Allowed to mention lockerbie bomber?

Well, moderator, are we? or is there a ban on serious topics?

Originally posted by eamon o
Well, moderator, are we? or is there a ban on serious topics?

How the hell can the Lockerbie bomber topic be banned?
Or Iranian passenger flight 655, when you come to think about it.

Originally posted by shavixmir
How the hell can the Lockerbie bomber topic be banned?
Or Iranian passenger flight 655, when you come to think about it.

He was an engine user. They always get banned.

Does anyone know whether Scottish legislation mandates the release of terminally ill prisoners or whether this is just on option? Also, what precedent had been set regarding the release of these prisoners? Were either the nature of crime or the nationality of the criminal factors in previous releases?

Originally posted by PBE6
Does anyone know whether Scottish legislation mandates the release of terminally ill prisoners or whether this is just on option? Also, what precedent had been set regarding the release of these prisoners? Were either the nature of crime or the nationality of the criminal factors in previous releases?

Yes, it is an integral part of Scots law to have a provision for compassionate release in these sort of circumstances.

I'm told there have been about 30 cases in recent years (since the change in government), with 24 or so being released.

The Justice Minister has to consider the medical prognosis, the security aspect - are they a continuing risk.

Don't think the nationality is a factor.

They looked at the prospect of releasing him but making him stay in Scotland, but rejected that.

Originally posted by Redmike
Yes, it is an integral part of Scots law to have a provision for compassionate release in these sort of circumstances.

I'm told there have been about 30 cases in recent years (since the change in government), with 24 or so being released.

The Justice Minister has to consider the medical prognosis, the security aspect - are they a continuing risk.

Do ...[text shortened]... ey looked at the prospect of releasing him but making him stay in Scotland, but rejected that.

When you say "it is an integral part of Scots law to have a provision for compassionate release in these sort of circumstances", does this mean that the state must release such a prisoner in certain compassionate circumstances, or that the state may release the prisoner?

Also, do you know if this release follows the precedent of the other 24-or-so releases? Or is this a precedent setting action?

Originally posted by PBE6
When you say "it is an integral part of Scots law to have a provision for compassionate release in these sort of circumstances", does this mean that the state [b]must release such a prisoner in certain compassionate circumstances, or that the state may release the prisoner?

Also, do you know if this release follows the precedent of the other 24-or-so releases? Or is this a precedent setting action?[/b]

The Justice Minister must consider the case, based on the criteria. But they don't have to release them - there have been some refused recently, but the majority have been granted.

Not sure about whether they can refer back to previous cases re a precedent. I'd say this case was fairly unique though.

It is important though to make the distinction between the state and the legal system.

It isn't the state who grants compassionate release, it is the Justice Minister, in a quasi-judicial role.

So, when people say the Scottish Government released him, this isn't correct. It was MacAskill, as Justice Minister.

In saying that, the vote in parliament the other day went pretty much on party lines, but that's academic.