Preliminary stages of first Megrahi appeal

[What follows is the text of a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2001:]

Relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing are travelling to the Netherlands for the first stage of the appeal, which will determine the fate of the man convicted of the atrocity.

A preliminary hearing will take place in Camp Zeist, near Utrecht on Monday for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

The 49-year-old Libyan was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing all 259 passengers and crew and 11 people on the ground.

The hearing before five Scottish judges - Lords Cullen, Kirkwood, MacFadyen, Nimmo Smith and McEwan - will consider various procedural and administrative matters.

Among those making the trip to the Netherlands are two British men who lost daughters in the atrocity.

Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter Helga in the bombing said: "We feel it's important that someone from the families is there to see that justice is done.

"We just feel it is right that we are there."

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, was killed, said: "We followed the whole of the trial so it makes sense to follow this stage as well."

Dr Swire also revealed how he and other members of the UK Families Flight 103 pressed Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for a full inquiry into the tragedy at a recent meeting.

He said: "We intimated that in our view it's extremely urgent to have an inquiry because Lockerbie was always an avoidable tragedy."

Monday's hearing at Camp Zeist is expected to last one day and set the date for the start of the appeal, which is likely to be next year.

Al Megrahi was jailed for life after being convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in January.

His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted by Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and Maclean at the end of the eight-month trial.

Al Megrahi's legal team, which includes American human rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz and high-profile British QC Michael Mansfield, lodged an appeal against his conviction in February. [RB: Dershowitz and Mansfield acted as consultants: they could not, of course, appear as counsel in a Scottish court.]

Although the full grounds of the appeal have not been made public it is thought that the defence will challenge evidence which came from Tony Gauci.

During the original trial the Maltese shopkeeper identified Al Megrahi as a man who bought clothing from his store shortly before the bombing.

Remnants of the same clothing were found around Lockerbie after the bombing and there was evidence that the garments may have been packed around the bomb.

Al Megrahi's Libyan lawyer has said he is confident his client will be freed after the appeal.

Megrahi's conviction "entirely unsustainable"

The White House has told Scottish Ministers that they should return the Lockerbie bomber to jail in Scotland, amid fresh calls for a full public inquiry into his conviction and subsequent release.

John Brennan, counter-terrorism adviser to President Barack Obama, said Washington had expressed "strong conviction" to officials in Edinburgh over what he described as the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to free Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)

But campaigners who believe in Megrahi's innocence are now arguing that the backlash over his freeing should not obscure more fundamental questions surrounding his conviction.

It came as it emerged that the Egyptian-born terrorist Mohammed Abu Talb - the man many suspect as the real figure behind the bomb - was released from jail in Sweden.

Michael Mansfield QC, one of the country's best-known defence lawyers, said a full judicial inquiry was required to settle the doubts over the case. Mansfield said he had no doubt that the evidence given to secure Megrahi's conviction was "entirely unsustainable".

[From a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday.

The same newspaper runs an opinion piece by Kenny Farquharson headlined "Scotland itself is in the dock" arguing that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should go to Washington to testify on the compassionate release decision before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As is so often the case with Scotsman publications these days, the readers' comments are much more interesting than the article.]

Questioning the probity of the Megrahi verdict

What follows is an item posted on this blog on 28 December 2012:

“I pray we may all with honesty seek and learn the truth”

[What follows is the text of a letter to The Times by Dr Jim Swire.  A week after it was sent, it has not been published and so I am taking the liberty of posting it here:]

I note your article from Mr Linklater concerning the security of the verdict reached against Mr Megrahi, regarding the murder of my daughter Flora and 269 others in the Lockerbie air disaster. [RB: Magnus Linklater is appointed CBE in today’s New Year Honours List.]

A brilliant medical student at Nottingham, Flora, who was only on her way to see her US boyfriend over Christmas, had just been accepted to continue her medical studies at Cambridge.

I have not enjoyed being accused by Mr Mullholland's Crown Office, as a member of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group's committee, of deliberate lying over this case.

Nor do I admire the tastelessness of your newspaper in publishing this contentious article on the very day of the 24th anniversary of my innocent daughter Flora's brutal murder. I am far from alone among UK relatives in questioning the probity of the management of this terrible case.

