Legal dispute over role of Megrahi family in Lockerbie appeal bid

[This is the headline over a report by Greg Russell on page 14 of today’s edition of The National. It reads as follows:]

Lawyer says dangerous situation in Libya is an obstacle but argues

support of victims’ families should be sufficient for appeal to go
ahead

A legal row is brewing after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review

Commission (SCCRC) asked the High Court in Edinburgh to

determine if an appeal against the lockerbie bomber’s

conviction can be pursued by relatives of some of those killed in the

atrocity. Libyan Abdelbaset al Megrahi died in his home country in
2012, still protesting his innocence.

He remains the only person ever convicted for the bombing of Pan

Am flight 103 over the south of Scotland on December 21, 1988. A
total of 270 people were killed.

Previous court decisions indicated that only the executor of a dead

person’s estate or their next of kin could proceed with such a
posthumous application.

But the SCCRC wants to determine if a member of the victims’

families – such as Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the

bombing – might be classed as a “person with a legitimate interest
to pursue an appeal” if the case is referred back to the High Court.

It comes after solicitor Aamer Anwar submitted an application

earlier this year asking the SCCRC to review Megrahi’s conviction.

He said it was “extremely disappointing” for the victims’ families

to hear about the SCCRC’s latest move in the media.

SCCRC chief executive Gerald Sinclair said that since June it had

proceeded on the basis that Megrahi’s family was involved in the
present application.

However, he said: “Despite the Commission’s repeated requests,

the members of the Megrahi family have failed to provide
appropriate evidence to support this position.

“The commission has now reached the conclusion that the

current application is being actively supported only by the members

of the victims’ families, who would no doubt be prepared to pursue
an appeal if allowed to do so.

“The aim of the petition is to seek the advice of the court on

whether members of the victims’ families would be entitled to
pursue an appeal on behalf of Mr Megrahi if the commission
ultimately decided to refer the current application, as previous
court decisions have restricted this role to executors and the next
of kin of the convicted person.”

Anwar said: “With respect, we would submit that the commission

are wrong and that we remain instructed by members of the
Megrahi family as well as the British relatives.

“We have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both

via intermediaries and directly. Communication is hampered by

an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to

yesterday by the lord Advocate by way of an explanation for lack of
any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie
atrocity.

“Put simply, if the Lord Advocate with all the resources of the state

cannot make progress, then it is highly unlikely that we can to
travel to Libya in the near future to obtain the necessary
documentation. Nor will we expect the Megrahi family to put their
lives unnecessarily at risk to provide the required documentation in
what can be termed as a ‘failed state’.”

Sinclair said there were “a number of preliminary matters that

the Commission needs to determine” before it can decide whether

or not to accept Megrahi’s case for a full review. “One of these is
the need for the Commission to be satisfied that, in the event of a
referral, someone with the right to do so will be willing and able to
pursue the appeal,” he added.

Anwar said the Megrahi family had spoken of the risks they face

and said they would try to provide the documentation as soon as

possible. “We will continue in our efforts to obtain what the SCCRC
requires and in the meantime we will prepare for the petition that
has been lodged,” he added.

He said the victims’ families had as much right to seek a referral to

the Appeal Court as Megrahi’s family. “We would submit that there
is a fundamental duty on the state to protect the rights of victims
of crime, which includes the national courts responsibility for the
administration of justice,” Anwar said.

“If the long struggle of Dr Jim Swire, Rev John Mosey and many of the British relatives has indicated anything, then it is that they should not have to go through unyielding confrontations with the police and Crown Office just to get the necessary information in their fight for justice. The families of the victims should not now be denied a referral to the Appeal Court when the SCCRC had already considered there was a significant basis for doing so.”

Anwar said that over the years, the Megrahi case had been described as the “worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history”.

“A reversal of the verdict would of course mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent,” he said.

