"Our justice system is not in safe hands"

[Today’s edition of The Herald carries an editorial which is highly critical of the performance of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill.  It reads in part:]

The Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has few friends in the legal profession right now, not least because of his determination to abolish the centuries-old requirement of corroboration in rape cases. [RB: The proposal is to abolish the requirement of corroboration in all criminal cases, not just rape cases. The debate has been bedevilled by the concentration of the media and others on sexual offences.]

Now MSPs on the influential Holyrood Justice Committee have poured scorn on his handling of the merger of Scottish police forces. (...)

There is every indication that the Scottish Government has been seeking to sweep the problems of Police Scotland under the carpet so that they do not interfere with the referendum campaign.

However, the affair raises more troubling questions still about the handling of the justice brief by Mr MacAskill. His eye has not been on the ball. He is too keen on passionately promoting crowd-pleasing measures like the abolition of corroboration, which many lawyers and human rights campaigners fear could lead to miscarriages of justice. Mr MacAskill finally bowed to pressure last month and agreed a one-year review, which many hope will see corroboration reprieved. But even criticism from within his own party ranks has not shaken the Justice Secretary's dogmatic belief in this measure. (...)

Our justice system is not in safe hands. Mr MacAskill's headstrong and sometimes belligerent approach, most notably in his refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair, is damaging the credibility of Scottish law. It is time that he moved on to another, less high profile, Cabinet position.

[I am baffled by the reference to Kenny MacAskill’s refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair. If it is his release of Abdelbaset Megrahi that is being alluded to, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr MacAskill refused to heed the advice of those whom it was his legal duty to consult.  In other aspects of the Lockerbie affair (eg the refusal to institute an independent inquiry, the refusal to make arrangements for the Justice for Megrahi allegations of criminality in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial to be investigated otherwise that by the very police service that, amongst others, was being accused) the just criticism of Kenny MacAskill is that he too slavishly followed advice (from the Crown Office -- its own personnel amongst those accused of criminality -- and from his departmental civil servants).]

Let Lockerbie appeal go ahead

[This is the heading over a letter from Justice for Megrahi stalwart Mrs Jo Greenhorn published in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.

Why? Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans have denied us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie?

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to address the fact that Megrahi dropped his last appeal. I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that, for it has been claimed the Scottish authorities told the Libyan authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. He was a dying man. Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it. Dr Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal, is he ignorant of the situation in Libya? Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in? Is he aware of their financial position? So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal?

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as chief executive of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference", is justice. That should answer another question he posed, as to whether it was in the interests of justice to allow this appeal. The SCCRC had already found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since. 

[The above is the published version of the letter.  As submitted it read as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by public comments made by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdel Basset Al Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity. (...)   Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.  Why?  Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans denied all of us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie.

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to "address" the fact that Megahi dropped his last appeal.  I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that for it has been claimed the Scottish Authorities told the Libyan Authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. (This advice was given despite the fact that an existing appeal can continue even when a person has been released on compassionate grounds.  Why did the Scottish Authorities do that?)  He was a dying man.  Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it.   Jim Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.   I wonder what age Mr Sinclair is.   Jim Swire was in his early fifties when this terrible thing happened.   He has spent his life since going after justice and the truth.   Scots Law didn't deliver either.   It allowed itself to be caught up in dirty, filthy politics so that we really didn't get the truth about Lockerbie, or justice.  Scotland should be ashamed of that.   

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal is he ignorant of the situation in Libya?   Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in?  Is he aware of their financial position?  So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal? 

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as CE of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference" is justice.  That should answer another question he posed as to whether it was "in the interests of justice" to allow this appeal.  Why would it not be?  The SCCRC already had found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since.  Why would Mr Sinclair want the SCCRC to kill this new appeal? Why would he want to play down the significance of this new appeal and any hopes of taking it forward?   I think he should explain himself and soon.  The SCCRC, we are told, functions "without political or judicial interference". Maybe Mr Sinclair should therefore drop the politics. The dead at Lockerbie deserve better.