There are at present allegations of criminality lodged by the committee of JFM against members of the Crown Office and the Scottish police force over the conduct of the Lockerbie investigation and trial.

I will not stoop to making allegations now in your pages against the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate, nor indeed Mr Linklater until the allegations have been objectively investigated.

Your readers should remember that Benedict Birnberg, Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, David Wolchover, Len Murray, Ian Hamilton QC, Jock Thomson QC, John Scott QC and Emeritus Professor (of Scots law) Robert Black QC are among many other lawyers who question the probity of this verdict.

However, in the spirit of the season, I offer all who contributed to this article a happy 2013, in which I pray we may all with honesty seek and learn the truth. That is actually all that we the relatives are asking for.  

[The article in today’s edition of The Times (behind the paywall) in which Mr Linklater’s honour is reported, contains the following paragraph:]

Mr Linklater remains one of most respected figures in Scottish journalism, with the skill and compassion to report sensitively on the tragedy of Lockerbie — “a story that has stayed with me ever since” — as well as the humour to deliver an agonised column about the iniquities of speed cameras.

Pro-Megrahi backers flayed by new Lord Advocate

[This is the headline over an article by Magnus Linklater (whose views on Lockerbie are well-known) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads as follows:]

Scotland’s Lord Advocate has launched a powerful and stinging attack against “conspiracy theorists” who claim that the Lockerbie bomber was wrongly convicted.

In the most detailed rebuttal yet made to the case mounted by campaigners who argue that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent and that Libya was not involved in the terrorist bomb plot that brought Pan Am 103 down over Lockerbie 24 years ago today, Frank Mulholland, QC, calls the allegations “without foundation”.

He goes on to accuse those making them of uttering “defamatory” comments against High Court judges who are unable to respond. [RB: Justice for Megrahi has made no defamatory comments against any High Court judge.  It is not defamatory of the Zeist judges to say that they were wrong in finding Megrahi guilty. Lawyers all the time say that judges got things wrong (and almost every time an appeal is allowed, other judges say so too). And in the Lockerbie case even the SCCRC concluded that, on an absolutely crucial point, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Zeist judges reached.  JFM in its recent allegations of criminality was very careful not to say that then Lord Advocate (and now High Court judge) Colin Boyd had attempted to pervert the course of justice.]

Mr Mulholland, who has relaunched an investigation into what he calls an act of “state-sponsored terrorism” by the former Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, says that he has been through all the evidence and is convinced that al-Megrahi’s conviction was “safe”.

An outside counsel invited by the Lord Advocate to conduct an independent review of the evidence has also concluded that the conviction was sound. [RB: It would be interesting to know the identity of this outside counsel.  Here, by contrast, is a short list of eminent lawyers who have concluded that the conviction was not sound: Benedict Birnberg, Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, David Wolchover, Len Murray, Ian Hamilton QC, Jock Thomson QC, John Scott QC.  There are many more.]

“I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process,” Mr Mulholland said. “I saw a report on the BBC that [claimed] a high court judge — Colin Boyd, Lord Advocate at the time — perverted the course of justice. And it frustrates me that they’re not in a position to answer these allegations, these can be made without being challenged and without any real foundation.” [RB: At least Mr Mulholland does not here make the error of accusing JFM of responsibility for the BBC’s egregious misinterpretation of the English language.]

He compared the allegations to the uncontrolled media attempts to blacken the name of Lord MacAlpine, the former Conservative Party treasurer, over child abuse.

“I deplore any of that,” he said. “The appropriate place for voicing any concerns about the evidence is before a court of law, not in the court of public opinion, or the media. I haven’t spoken to the people who are affected by this, but I would imagine that they are frustrated that their reputations can be so easily attacked, and they can’t do anything about it.”

Mr Mulholland, who has been to Libya to make contact with the new regime, is hopeful that permission will be given soon to send Scottish police officials to Tripoli to gather evidence that would not only buttress the case against al-Megrahi, but reopen the wider plot to down the US airliner.

He believes that a criminal investigation rather than a public inquiry is the best way to resolve the 1988 Lockerbie case.

“I take the view that the calls for a public inquiry are essentially to set up a vehicle which would be a surrogate criminal court, he said. “I believe that the guilt or innocence of al-Megrahi is entirely a matter for the courts.”