“There is also a very strong argument that, if there is a miscarriage of justice in a case, such circumstances ought not, for public policy reasons, to be exclusively for the appellant – or their family members in the event of death – to determine as to whether or not the Court of Appeal gets to hear an appeal and decide whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice.

“In the present case, the appellant, having abandoned his appeal, has left the Scottish legal system in a situation where a not inconsiderable part of the population believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the appellant.

Such views ought to be properly and openly tested in the Appeal Court. If the appellant is guilty, those who have concerns about it can have confidence that the matter has been impartially judicially considered and that the matter of guilt is beyond doubt.

“If the appellant is not guilty, the Appeal Court can restore confidence in the justice system by acquitting the appellant.”

Law officers should never close their minds

[A number of news media today have reports on yesterday’s announcement by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and Aamer Anwar’s response on behalf of the applicants for review of the Megrahi conviction. A typical example is The Scotsman’s Lockerbie families bid to fight Megrahi conviction.

A letter from Bob Taylor in the same newspaper today reads as follows:]

At first glance Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland seems to have struck a balanced tone on the question of continuing attempts to bring all those allegedly involved in the Lockerbie bombing to justice.

But many will be surprised at his remark that “not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in the case”.

Miscarriages of justice have often been identified by the vigilance of writers and journalists rather than simply the rigour of the official legal establishment.

He and his law officers should never close their minds to information that might come to light from many sources within and outwith Libya.

Nor should he be inhibited by any complex geopolitical factors which might get in the way of the search for the truth.

The Lockerbie controversy has moved on in recent years, largely because of the downfall of the Gaddafi regime in Libya.

Whereas there is still some doubt as to whether Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was involved at all, the emphasis seems to have shifted.

Who were the other culprits in the Libyan hierarchy, it has been asked? This now seems to be the modus operandi of Mr Mulholland and his officers.

But while some doubt might remain about Megrahi’s guilt, he cannot let that matter rest.

The case for an international inquiry under United Nations supervision may still be the way to establish whether Libya and its intelligence service was involved at all and, if so, was Megrahi 
simply a soldier carrying out orders from a deadly chain of command?

Applicants' lawyer's response to SCCRC announcement

[What follows is the text of a press release issued by Aamer Anwar & Co in response to today’s announcement from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:]

It was extremely disappointing for the victim’s families to hear of the latest decision by the SCCRC through the media.

We understand that the Commission has now petitioned the High Court, in terms of s194D(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to establish whether Dr Jim Swire or another member of the victims’ families might be classed as a person with a legitimate interest to pursue an appeal on behalf of Mr Al-Megrahi in the event that the Commission was to refer the case back to the High Court.

On 5 June 2014, the Commission received an application for a further review of Mr Megrahi’s conviction from my office. This application was lodged on behalf of two separate groups: the family members of the deceased victims of the Lockerbie bombing and 6 immediate family members of Mr Al-Megrahi.

The Commission stated today that since June it has:

“proceeded on the basis that Mr Megrahi’s family are involved in the present application. However, despite the Commission’s repeated requests, the members of the Megrahi family have failed to provide appropriate evidence to support this position. The Commission has now reached the conclusion that the current application is being actively supported only by the members of the victims’ families, who would no doubt be prepared to pursue an appeal if allowed to do so.”

With respect, we would submit that the Commission are wrong and that we remain instructed by members of the Megrahi family as well as the British relatives.

We have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both via intermediaries and directly.  Communication is hampered by an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to yesterday by the Lord Advocate, by way of an explanation for lack of any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie atrocity.

Put simply, if the Lord Advocate with all the resources of the state cannot make progress, then it is highly unlikely that we can to travel to Libya in the near future to obtain the necessary documentation. Nor will we expect the Megrahi family to put their lives unnecessarily at risk to provide the required documentation in what can be termed as a ‘failed state’.

The Al-Megrahi family have advised of the risks that they face and that they will try to provide the documentation as soon as is possible. We will continue in our efforts to obtain what the SCCRC requires and in the meantime we will prepare for petition that has been lodged. 