SCCRC review into Megrahi conviction

[This is the heading of a motion lodged in the Scottish Parliament today by John Finnie MSP. It reads as follows:]

Motion S4M-09989: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 08/05/2014

That the Parliament welcomes the announcement that a new application will be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) by 25 relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims for a review of the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi; understands that the application will focus on new evidence found since the original conviction and the six grounds that the SCCRC itself identified in 2007 as possible miscarriages of justice; understands that the application, which has had the approval of the family of Mr Megrahi, was written by Professor Robert Black, and believes that, for many, the conviction of Mr Megrahi remains deeply unsound and that this new review will allow all the evidence to be heard.

For the sake of the families, appeal over Megrahi's conviction should be expedited

[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann published in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

It is good that a group of British relatives of 25 victims of the Lockerbie disaster, led by Dr Jim Swire, have decided to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCR[C]) to instigate a further appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Fight 103 ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

After more than 25 years, it is high time a court was presented with all the relevant evidence.

The immediate response of the Crown Office was disappointing but entirely predictable. "We will vigorously defend the original trial verdict" shows it seems still to be more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system than in making sure that justice was done.

It is also disappointing that the Justice Minister and Scottish Government continue to take the same line. It is now clear that there are many justifiable doubts about the safety of the original verdict of the Camp Zeist trial. Surely it is essential that all the relevant evidence is available for consider­ation and challenge in a court of law?

In its comprehensive report some years ago the SCCR[C] identified no fewer than six possible reasons why there could have been a miscarriage of justice in the original verdict.

The trial judges were not aware that some vital evidence known to the prosecution was withheld from Megrahi's defence team, or that the British and American Secret Services had refused to release important documents.

They did not know that the CIA had promised the principal witness $2m and a new life in Australia if he identified Megrahi as a casual visitor to his Malta shop several years earlier, and that he was shown photographs of Megrahi before identifying him in court.

The judges were not told that the tiny piece of electronic detonator claimed to be part of the explosive device was found by an American secret service agent in a field near Lockerbie a full six months after the area had already been exhaustively searched, and that there are some serious doubts about its authen­ticity. And they were not told that on the night before Pan Am 103 took off on its tragic flight, there had been an unexplained break-in at the Heathrow onward baggage terminal which for some reason was not made public at the time.

While each of these pieces of information might not seem very significant in itself, together they would surely have been enough to establish at least a reasonable doubt in the minds of the three judges.

The sooner all this evidence is formally presented in an appeal court, the sooner the grieving families of those who lost their lives in this appalling act of mass murder can finally know the truth about who was or was not responsible.

SCCRC chief speaks about expected new Megrahi appeal bid

[What follows is a report from the Press Association news agency published today on the website of The Sunday Post:]

Lockerbie review bid expected

A fresh application for a review of the conviction of the only man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing is expected to be submitted to authorities in Scotland.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said it expects to receive a request "shortly" for it to look again at the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Megrahi was the sole person to have been found guilty of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland on December 21 1988, in which 270 people were killed.

He abandoned a second appeal against conviction in 2009 after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer. He was later released from jail by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds and died protesting his innocence in 2012.

The new application for the conviction to be reviewed is to be made by Jim Swire on behalf of himself and several others.

Dr Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, has long held the view that Megrahi was not guilty of the atrocity.

The SCCRC is an independent body set up 15 years ago to review alleged miscarriages of justice in Scottish criminal cases.

It can refer a case back to the High Court if it believes a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that such a move is in the interests of justice. After that point, the case will proceed before judges as a normal appeal.

When a convicted person has died, court rules allow the High Court to consider an appeal where it considers the person taking the case forward has "legitimate interest" in the issue.

SCCRC chief executive Gerard Sinclair said there are several matters which will affect the timescale for the body to be able to deal with a fresh application.

Looking at these matters could take some time, he warned.

"Even before deciding whether to accept this new application for review, the commission will require to consider a number of preliminary matters relating to the application," he said.

"These include whether Dr Swire has a 'legitimate interest' to pursue, on behalf of Mr Megrahi, an application to the commission and any subsequent appeal."

The commission could ask the High Court for a formal opinion on the matter, he said.

He went on: "If it is decided that Dr Swire has a 'legitimate interest' in this matter, the commission will also require to address whether it is 'in the interests of justice' to accept for a further review the conviction of Mr Megrahi, taking account of the statutory requirement for 'finality and certainty' in criminal proceedings.

"In considering this matter, the commission will be required to address the fact that Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal in 2009 after a referral from the commission and that neither he nor any member of his family lodged an application for a further review of his conviction prior to his death in May 2012. Consideration of these matters could take some time.

