The Zeist judges' unreasonable evidential finding

[On this date in 2000 the defence opened its case in the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. One of the witnesses examined was Major Joseph Mifsud who, between 1979 and 1988, was chief meteorologist at the meteorological office at Luqa Airport in Malta. His evidence can be read here. I have summarised elsewhere his evidence and the background showing its relevance and importance as follows:

“By reference to the dates on which international football matches were broadcast on television on Malta, Tony Gauci was able to narrow down the date of purchase of the items in question [ie the items that accompanied the bomb in the Samsonite suitcase] to either 23 November or 7 December [1988]. [RB: The evidence established that Megrahi had been on Malta on 7 December.] In an attempt to establish just which, the weather conditions in Sliema on these two days were explored. Gauci’s evidence was that when the purchaser left his shop it was raining to such an extent that his customer thought it advisable to buy an umbrella to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence led by the defence established that while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely that it had rained at all on 7 December; and if there had been any rain, it would have been at most a few drops, insufficient to wet the ground. On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.”

[RB: In June 2007, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission came to the conclusion that Megrahi's conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. One of its six reasons for so finding (and by far the most important one, though this went largely unappreciated in the media) was that in respect of absolutely crucial findings in fact by the trial court (the date of purchase of the clothing that surrounded the bomb and, hence, the identity of the purchaser) no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion that the evidence established that it was Megrahi.]

Another step along the path towards a Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a Reuters news agency report issued on 4 December 1998:]

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan prepared Friday to fly to Libya to meet Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and try to set in train the trial of two Libyan suspects in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

“I will leave Saturday morning for Libya for discussions with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. I am going to try to settle this problem once and for all,” Annan told reporters after meeting Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Thursday. News of the trip brought optimism from the United States and Britain, although what diplomats saw as Gaddafi's unpredictably tempered this with caution. A senior US official said Washington hoped the meetings would result in the handover of the two suspects.

But Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, speaking for the US mission to the United Nations, said she did not know what the outcome of Annan's session with Gaddafi would be and how firm his assurances were from Tripoli. “We would expect a meeting between the secretary-general and Libyan officials to produce a handover of the suspects,” Soderberg said. “We expect that to be the purpose of his travel to Libya.”

Annan is due to fly to Sirte, a coastal city 400 km (250 miles) east of the Libyan capital, where Gaddafi usually entertains his guests, after the Security Council sanctions committee approved a waiver for the trip, diplomats said. Britain welcomed Annan's announcement that he would visit Libya. But it made clear that a US-British plan to try the Libyan suspects before a special court of Scottish judges in the Netherlands was non-negotiable.

“Naturally we welcome efforts to implement the UN Security Council resolution (on handing over the suspects). We hope the secretary-general can persuade Gaddafi to reply promptly so justice can be done,” said a British Foreign Office spokesman. “Kofi Annan fully recognizes that the US-British plan is non-negotiable...the best we can hope for from Saturday's meeting is official notification that Gaddafi is prepared to hand over the suspects.”

Western diplomats had said Annan would not go to Libya unless he had been assured Gaddafi had agreed to surrender the suspects for trial. But in private, British officials are reluctant to express optimism about Annan's chances of success. “It is no use trying to figure out what could happen. It is very hard to predict what Gaddafi might do,” one said.

Asked if a deal on the surrender of the two suspects was ready, a diplomat told Reuters: “This is what he hopes to get. He (Annan) appears optimistic.” Diplomats said that chances had improved after weeks of talks with Libyan lawyers on the surrender of the two suspects. “It's not a done deal yet, but it's close,” said one diplomat who declined to be identified.

A Libyan statement denied any about-turn by Gaddafi. “Libya has already announced its acceptance of putting its two nationals on trial at a court in the Netherlands. It has expressed its willingness to enter into negotiations with the concerned parties either directly or through the UN secretary-general over arrangements for this trial,” said the statement carried by the official JANA news agency on Thursday. It said Libya would seek “the necessary guarantees for the Libyan suspects and reserved its right to ask for any clarification.”

[A related BBC News report can be read here.]