He issued a challenge to the al-Megrahi apologists: “If you don’t like the set-up of the justice system, then what you do is you change it, through the democratic vehicle of parliament. You change the law.”

Mr Mulholland says he has studied all the claims advanced in the book Megrahi: You are my Jury by the writer John Ashton, and finds no evidence to support them. He urged those arguing that al-Megrahi was innocent to put any additional evidence to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

“Mr Megrahi stood trial before a Scottish court and was convicted by three judges unanimously, then an appeal, where five judges unanimously upheld the conviction, hearing additional evidence about the Heathrow break-in [the claim that the bomb went aboard there],” he said. “Having heard all the arguments presented to them, they upheld the conviction. Part of our justice system is the [commission] for which I have the highest regard. Anyone who is concerned about a conviction can make an application to the commission.”

He added: “The commission had access to all the Crown’s papers, and they took the view that in relation to a very limited number of grounds, the case should be referred back to the appeal court, which they did. The defence were entitled to expand the appeal beyond the grounds of referral, and they included a number of grounds which had been rejected by the commission, and the court was in the process of hearing that appeal when al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

“Now, whatever you think, and everyone is entitled to their view as to whether he is guilty or not, the courts took the view that following a trial and an appeal and a subsequent appeal, which was abandoned, al-Megrahi’s conviction still stands and that is the application of the rule of law.”

Mr Mulholland believes the evidence shows that the previous Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi was involved in “an act of state-sponsored terrorism”.

He is working with the FBI, the US Attorney-General and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pursue investigations. “We are applying the rule of law,” he said. “If you follow the evidence, it leads to Libya.”

Lockerbie prosecutors "afflicted by wilful blindness"

[What follows is an article by Mark Hirst published today on the Russian Sputnik News website:]

Scottish prosecutors involved in the investigation of Lockerbie bombing in 1988 are “afflicted by wilful blindness” by ignoring concerns from distinguished UK lawyers, Robert Black QC, a Professor of Scots law has told Sputnik.

Scottish state prosecutors involved in the investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie in 1988 are “afflicted by wilful blindness” by ignoring concerns from distinguished UK lawyers about the safety of the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Robert Black QC, a Professor of Scots law has told Sputnik.

“[Prosecutors] must be afflicted by wilful blindness or by unquestioning loyalty to the Crown Office party line,” Black told Sputnik Sunday.

“Among the distinguished lawyers who have expressed grave concerns about the evidence are Sir Gerald Gordon QC -- who was in charge of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) investigation in 2003 to 2007 -- Michael Mansfield QC, Anthony Lester QC, Gareth Peirce, Benedict Birnberg and Jock Thomson QC,” Black added.

At a service in Washington to mark the 26th anniversary since the bombing that claimed 270 lives, the worst single terrorist attack in British history, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, who heads Scotland’s prosecution, known as the Crown Office, told American relatives, “During the 26-year long inquiry not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case.

“We remain committed to this investigation and our focus remains on the evidence, and not on speculation and supposition,” Mulholland added.

Black, along with many UK relatives of victims, has long claimed the prosecution of Megrahi was a miscarriage of justice. The Professor is currently campaigning to have a public inquiry established that would review all the evidence, including new information that, campaigners believe, throws fresh doubt over prosecution claims that Libya was responsible for the attack.

But Black told Sputnik the first step would be to overturn Megrahi’s guilty verdict.

“I think we may get there eventually,” Black told Sputnik referring to the prospects of securing an independent public inquiry. “But realistically the conviction will have to be overturned first – hopefully as a result of the current SCCRC application culminating in a reference back to the High Court.”

Megrahi, who was suffering from terminal cancer, was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government in 2009 and returned to Libya where he died in 2012. In June this year the Libyan’s relatives instructed a Scottish lawyer, Aamer Anwar, to start the process that they hope will lead to an appeal being heard in the Scottish High Court.

But Black told Sputnik that although a posthumous appeal was allowed under Scots law the process was not straightforward.

“The main obstacles are firstly the High Court's power to refuse to hear an appeal even when allowed by the SCCRC,” Black told Sputnik.

“The second obstacle is the tactic of delay. This was the Crown's principal tactic in the last Megrahi appeal, exercised so successfully that a case that should have been concluded before Megrahi’s illness was diagnosed had only just started when he had to apply for compassionate release. I have no doubt that [prosecutors] will use it again. Dragging things out adds to the expenses of the appellants – who will not this time be subsidised by the Libyan government – and the Crown will hope that they run out of money,” Black said.