"As this is a fresh application, if it is then accepted for review, the commission will have to allow some time for board members to acquaint themselves with the terms of the application and the basis for the previous review and referral, as none of the present members of the SCCRC were members at the time the matter was previously referred in 2007.

"Likewise, if this case is accepted for review, the commission will require to address the various grounds of review, taking account of any changes in the law since the application was previously reviewed and carry out relevant inquiries and investigations.

"It is anticipated, therefore, that, if there is to be a further review of this conviction, any such review will take some time to complete."

Megrahi lost his first appeal against his murder conviction in 2002. [RB: The circumstances in which this appeal was lost are described here, in the section headed “The Appeal”.]

The following year, he applied to the SCCRC for a review of his conviction and his case was referred by the commission to the High Court for a new appeal in 2007.

His bid to drop his second appeal against conviction was accepted by judges in Edinburgh in August 2009.

Twenty-five relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims are said to have agreed to support the new application to clear Megrahi's name.

Dr Swire told BBC Scotland: "I have a privilege of representing about 25 British relatives. These are people who want to know the truth about who murdered their families. They want the public to know the truth about how, they believe, they have been deliberately kept from knowing the truth themselves by our Government."

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC. The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people.

"We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.

"Following consideration of all relevant matters, only a criminal court has the power to either uphold or overturn Mr AI-Megrahi's conviction.

"The Scottish Government has always been clear that it is comfortable for relatives of Mr Al-Megrahi or relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims to apply to the commission to consider referring Al-Megrahi's case.

"And, of course, the Lockerbie case remains a live investigation, and Scotland's criminal justice authorities have made clear that they will rigorously pursue any new lines of inquiry."

Lockerbie bombing: Megrahi conviction review sought by families

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams published today on the BBC News website.  It reads as follows:]

Twenty-five relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims have agreed to support a new application to clear the name of the only man convicted.

They will give the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) their new application in the next few weeks to try to overturn the conviction.

It has been prepared by legal expert Prof Robert Black. [RB: What I have prepared is a draft, which must now be finalised and improved for submission to the Commission.]

The Crown Office said it would "rigorously defend" Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction.

He was the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people, died in 2012.

The application will focus on new evidence garnered since he dropped his appeal almost five years ago and the six grounds on which the SCCRC concluded it might have been a miscarriage of justice in its previous 2007 report.

Megrahi dropped his appeal to expedite his return home to Tripoli after he learned he had terminal cancer.

He was released from Greenock prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds and died in Libya two years ago.

Dr Jim Swire and John Mosey both lost children in the tragedy.

They met with Prof Black in Glasgow to finalise the plans for the application. [RB: The meeting in Glasgow was with lawyers who will be involved in presenting the application to the SCCRC.]

Any applicant must have a "legitimate interest" in the case and the SCCRC would normally consult the deceased's family before accepting an application. 

The BBC understands that Megrahi's family have given their tacit approval.

Last year Megrahi's brother Abdel-Hakim al-Megrahi told the BBC they wanted a "fresh appeal and for the truth to be revealed".

Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he was confident the SCCRC would be sympathetic to a request from UK relatives of Lockerbie victims.

He said the relatives wanted answers.

"I have a privilege of representing about 25 British relatives," Dr Swire said.

"These are people who want to know the truth about who murdered their family. They want the public to know the truth about how, they believe, they have been deliberately kept from knowing the truth themselves by our government."

If the commission agrees to review the application and agrees the conviction could constitute a miscarriage of justice, they would then refer the case to the High Court.

The court could agree to hear the appeal or veto the referral.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC.

"The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people.

"We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement."

[The Crown Office is up to its old tricks again. It knows very well that the evidence on which the conviction was based was not “rigorously scrutinised” by two appeal courts.  The court which heard the first appeal held that it was barred by the grounds of appeal submitted by Megrahi’s then legal team from considering whether there was sufficient evidence to convict or whether, on the evidence, any reasonable court could have done so. Hardly a rigorous examination of the evidence; indeed, no examination of the evidence at all. And the second appeal was abandoned long before any rigorous examination of the evidence could take place. The Crown Office knows all this perfectly well. But it persists in putting out untruthful statements to the media. Its behaviour throughout the Lockerbie saga has been uniformly disgraceful.]