MH17 and Pan Am 103 compensation claims compared

[What follows is excerpted from an article published in today’s edition of the Daily Mail:]

Eight families who lost loved ones in the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 disaster when it was shot out of the sky in rebel-controlled eastern Ukraine are preparing to sue Russia, Ukraine and Malaysia.

The Boeing 777 was travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17 when it was downed, killing all 298 people on board, including 38 Australian citizens and residents. (...)

Aviation lawyer Jerry Skinner, who is based in Alaska, has taken up their case and is preparing to lodge it at the European Court of Human Rights.

Back in July the lawyer first told the Sydney Morning Herald that he could potentially achieve million dollar payouts for the MH17 victims’ families, like he had obtained from Libya for the families of the 1988 Lockerbie disaster.

'Something creative is going to have to be done here because this is too big and too complicated for the judicial system to handle on its own and it involves people who will not yield to the judicial system, such as the Russians and the Ukrainians,' he said.

‘What happened in Lockerbie was that politics got involved and sanctions got involved and we said to the Libyans, if you want to settle this, it doesn't matter what the individuals did [for a living].

‘The parties that are the main participants here are probably the Russians and their allies and also Malaysia Airlines. Both of them bear a lot of responsibility for this.’

Now, Mr Skinner has said he will file a ‘very broad’ claim against Russia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Malaysia Airlines as soon as he gets some final information from the Dutch Safety Board.

[A report published today on the Radio Australia website contains the following:]

An international aviation lawyer is preparing a lawsuit on behalf of families of the Australian victims of the MH17 plane crash.

Jerry Skinner was part of the team that won $US2.7 billion in compensation from Libya over the Lockerbie bombing.

He has been engaged by at least five Australian families who lost relatives when the Malaysia Airlines plane was shot down over Ukraine in July.

Mr Skinner said they deserve the same compensation as the Lockerbie families.

"What happened in the Pan Am bombing, when an action is intentional and not negligent it generates more damages, and those damages were in the neighbourhood of $10 million for families," he said.

"In my way of thinking, since this was an intentional act and the nation states sort of took the bait of a low-flying aeroplane, that would be appropriate."

Mr Skinner is preparing the case against Russia, Ukraine and Malaysia while other families consider joining the action.

The lawsuit is expected to be filed with the European Court of Human Rights.

[RB: There is much about this story that I do not understand. Here is just one example. The European Convention on Human Rights, article 35, provides that the European Court of Human Rights may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Court is primarily a supervisory or appellate body, not a tribunal of first instance. A case arising out of the destruction of MH17 might well end up in the European Court of Human Rights, but I do not see how it could begin there. Where cases seeking compensation were raised following the Lockerbie disaster, they were -- correctly -- brought in domestic courts, not in the European Court of Human Rights.

Jerry Skinner is not a name that I have previously encountered in connection with the Pan Am 103 case. While a number of US attorneys represented relatives of Lockerbie victims in compensation negotiations with Libya, the lead firm was Kreindler & Kreindler.]

As thin as homœopathic soup

On this date fourteen years ago, the Lockerbie trial was in recess following the close of the prosecution case and before the opening of the defence case. Here is a link to my contemporaneous assessment of what the Crown could be taken to have proved. My view, then as now, was that the evidence against the two accused was “as thin as the homœopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death”.

This wonderful description comes from Abraham Lincoln while running for election as United States Senator for the state of Illinois in 1858. Lincoln (Republican) and his Democrat opponent Stephen A Douglas participated in a series of debates during one of which Lincoln described Douglas’s argument (on states’ sovereignty) in these memorable terms.  Lincoln lost that election. However, the US presidential election of 1860 involved the same two candidates (amongst others). Lincoln won. I remain optimistic that the Justice for Megrahi campaign, like Lincoln, will win in the end.

More steps on the road towards a Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of an Associated Press news agency report issued on this date in 1997:]

UN officials are heading for Scotland to analyze whether suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 can receive a fair trial there.

UN spokesman Fred Eckhard told reporters Tuesday that the three UN officials will arrive in London Wednesday and travel to Lockerbie, Scotland, to visit prison and court facilities.

