 24 August last year, and subsequently by the committee to the Lord Advocate on 5 November. Those questions remain unanswered.
I have to say that the issue of process is not, in my view, exclusive to the Megrahi case. We need to try to understand what should happen in the event of a criminal case in which the people who are charged with making important decisions are themselves the subject of accusations. As I have said, it is to the Lord Advocate’s credit that he has acknowledged that.
This is about process and postholders; it is certainly not about personalities. Having accepted that operation Sandwood has put the issue firmly on track after an unfortunate start, we have the suggestion that the Crown Agent is an independent person and will play a role in the process. As we have seen from the letters—I hope that members have had the opportunity to read them—any reasonable judgment would be that that is not necessarily the case, given that the Crown Agent defended the Crown Office’s position in a letter of 2012.
As I said, the timeframe is outwith the petitioners’ control, but there is a broader issue that goes beyond the petition, so I suggest that we should keep it open. It is also entirely legitimate that we would want to understand the significant issue of a possible gap in our process—indeed, the public would expect that we would want to do that. I would like the clerk to write to the Lord Advocate with particular questions. I hope that we will get a response to them that will advise us what further action, if any, we need to take.