Lockerbie film will aid justice, hopes father

[This is the headline over a report published (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times.  It adds nothing to what appears here and here, but I reproduce it (a) because it is The Times and (b) because it doesn’t emanate from Magnus Linklater:]

The father of a young woman killed in the Lockerbie disaster has said that a new film about the tragedy could help to aid justice more than 25 years on.

Jim Swire’s daughter, Flora, 23, died on December 21, 1988, when Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed over Lockerbie, killing 270 people. She had bought a last-minute ticket to spend Christmas in the US with her American boyfriend.

Dr Swire, 78, a veteran campaigner, said he hoped that the film, understood to be based on his fight for justice, could help “the truth to dawn” for the public over Britain’s worst terrorist attack.

Although details of the film are being kept under wraps, Jim Sheridan, the six-times Oscar-nominated director, is lined up to be the director.

Dr Swire said he hoped that the project would help to bring evidence into the public domain that he believes casts doubt over the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Dr Swire said: “The film is important because it brings into the public domain more of the truth about what really happened instead of a package of lies clearly supported by US sources. This may turn out to be the way by which the truth dawns for the general public.”

Kathy Tedeschi, whose husband, Bill Daniels, was a passenger, criticised the move. “There are too many people, like the FBI and Scotland Yard, who investigated this case, and I firmly believe they knew what they were doing and they got the right man,” she said.

Dr Swire and other relatives are to attend a meeting in Glasgow this week to decide when they will submit a request for a third appeal to overturn Megrahi’s conviction.

New film will aid Jim Swire's 25-year quest for justice

[Today’s edition of Scotland on Sunday features an article headed Lockerbie movie will reveal truth of tragedy. It reads as follows:]

The father of a victim of Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity has expressed hope that a new film about the tragedy will aid his 25-year quest for justice.

Dr Jim Swire, a veteran campaigner who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster, believes the movie could be the way the “truth dawns” for the public over the 1988 incident.

The film is set to be made by Jim Sheridan, the six-times Oscar-nominated director of the acclaimed In The Name Of The Father and My Left Foot.

Swire believes the project will help bring into the public domain evidence which he believes casts doubt over the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who was found guilty in 2001 of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan-Am Flight 103 in the skies above Lockerbie.

However, the decision to tell the narrative of Lockerbie through the central figure of Swire has been criticised by some US relatives of the tragedy, who believe Sheridan will be covering the “completely wrong story”.

Swire, 78, told Scotland on Sunday that although he felt “uncomfortable” about upsetting other families who take an opposing view to him over the circumstances surrounding the atrocity, he was compelled to “pursue the truth” in memory of his daughter Flora, who was 23 when she died.

Currently in the early stages of development, the drama has the working title of Lockerbie.

It comes as Swire and other relatives are preparing a presentation to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to request a third appeal to overturn Megrahi’s conviction, more than two years on from his death.

He will attend a meeting in Glasgow later this week with members of other families and lawyers to decide when they will submit the request.

Swire said: “The film is important because it brings into the public domain more of the truth about what really could have happened instead of a package of lies clearly supported by US sources.”

He added: “This may turn out to be the way by which the truth dawns for the general public.”

Those behind the production, he said, possess the “skills, humanity and resources” to create a film which will “respect the depths of the many human tragedies involved, but also make us rejoice that love and the human spirit cannot in the end be overcome by evil”.

Although details of the film are being kept under wraps, it is understood to focus on Swire’s search for justice and is based on an unpublished manuscript he has been working on for more than a decade alongside writer and researcher Peter Biddulph.

Richard Jeffs, a literary agent who has been assisting Biddulph, said: “It’s true to say that Peter Biddulph and Dr Jim Swire have worked extremely diligently for more than ten years to create a manuscript and we are still seeking to have it published.”

Those behind the film have been maintaining a low profile, mindful of the sensitivities surrounding Lockerbie. But after Sheridan confirmed his involvement in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, some US relatives expressed anger at the project.

Kathy Tedeschi, whose husband Bill Daniels was a passenger on Pan Am 103, said: “It kills me to think that they would go off and just tell some completely wrong story just because they like the way it sounds or there’s got to be another twist to it.

“There are too many people, like the FBI and Scotland Yard, who investigated this case, and I firmly believe they knew what they were doing and they got the right man.”