Britain invited Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send representatives to Scotland after Arab and African countries complained that two Libyans indicted in the bombing could not receive a fair trial in Scotland or the United States.

The plane exploded in the air and crashed near Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.

But Libya has refused to extradite the suspects, demanding the trial be held in a neutral country. The UN Security Council banned international flights to and from Libya in 1992 to demand that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi surrender the pair.

But diplomats of several countries, including Russia, have said they believe it is time to find a solution and end the sanctions against the Libyan regime.

Also Tuesday, Eckhard said Annan had agreed to send a UN delegation to Libya to look into the effects of the aviation sanctions.

[RB: It was only on 24 August 1998 that the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States at last accepted the solution of a neutral venue trial to be held under Scots Law that had been agreed to in writing by the Libyan Government and the Libyan defence team on 12 January 1994. The Western media, of course, throughout supinely punted the UK/US line that the delay in bringing Megrahi and Fhimah to trial had been attributable to Libya.]

Lockerbie and the search for truth

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Morag Kerr just published in the first issue of the new online magazine iScot (pages 11 to 18). The following are excerpts. The original online version contains helpful photographs and illustrations:]

The summer of the independence campaign saw a few important news items relegated to minor footnotes, not least in June when the application for a new appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing was finally submitted to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. 

The application has been the culmination of a huge amount of work not just by lawyers but by many people interested in the case and it concentrates on four main aspects.

Firstly, the contention that the identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes packed in the suitcase with the bomb was fatally flawed. 

This point was the centrepiece of the previous appeal which was abandoned when Megrahi was granted compassionate release. Although the trial judges described the identification as “not absolute” they controversially decided he had been the purchaser anyway. Information acquired by the SCCRC in 2006 however showed that the clothes had been bought on a day when there was no evidence he had been anywhere near the shop in question. 

Secondly, the application highlights an entirely new analysis of theforensic evidence, never beforepresented in court. The new evidence shows the suitcase containing the bomb was one which was seen in the baggage container at Heathrow airport an hour before the connecting flight from Frankfurt landed. This utterly destroys the Crown case, which relied on the bomb suitcase having been transferred from the Frankfurt flight. 

Then there is the evidence relating to the metallurgical composition of the fragment of printed circuit board designated PT/35b. This fragment was believed to be part of the timing mechanism of the bomb, and the Crown alleged that it came from a digital timer of a type made exclusively for the Libyan military, of which only 20 had ever been delivered. 

However, a crucial discrepancy in the analysis of the metallic coating on the circuitry demonstrates that PT/35b was not made by the manufacturer who made all the items supplied to Libya. 

And lastly, the sheer amount of evidence not disclosed to the defence which would have been very helpful to the accused and in some cases exculpatory. This covers not just the infamous “secret intelligence report” which David Miliband slapped a Public Interest Immunity Certificate on in 2008, but a number of other documents including one which would have allowed the defence to understand the problem with the metallurgical analysis of the PCB fragment at the time of the original trial. 

This case has the distinction of being the first in Scotland in which published books have formed part of an application. Selected chapters from John Ashton’s 2012 (...) Megrahi: You are my Jury, have been submitted to the SCCRC in support, as well as the entirety of my own 2013 book, Adequately Explained by Stupidity? 

The initial draft of the application was prepared by Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who has a long standing involvement in the case and has believed for many years that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice. In a highly unusual move it is being submitted in the names of about two dozen relatives of Lockerbie victims, in addition to several close relatives of Megrahi himself. Aamer Anwar, the campaigning human rights solicitor and well-known advocate of independence is acting on their behalf. 

Prof Black commented that any one of the four points enumerated above, if upheld, would be sufficient to have the conviction overturned. He also notes that the second point, the one relating to the arrangement of the luggage in the baggage container, is in a different category from the others. 

To have a conviction overturned it is sufficient to show that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. That’s not quite the same as proving that the accused didn’t do it, as some exonerated defendants have found to their cost. In England at least, in order to be awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment the appellant must be shown to be “clearly innocent”. 