In 2007 the SCCRC, following a four-year investigation into the case, concluded there were six grounds to refer the case back to the court of appeal, concluding that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. Shortly after the UK Government secured a Public Interest Immunity order preventing key evidence from being given to the defence that might assist in Megrahi’s defence.

“They will again assert Public Interest Immunity in respect of the document relating to timers that formed the basis of two of the SCCRC's grounds of referral in 2007,” Black told Sputnik. “This, of course, will contribute to delay and expense.”

UK Court quest for Lockerbie facts

[This is the heading over an item dated 14 May 1998 on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website. The subheading reads “Ian Black on a mother's search for truth behind PanAm tragedy” which is a strong indication that the article was published in The Guardian, though I can find no trace of it on the newspaper’s website. It reads as follows:]

The mother of a British victim of the Lockerbie disaster is going to the High Court after failing to force an inquest to reveal more about the case.

Nearly 10 years after PanAm flight 103 exploded, killing 270 people, Elizabeth Wright, a London psychiatrist, is seeking judicial review of the decision of a Sussex coroner that he could not conduct an inquest on her son Andrew.

Andrew Gillies-Wright, then 24, was flying to New York for Christmas when he died on December 21, 1988. He was cremated and his ashes interred in South Lancing, West Sussex. Dr Wright, like other Lockerbie relatives seeking movement after years of impasse, agreed to act as a test case, but was told "the lawfully cremated remains of a person (that is that person's ashes) do not constitute 'a body' for the purpose of... jurisdiction."

The British families want an inquest to raise questions which were not answered in the Scottish fatal accident inquiry in Dumfries.Those include events on the ground after the incident, whether intelligence agencies had warned of an attack, and how it was that initial suspicions that Iran, Syria or Palestinians were responsible gave way to charges against Libya.

Gareth Peirce, Dr Wright's solicitor, said: "There is potentially clear and compelling evidence setting out a scenario so different from the one that has been officially presented that it's a continuing national and international disgrace that it remains hidden, and that it falls to the families of the victims to unravel it."

Behind the legal arguments being prepared by Ms Peirce and Michael Mansfield, QC, lies the pain of bereaved families whose hope of seeing justice is diminishing almost a decade after the crime. "It shows what sort of position we find ourselves in when we have to discuss whether a cremated human being is a body," said Pam Dix, spokesperson for UK Families Flight 103.

She added: "We were not satisfied with the fatal accident inquiry, and we see the inquest as one way to further our quest to find out exactly what happened... We want information, not blame.

"We know intelligence won't be openly discussed in any court, but we would like to see how far we could go in getting these matters aired."

Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the bombing, returned from Libya last month with "strong assurances" that the suspects would be handed over for trial in a neutral country. He accused the Government of "following slavishly in America's slipstream", despite the comment by Nelson Mandela that no nation should be "complainant, prosecutor and judge".

Roger Stone, the West Sussex coroner, wrote after refusing an inquest on Mr Gillies-Wright: "I hope, given time, that Dr Wright and other members of the family will find it possible to come to terms with their son's tragic death and take comfort from the loving memories they no doubt hold of him."

[RB: If a judicial review was in fact applied for (on which I can find no information) it clearly did not succeed.]

A Scottish show trial has descended into farce

[This is the headline over an article by physicist and former Church of Scotland minister Dr John Cameron in today’s edition of the Scottish Review. It reads in part:]

The Sunday Herald has posted on its website the legal grounds found by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's second appeal. There was, of course, a clear public interest in making the report available and we have a right to know the nature of the SCCRC reservations and why it reached its conclusions.

It does not answer all the troubling questions which emerged in the wake of the atrocity, the investigation and the trial but it certainly casts doubt on the fairness of the verdict. Within months of the verdict three figures initiated a long protest: Dr Jim Swire (who lost his daughter), Hans Köchler (UN observer at the trial) and Nelson Mandela. Today there is hardly anyone north of the border who is not uneasy and the appeal has the support of the Kirk, the Catholic Church and the law faculties of the Scottish universities. It is also worth noting that not only his fellow prisoners but also the staff at Greenock prison believed he was innocent – usually a sign that something is seriously wrong.

