I am in possession of a page from the Rewards for Justice, Washington DC, website on which is written: "Seeking information against international terrorism. Success stories: RFJ has paid out more than $72m to over 50 people who have provided information that prevented international terrorist attacks or have brought to justice those involved in prior acts."
Included on the page, in the list of those brought to justice, is the name Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This document gives some idea of the scale of the payments. It also removes doubt as to whether payments were, indeed, made in this case.
I think many international jurists - I am merely a layman - would consider that promises of money in order to secure "evidence" from any individual do not accord with the best principles of real justice. It is the timing of such promises rather than the payments themselves which determine whether the "evidence" is likely to be degraded. To many witnesses, such sums would be profoundly life-altering.
Indeed, such promises, if concealed from a court, or perhaps divulged only to a prosecution if prosecution witnesses were involved, could be considered a deliberate perversion of justice through their potential to encourage perjury. It is hard to see how, if they were known to a competent defence, they would not be brought to the court's attention.
Perhaps RFJ would tell us of the timing of its promises of reward for the Lockerbie witness(es), who knew the details of those promises/payments and how they came to the conclusion that such promises were likely to enhance justice, as the title and text of the foundation proclaims.
Such promises may elicit information, but is that information fit for use in justice procedures? Does the end justify the means?
Dr Jim Swire, Rowans Corner, Calf Lane, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire.
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