Swire said he accepted the film would upset some families who lost loved ones in Lockerbie but felt he could not abandon the project.

“I do feel uncomfortable about making them miserable by pursuing the truth, but that’s what I have to do in the name of my daughter,” he said. 

[An interesting article on the project can be found here on the Filmstalker website.]

The Megrahi appeal -- five years ago

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog five years ago today. I am reasonably confident that relevant fresh news items will be forthcoming within the fairly near future.

[This is an article by Mark Micallef and Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. As far as I can discover, none of the Scottish or UK Sundays covers the first week of the appeal hearing.]

Malta may be cleared of Lockerbie connection

"I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta" - victim's father

The Maltese connection to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie will be called into question with fresh evidence presented in the second appeal of the convicted bomber.

A representative of the British victims' families told The Sunday Times yesterday: "I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta."

The appeal, launched last Tuesday, challenged the testimony of key witness Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had identified Abdel Basset al-Megrahi as having bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

The prosecution's line in the initial trial was that Mr al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, placed the bomb and clothes in a suitcase checked in at Luqa airport and transferred on to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.

Ever since Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Malta has been implicated in the terrorist act that killed 270 people.

But Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer, Margaret Scott [now Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary judge, Lady Scott], tore into Mr Gauci's evidence during last Friday's appeal hearing, saying the witness had initially given descriptions of the man in his shop as being taller and more than 10 years older.

"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," she told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, according to The Scotsman.

Investigating officers had shown the shopkeeper several photos but he rejected them, because the people were too young. He had even rejected the page showing the photo of Mr al-Megrahi.

But the lawyer told the court last Friday that "unlike before", Mr Gauci was told to look at the photos again. "It was a clear message that there is something there to be found," [Ms] Scott said.

In fact, Mr Gauci never identified Mr al-Megrahi. He simply stated: "He resembles him a lot."

The trial judges had accepted this identification as a "highly important element" of the case.

Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact Mr Gauci proved futile. During a visit to his Sliema shop yesterday, a man who claimed to be his brother said he had not seen the key witness for a month and insisted he had no comment to make.

Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer will call into question four crucial pieces of evidence that secured his conviction. These are that the accused bought the clothing found with the bomb; that the purchase happened on December 7, 1988; that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought; and that the suitcase containing the bomb left from Malta. An element absent from the original trial provides a compelling alternative to the idea that the bomb left from Malta.

Just over 12 years after the bombing, the courts heard retired Heathrow security guard Ray Manly testify that a door leading to the baggage build-up area at Terminal 3 was forced open on the night of December 20, 1988.

The intruder, he had told court, could have easily introduced and tagged a suitcase as Pan Am baggage.

Dr Jim Swire, father of 24-year-old victim Flora, told The Sunday Times yesterday he believed the Malta connection was false: "Security at Luqa conformed to the requirement to check the amount of bags getting on to an aircraft and making sure it agreed with the number that had gone off at the other end."

In the case of the Air Malta flight, which allegedly carried the suitcase with the explosive, "the records show unequivocally that the bags loaded belonged to the passengers and that there were no other bags... and that in Frankfurt the same amount of bags were accounted for."

Dr Swire believed the possibility that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow was suppressed: "Despite this security breach, the airport was not shut down until the breach was explained. Had this been done, I believe my daughter would still be alive." He hoped this second trial would prove to be the watershed he and other sceptical relatives had been waiting for.

However, the appeal may not be concluded if Mr al-Megrahi chooses to return home through a prisoner exchange programme between the UK and Libya, which was ratified by Britain last week.

Mr Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. A decision to drop the appeal would leave him condemned as guilty.

A Scottish journalist following the case told The Sunday Times he suspected that Mr al-Megrahi could be biding his time until this first round of the appeal was over.

"If the judges return with an early verdict in favour of al-Megrahi, he goes back home a free man. If not, he'll likely take the exchange."

Dr Swire was sympathetic to Mr al-Megrahi's position. Although it could mean he would never know the truth about his daughter's death, he said: "Put yourself in his shoes, what else would you do?"

"I would go, and could not blame him if he does. He has told me before that he would rather clear his name before he goes home," Dr Swire added.

But if the appeal did not go through, Dr Swire would be "clamouring" for a full inquiry, which would also be in Malta's interest.

"I think Malta has nothing but substance to gain from this."