The US Senate hearings on the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from Greenock Prison in August 2009, due to be held on 29 July 2010, have been "postponed" as a result of inability to compel the attendance of any of the witnesses originally called.

The declining witnesses included Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, Dr Andrew Fraser of the Scottish Prisons Health Service, Tony Hayward (Chief Executive of BP and Edinburgh University geology graduate) and Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary at the time of the UK-Libya "deal in the desert" in 2007).  Perhaps surprisingly the British Prime Minister (Tony Blair) who actually signed the Libya deal was not called.

Perhaps (a big perhaps) the US Senators may now proceed through  less public channels if they seriously want to talk any of those mentioned in the previous paragraph.  They might also care to read the already extensive material publicly available and focus their questions a bit more sharply.  There are questions to be asked and answered.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, and Barack Obama, the US President, are in "violent agreement" that last year's compassionate release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber by the Scottish Justice Secretary was a mistake.

The curious phrase - did Cameron and Obama perhaps have an arm wrestle in which neither was able to gain the advantage, or something even more serious? - was uttered by the Prime Minister during a joint press conference with the President after their summit meeting in Washington DC on 20 July 2010.

Mr Cameron has apparently committed to a review of UK Government papers relating to the UK-Libya deal in 2007 (for which BP admittedly lobbied) to be carried out by the UK Cabinet Secretary, while President Obama will not press for the full inquiry sought by four US Senators and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.   But since Mr Cameron apparently knows already that the Megrahi release was not BP's fault, the review seems most unlikely to offer new insights into the whole matter.

The conjunction of BP's unpopularity in the USA after the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, Cameron's Washington visit, the approach of mid-term elections to the US Senate in November while Obama's approval ratings slump, and of course Megrahi's continued survival, has led to this early revival of the story (Scots Law News had thought it would probably hot up nearer the anniversary of the release).  The projected inquiry on 29 July by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee should now keep it going a while longer.

Words from the Scottish play come...

The prospect of wheelie bins in the World Heritage site of Edinburgh's New Town has reared its ugly head once again, according to a report in The Herald for 16 July 2010.

Long-time readers of Scots Law News will recall that back in 2003 New Town residents led by members of the Court of Session judiciary residing in Heriot Row fought off an attempt by Edinburgh City Council to install wheelies in their elegant Georgian streets, preferring to continue to put out their rubbish on the pavements in the black poly bags the Council had hitherto provided for the purpose.  The joy with which the success of this resistance was greeted by New Town seagulls, foxes and rats was somewhat tempered by the cunning ploy which the humans used to deny them their plastic-coated repasts, viz hanging the black poly bags on the Georgian railings protecting New Town basements from the sudden arrival of careless passers-by, there to await the arrival of the presumably co-operative bin-men for collection.

Now, after seven long years of reflection, the Council has returned to the attack, proposing corrals of wheelie bins at locations to be determined after determination of how far the residents will be prepared to walk carrying their black bags for disposal.  One guesses that street corners will be the likeliest locations of the corrals.  The judges are reported to be mustering the forces of resistance once more, however.  But Scots Law News thought the most significant quote in the Herald piece came...

For the first time Scotland will be represented as a separate jurisdiction at the quadriennial International Congress of Comparative Law, taking place in Washington from 25 July-1 August 2010.

Hitherto Scotland has been entirely subsumed within the United Kingdom submissions to the conference, but now a group of reporters has been assembled to cover separately topics which could be reported on from a Scottish perspective.  This results from an initiative of Professor David Carey Miller (Aberdeen Law School) and the relatively newly formed Scottish Association for Comparative Law.  There will still be a UK submission on a number of topics (as can be seen from the Congress programme) but, for the moment at least, nothing on English law.

The list of Scots law reporters and topics is as follows:

1A. Legal culture and legal transplants; Esin Örücü

IB. Religion and the secular state; Frank Lyall

ID. The role of practice in legal education; Elaine Tyre 

IIA. Catastrophic damages – liability and insurance; Gordon Cameron

IIB. Recent private international law codifications; Janeen Carruthers

IIC. Cost and fee allocation rules; Greg Gordon 
        Class actions; Sarah Bleichner

IID. Climate change and the law; Colin Reid

IVC. Are human rights universal and binding?; Jim Murdoch

VB. The exclusionary rule; Fiona Leverick

The Herald for 15 July 2010 reports a decision by Sheriff Andrew Cubie of Glasgow to remit to the court's ordinary roll a small claims action by a bank customer in respect of what she says were six years' worth of unwarranted charges made by her bank (Santander), on the ground that the legal issues raised were too complex for determination in small claims procedure.

The effect of the decision is to expose the pursuer to the risk of unlimited expenses unless she is eligible for legal aid, whereas in small claims the maximum expenses liability is stated as follows in the official guidance on the Scottish Courts website -

If the value of the claim is £200 or less, and the case has been defended, there will normally be no award of expenses. In this situation, any court fees paid will not be recoverable.

If the value of the claim is between £200 and £1500, and the case has been defended, the maximum amount of expenses which can normally be awarded by the court to the successful party is £150.

If the value of the claim is between £1500 and £3000, and the case has been defended, the maximum amount of expenses which can normally be awarded by the court to the successful party is 10% of the value of the claim.

Even the successful legally aided in ordinary actions have to make a contribution to their own expenses which, if it exceeds the sum being sued for, renders the action pointless....

BP's difficulties in the USA following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico have led to a revival of American questions about the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber.

The Herald for 15 July 2010 reports that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has agreed to look into the concerns raised by four Democrat Senators that Megrahi's release from Greenock Prison in August 2009 was part of a deal between the UK and Libya to facilitate BP oil exploration in Libya.  It is the case that BP's position in Libya was arranged in 2007 and that part of the arrangement was a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya in which Megrahi's name appeared as a potential transferee.  One of the agitated Senators is quoted as saying:

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya."

The Senator's logic is not immediately apparent from this quotation.  The concerns he and his colleagues express seem anyway to ignore the facts that (1) Megrahi was released, not under the prisoner transfer agreement, but the rules of Scots law on compassionate release of sick prisoners; and (2) the release was made by the Scottish Government, which was not a party to the 2007 UK-Libya deal and indeed objected to it at the time.

There is also American concern about Megrahi's survival, now far longer than the three months which is the...

Elevated to the bench in May 2010 as well as receiving a CBE in June for services to the administration of justice as President of the Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Lord Tyre came back to basics in Wallace v City of Glasgow Council [2010] CSOH 88.

The unfortunate facts of the case are succinctly stated in the opening paragraph of Lord Tyre's opinion:

[1] On 13 June 2007 the pursuer was employed by the defenders as a clerical assistant at Kirkriggs School, 500 Croftfoot Road, Glasgow. She was then aged 60 and was due to retire in two months' time. On that morning the pursuer was assisting with preparations for a visit by staff and pupils to Strathclyde Country Park. In her evidence to the court, she described the circumstances in which she came to sustain injury as follows. At around 10am she required to use one of the ladies' staff toilets in the school. Having done so, she wished to open the window in the toilet cubicle in order to air it as a courtesy to the next user. The pursuer is approximately 5ft 1ins in height. In order to reach the window to open it, the pursuer stood on the ceramic bowl of the toilet. As she opened the window, the toilet bowl capsized to the left and became detached from the floor. The pursuer fell to the left and landed heavily on her left heel. The toilet bowl then fell on top of her left foot. She...