The SCCRC document (a statement of reasons) sets out the grounds for referral back to the appeal court, four of which refer to the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. This includes the main prosecution witness Tony Gauci having seen a magazine article and photograph linking Megrahi to the crime before making his 'positive' identification. There was also grave concern that Gauci knew the US would reward him with $2 million for 'successful' testimony and severe doubts about the clothing and the purchaser. A fifth reason covered 'secret' intelligence documents not seen by Megrahi's legal team while the sixth referred to new evidence on the date of clothes purchased in Malta.

I was disappointed but not surprised the commission took the forensic evidence at face value and ignored the warning of the distinguished criminal lawyer, Michael Mansfield. As he rightly says: 'Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake that anyone can make is to believe that its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading'. There is, in fact, a 'canteen culture' in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than investigators seeking the truth.

In recent years no forensic-based case has caused greater concern than the Lockerbie trial and the prosecution has been widely accused of using the tactics of disinformation. The lead prosecutor was the lord advocate, Colin (later Baron) Boyd, who three years before had prosecuted the detective Shirley McKie in another forensic-based disaster. She was later compensated with £750,000 by the Scottish Executive after a botched trial based on faulty forensic evidence (...)

The involvement of the prosecuting team in the earlier fiasco to say nothing of severe doubts about the Lockerbie forensics is surely a matter of concern. The Crown Office said it had 'every confidence in successfully defending the conviction', but as Mandy Rice-Davies said at another trial, 'They would say that, wouldn't they'.

In fact the author of a magisterial study of the Lockerbie evidence, John Ashton, said it is clear the revelations have caused huge embarrassment for the judiciary. The trial was memorable for the performance of Fhimah's counsel, Richard Keen, dean of the Faculty of Advocates and one of the most brilliant legal minds of his generation. When I read his cross-examination of the forensic team of Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday I thought as a professional physicist that he had shredded their credibility.

Edwin Bollier, who Keen scornfully and repeatedly referred to as 'a legitimate Swiss businessman', gave evidence about the timer which was shown to be pure fantasy. Keen then proceeded to demolish both Tony Gauci and Majid Giaka to such an extent that no-one in the court could be in any doubt that Lamin Fhimah had no case to answer. What I found beyond belief was that evidence which was judged farcical in the case of Fhimah was later accepted as plausible by the law lords in the case of Megrahi.

Having been involved in the appeal for many years, I would say my greatest doubts as a scientist involve the highly dubious theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever an unaccompanied suitcase was secreted onto flight KM180, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not.

The Maltese police have always protested that this was a most unlikely scenario and the senior airport baggage loader was adamant that he always double-counted his luggage. This reliable official counted his luggage when it was finally gathered and again when it was physically loaded onto the plane and was certain there was no extra case. In fact, the idea of unaccompanied baggage with a bomb rattling around Europe before finding its way onto Pan Am 103 in London has always been widely ridiculed. The excellent screening at Frankfurt would almost certainly have picked it up and the theory added the further complication of requiring a non-barometric timer be used.

The interline baggage hall at Heathrow was notoriously insecure and John Bedford, a loader-driver employed by Pan Am had already told police of suspicious activity. He had placed a number of cases in the baggage container AVE 4041 for the flight but returned from a tea break to find a distinctive brown Samsonite case had been added. Sulkash Kamboj of the Pan Am affiliate Alert Security who told Bedford that he added the case, initially denied this to the police before finally admitting his involvement at the trial.

Whatever happens, it is a matter of the most profound regret that this Scottish show trial in the full glare of the international community has been allowed to descend into farce.

We should beware forensic evidence to secure convictions

[This is the headline over an article by Dr John Cameron, physicist and former Church of Scotland minister, in today’s edition of the Scottish Review.  It reads as follows:]

I first became involved in the Lockerbie case when Nelson Mandela asked the Church of Scotland to support his efforts to have Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction overturned. 

As an experienced lawyer, Mandela studied the transcripts and decided there had been a miscarriage of justice, pointing especially to serious problems with the forensic evidence. I was the only research physicist among the clergy and was the obvious person to review the evidence to produce a technical report which might be understood by the Kirk.