The suitcase positioning fulfills that criterion by showing the crime could have happened at Heathrow airport, in the afternoon, at a time when Megrahi was verifiably in Tripoli and not at Malta's Luqa airport in the morning when he was catching his flight home. It provides him with a complete alibi. (...)

If this point of appeal is upheld, the Crown Office will be in an invidious position. The charade of the Malta crime-scene will no longer be tenable. The investigation will have been shown to have been off the rails from its earliest weeks, and to have pursued a red herring down a blind alley rather than seeking the real terrorists in London that afternoon. Undoubtedly some faces will be very red. 

However, there’s a long way to go before that point is reached. First, the SCCRC have to agree that there are indeed grounds forappeal contained within the submission it has received. Not only that, a new hurdle has to be cleared which didn’t exist at the time the previous leave to appeal was granted in 2007. 

As part of the legislation arising out of the Cadder case (relating to the right of a suspect to have a lawyer present during questioning) a provision was introduced into Scots Law requiring not only that there should be grounds for believing that a conviction might amount to a miscarriage of justice, but that there must be compelling reasons to override the assumed desirability of having “certainty and finality” at the end of a legal process.

While it’s true the legal system had no desire to be swamped by hordes of lowlifes appealling petty theft convictions because they had been denied access to a lawyer when  they were first questioned by police, this is a big deal with far wider ramifications. As it now stands, Scots Law can declare that it doesn’t matter if there are compelling grounds for believing you were wrongly convicted of murder, because it’s more important that a line should be drawn. And pity help you if you’re on the wrong side of that line. 

Not only does the SCCRC itself have to be satisfied that “certainty and finality” should be overruled, the appeal judges themselves have the option of refusing to hear the appeal if they disagree with the SCCRC on this point. 

The Scottish government has repeatedly declared that the only place to resolve the ongoing running sore of the doubts over the Lockerbie conviction is in the courts, by way of another appeal. Ministers have intimated their unconditional support for such a move, virtually challenging the bereaved relatives who harbour these doubts to “bring it on!” Well, crunch time is approaching, albeit at the speed of continental drift. Will the government get its wish to have this all cleared up in open court, or will someone, somewhere, wield the dreaded “certainty and finality” ban-hammer over the process? 

It’s now five months since the application was submitted to the SCCRC. At some point the deliberations have to end and a report will emerge. How that is received will be a huge test of our criminal justice system, and incidentally of our new justice secretary.

Faltering steps on the path towards a Lockerbie trial

[Today is St Andrew’s day.  Andrew the Apostle is the patron saint of Scotland. He is also the patron saint of Luqa in Malta, which falls within St Andrew’s Parish.  The bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie is alleged to have started its progress as unaccompanied baggage sent from Luqa Airport via Frankfurt to Heathrow. That version of events cannot, of course, survive the researches of Dr Morag Kerr, as set out in her book Adequately Explained by Stupidity? Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies.

Here is another in the blog’s series of pieces about the tortuous path towards a Lockerbie trial, taken from a report published in The Scotsman on 30 November 1998:]

The United Nations secretary-general is hoping to travel to Libya this weekend to complete the handover of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing. It is understood from diplomatic sources that Mr Annan is optimistic that the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, is finally prepared to surrender the pair for trial in the Netherlands.

Scottish Office sources indicated that the technical details of a handover are in place, though they insist that the final decision is one which will be taken by Col Gaddafi himself. They suggested that Col Gaddafi's own unpredictability was now the sole obstacle to a handover. Mr Annan will not decide whether or not to travel to Libya until later this week and will go only if he gets an indication from Tripoli that the two accused, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, will he handed over. The UN Security Council has agreed to lift the sanctions when the men are handed over for trial. Although Mr Annan is optimistic, his UN team cannot predict how Col Gaddafi will respond.

In August, Britain and the United States offered a compromise to break the ten-year deadlock. They agreed to allow the suspects to be tried in the Netherlands rather than in Scotland, but under Scots law and with a panel of Scottish judges instead of a jury. Washington and London have hinted that they will push for a strengthening of sanctions if Col Gaddafi does not accept this "non-negotiable" deal, though they are unlikely to be able to command enough support for a full oil embargo. In September, the lawyers used by the accused were dismissed and a new team, including a former Libyan foreign minister, was appointed.