Scientists always select the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions to eliminate complicated constructions and keep theories grounded in the laws of science. This is 'Occam's razor' and from the outset the theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe seemed quite mad. I contacted everyone I knew in aviation and they all were of the opinion it was placed on board at the notoriously insecure Heathrow and that the trigger had to be barometric.

The Maltese link is so tenuous, complex and full of assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the three forensic scientists involved – and that was a big problem. Megrahi is the only person convicted on their evidence whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.

One of the UK's foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield, has long warned against our judiciary's gross over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said: 'Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.'

There is, in fact, a kind of 'canteen culture' in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than seekers after truth. The scientific evidence points to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [-General Command] whose chief bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, was arrested in Frankfurt in December 1988.

In the boot of his car was a Toshiba cassette recorder identical to the one found later at Lockerbie with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay and a barometric switch.

[In the same issue there is a contribution by David Hill which reads in part:]

With John Ashton's book blowing to smithereens any shred of credibilty left clinging to the guilty verdict on Al Megrahi (despite the BBC's selective and timid account of it) [The Herald]  led today [Tuesday 28 February] with a minor distraction about how or why the appeal was abandoned.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who believes the 'evidence' presented at the travesty at Camp Zeist would have got through a sheriff court.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who is now confident that Al Megrahi was guilty. And I recognise a growing conviction on the part of most of these preople that the sentence passed on Al Megrahi was the result of a pre-ordained and absolutely disgusting stitch between the US and the UK governments and the government of Libya to send, for whatever reasons, an innocent man to jail.

As the revelations have trickled out over the years it has become more and more probable that some in authority in Scotland were involved and I remain puzzled as to why the present Scottish Government, not in power at the the time of the trial, is dragging its feet.

I have assumed for some time that the UK, the US and particularly the Libyans have had every reason to fear an inquiry, whether a public inquiry or an Al Megrahi appeal, but once our newspapers see it as their obligation to cover up for those in power these newspapers are beyond any respect.

Lawyer confident about Lockerbie appeal

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2001. It reads in part:]

The Libyan lawyer in charge of the Lockerbie bomber's appeal says he is confident that his client will soon be freed.

Dr Ibrahim Legwell's comments came after it was revealed that two top international legal experts had joined the appeal team.

English barrister Michael Mansfield QC and American human rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz are both involved in the fight to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

The Libyan was sentenced to life imprisonment earlier this year for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fahima, was found not guilty by three judges at a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Speaking from London on Wednesday, Dr Legwell said: "I sent them a copy of the verdict and the transcripts of the trial and asked them for their views and analysis.

"I wanted to know what western lawyers thought about the verdict.

"Their replies gave me the confidence that we can go ahead with the trial with confidence in the western judicial system.

"There are definite aspects which show there has been a miscarriage of justice and I am very confident that we will be able to turn over his conviction." (...)

A further six lawyers have been enlisted to work on Megrahi's appeal.

Among them is Clive Nicholls QC, who represented the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet during extradition hearings at the High Court in London last year.

High profile American lawyer Frank Rubino has also been recruited to the appeal team.

Dr Legwell said he would consult the international legal team for further advice before passing it on to "our Scottish defence team so they can adapt it to Scots law".

Referring to his client, Dr Legwell said: "He is suffering a lot because he knows he is innocent, but has been convicted. But he is optimistic and confident he will win his case."

[RB: Dr Legwell had been the Libyan lawyer originally appointed to represent Megrahi and Fhimah. He was sacked in September 1998 and replaced by Kamal Maghur: the circumstances are outlined here. Maghur died shortly after the Zeist trial ended with Megrahi’s conviction, and Legwell took up the reins once again.

Dr Legwell was always a great enthusiast for international advisory teams, though what they could usefully contribute to preparation for a Scottish trial seemed, to me at least, to be questionable. Here is something written by me about an earlier stage in the case:]

… it was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but that since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision on surrender for trial would have to beone taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves, in consultation with their independent legal advisers. For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers which had already been appointed to represent the accused. This team consisted of lawyers from Scotland, England, Malta, Switzerland and the United States and was chaired by the principal Libyan lawyer for the accused, Dr Ibrahim Legwell. The Libyan government asked me to be present in Tripoli while the team was meeting so that the government itself would have access to independent Scottish legal advice should the need arise.