The former legal team, including the Edinburgh lawyer Alistair Duff, refused to guarantee that the suspected bombers would surrender for trial. Their dismissal was interpreted as a sign that Col Gaddafi wanted a legal team that would recommend that the accused accept the new offer from Britain and the US. The new legal team has had long discussions at the UN headquarters in New York with the UN legal counsel, Hans Corell, to seek assurances about their treatment.

It is understood that the only sticking point is the Libyans' demand that the suspects serve their sentences in the Netherlands or Tripoli if convicted. Britain and the US are adamant that they would serve their sentences in Scotland. Libya has said it accepts in principle a trial in the Netherlands. Col Gaddafi is under intense pressure from allies in the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity to accept the offer. It is understood that President Mandela of South Africa and the Egyptian government have been pressing him to accept.

Mr Annan said last week: "I think we have offered most of the clarifications and I had hoped we would be able to bring the issue to closure by the end of November. We are still pressing for that." This was interpreted by diplomats as meaning that Mr Annan is optimistic about securing a trial. He is in North Africa this week and will be in Tunis on Friday. He has scheduled rest time in Djerba, Tunisia.

[And here is part of an invited lecture delivered by me in the year 2000:]

Although the British proposal was announced in late August 1998, it was not until 5 April 1999 that the two suspects actually arrived in the Netherlands for trial before the Scottish court. Why the delay? The answer is that some of the fine print in the two documents was capable of being interpreted, and was in fact interpreted, by the Libyan defence team and the Libyan government as having been deliberately designed to create pitfalls to entrap them. And since the governments of the United Kingdom and United States resolutely refused to have any direct contact with either the Libyan government or the Libyan defence lawyers, these concerns could be dealt with only through an intermediary, namely the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Between 20 and 22 September 1998, Dr Swire and I were again in Tripoli and were able to provide to the Libyan government and the Libyan defence team a measure of reassurance regarding some of the issues that concerned them. However, we it was who (having received the information hot off the presses from a journalist in The Hague) had to inform the Libyan government that the chosen location in the Netherlands for trial was Kamp van Zeist, a former NATO base to which the air force of the United States still had extant treaty rights of access. I anticipated that this information would cause the Libyans to renounce the "neutral venue" concept in high dudgeon and complain of the lack of good faith demonstrated by Her Majesty's Government in selecting, or agreeing to, such a site. But they did not do so. This, more than anything else, convinced me that the Libyan government and the Libyan defence lawyers genuinely wished a trial to take place and that the concerns they had expressed regarding details of the scheme now on offer were genuine concerns, not merely a colourable pretext for evading their earlier commitment to such a solution.

On 22 September we had a further meeting with the Leader of the Revolution. On this occasion the meeting took place not in Tripoli but 400 km to the east in a genuine (not reinforced concrete) Bedouin tent in a desert location inland from the town of Sirte. Surrounded by sand dunes and noisily ruminating camels, Colonel Gaddafi, Dr Swire and I discussed the details of the British scheme. He accepted my assurance that at least some of the concerns that Libyan government lawyers had raised were unwarranted and that it would be worthwhile to continue to seek clarifications and reassurances through the office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarding the remaining issues.

Malta's interest in the Lockerbie case

1. From an item posted on this blog on 29 November 2009:

British MPs, activist say Malta should defend itself on Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

Two former British Labour and Conservative MPs have joined American political activist Noam Chomsky in calling on the Maltese government to defend the country's reputation.

Prof Chomsky and the British MPs are signatories to a letter sent to the government calling on Malta to support a demand for an inquiry by the UN General Assembly into the 1988 Pan Am bombing that claimed 270 lives.

The letter sent by the Justice for Megrahi campaign, which includes relatives of the victims in the bombing, is also signed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for 43 years, and Teddy Taylor, MP for the Conservatives for 36 years, said they had doubts about the original verdict. They said if the Maltese government supported a UN inquiry, then it could clear the country's name and help the families of the victims establish the truth.

Prof Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West".

He told The Sunday Times: "I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." (...)

The original conviction of Mr Al Megrahi had relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who said the Libyan had bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

But it has since emerged that Al Megrahi's defence team had argued in the recent appeal that the Maltese witness was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.

The former British Conservative MP referred to Mr Gauci's testimony when speaking to The Sunday Times. He said if "our friends in Malta" were willing to pursue the issue at the UN and seek the truth that may have been flawed by "a statement of a resident of Malta who appears to have benefited enormously from his identification and who then moved to Australia", then the government would help relatives of the victims, and itself.

Mr Taylor recalled Malta's role in the Second World War, saying "British people my age have a very special regard for Malta as a centre of brave and trustworthy people who were willing to stand firm against fascism".

Mr Dalyell said: "I have believed since 1991 that the Crown Office in Edinburgh should have respected the stated view of the Maltese government, Air Malta, Luqa airport authorities and the Malta police that no unaccounted for luggage, let alone a bomb, was placed on the flight."

Although Malta has always denied any involvement in the act, it remains implicated by the government's refusal to take up the cause.

When Mr Gauci said in the original trial that he believed Mr Al Megrahi purchased clothes from his shop, it provided the prosecution with grounds to argue that the bomb had left from Malta and then transferred to the fateful flight.

Malta had provided ample evidence to support its contention that there was no unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. But Malta's defence was trumped by Mr Gauci's testimony.

2. From an item posted on this blog on 29 November 2013:

Maltese minister believes Megrahi innocent

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

The Foreign Minister of Malta has revealed that he does not believe the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was responsible.

George Vella made the comment about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was found guilty over the tragedy which took place 25 years ago.

The claim is the most direct by a serving minister about the controversial conviction, based around the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper and his brother.

Speaking on Times Talk television programme in Malta, Dr Vella said the government did not intend to point fingers at one country or other, but in view of the evidence that was emerging, he personally felt that the case needed to be heard once more before new judges in the interests of justice, not least that of Megrahi, who died last year.

Malta had good relations with the countries involved in the case, including the US and the UK but it has also just signed a memo-randum of understanding with Libya to agree preferential rates for oil and gas, once the country is back on its feet.

According to The Times of Malta, Dr Vella said his personal belief was that the bomb which downed the Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie was a revenge attack after an Iranian passenger aircraft was shot down by a US warship in 1988.

Earlier in the programme, lawyer Dr Giannella de Marco said there was never any evidence to back the claim that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on an Air Malta flight from Malta to Frankfurt and then to London for the Pan Am 103 flight because all luggage on the Air Malta aircraft in question had been accounted for and there were no unaccompanied bags.

Dr Vella agreed and said that once there was no evidence that the bomb started its journey in Malta, one could never find Malta-based Megrahi guilty. Nor did it make sense that of two accused, one was convicted and the other Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima was acquitted. With regard to reward money promised to Tony and Paul Gauci for their evidence in the Lockerbie trial, Dr Vella said that at no stage did the Gauci brothers actually request money.

However, Dr de Marco said there was evidence that the statements by the Gaucis changed several times, there was talk of reward money and money was given. Tony Gauci gave several versions of his description of Megrahi. He said one could not depend on a person who was inconsistent and was paid at the end of his evidence.

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has repeatedly said that the type of bomb used could not have been loaded on an aircraft from Malta or Frankfurt as it would have exploded earlier.

Dr Vella, whose comments were broadcast earlier this week, is favourite to be named President of the Republic when Dr George Abela's term expires in April. [RB: Dr Vella remains Malta’s Foreign Minister.  The president is currently Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.] His comments on Lockerbie were broadcast earlier this week.

Professor Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said: "For a foreign minister to say that the verdict of a court of a friendly foreign country is wrong, is almost an unprecedented event. It is highly significant that the Foreign Minister of Malta has said this."

Double jeopardy again

It is interesting that the High Court of Justiciary has today granted the Crown the right under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 to retry one (but only one) of the persons previously acquitted of the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. This is only the second time that such a retrial has been allowed. Only yesterday I commented on speculation about the possibility of an application being made under the 2011 Act in respect of Lamin Fhimah.