If the documents that are required by the SCCRC from the Megrahi family are provided in advance of the petition being heard, this will render the petition unnecessary and academic, as the SCCRC will be able to assure itself that the instruction does come directly from the Megrahi family. 

Clearly the Court is unlikely to entertain a purely academic petition.

With regards to the rights of the victims’ families to pursue an appeal, we would submit that there is a fundamental duty on the State to protect the rights of victims of crime, which includes the national courts responsibility for the administration of justice.

If the long struggle of Dr Jim Swire, Rev’d John Mosey and many of the British relatives has indicated anything, then it is that they should not have to go through unyielding confrontations with the police and Crown Office just to get the necessary information in their fight for justice.

The families of the victims should not now be denied a referral to the Appeal court when the SCCRC had already considered there was a significant basis for doing so.

It is submitted that the families of the victims have as much right to make an application for referral as the family of Mr Al-Megrahi.

Finality and certainty in the Megrahi case is unlikely ever to be achieved unless a referral is made to the Appeal Court.  

Indeed, the Scottish Government has itself stated that this is the appropriate course to be followed (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/cia-interfered-in-police-probe-into-lockerbie.22954217?):

"Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - 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.

As was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr Al- Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with."

Over the years the case of Abdelbasset Al- Megrahi has been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.

A reversal of the verdict would of course mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent.

There is also a very strong argument that, if there is a miscarriage of justice in a case, such circumstances ought not, for public policy reasons, to be exclusively for the Appellant or (their family members in the event of death) to determine as to whether or not the Court of Appeal gets to hear an appeal and decide whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice.

In the present case, the Appellant, having abandoned his appeal, has left the Scottish legal system in a situation where a not inconsiderable part of the population believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the Appellant.

Such views ought to be properly, and openly tested in the Appeal Court. If the Appellant is guilty, those who have concerns about it can have confidence that the matter has been impartially judicially considered and that the matter of guilt is beyond doubt.

If the Appellant is not guilty, the Appeal Court can restore confidence in the justice system by acquitting the Appellant.

SCCRC petitions court for advice on whether victims' relatives have legitimate interest

[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:]

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has confirmed that it has lodged a Petition at the High Court in Edinburgh, under s194D(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, seeking the opinion of the High Court in relation to a matter arising from the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

On 5 June 2014, the Commission received an application for a further review of Mr Megrahi’s conviction from Messrs Aamer Anwar & Co, solicitors. This application was lodged on behalf of two separate groups, the family members of the deceased victims of the Lockerbie bombing and members of Mr Megrahi’s family.

The aim of the Petition is to seek the advice of the court on the meaning of the phrase “legitimate interest” where it occurs in s303A(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Gerard Sinclair, the Chief Executive of the SCCRC, said today: “As we indicated in our news release of 6 May 2014 prior to receipt of the current application, there are a number of preliminary matters that the Commission needs to determine before it can decide whether or not to accept the case for a full review. One of these is the need for the Commission to be satisfied that, in the event of a referral, someone with the right to do so will be willing and able to pursue the appeal.

The Commission has, since June, proceeded on the basis that Mr Megrahi’s family are involved in the present application. However, despite the Commission’s repeated requests, the members of the Megrahi family have failed to provide appropriate evidence to support this position.

The Commission has now reached the conclusion that the current application is being actively supported only by the members of the victims’ families, who would no doubt be prepared to pursue an appeal if allowed to do so.

The aim of the Petition is to seek the advice of the court on whether members of the victims` families would be entitled to pursue an appeal on behalf of Mr Megrahi if the Commission ultimately decided to refer the current application, as previous court decisions have restricted this role to executors and the “next of kin” of the convicted person”.

No further comment will be made by the Commission at this time.

[RB: This is extremely disappointing. A document signed by six immediate members of the family of the late Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (including the executor of his estate) indicating that they wished to be conjoined in the SCCRC application along with 24 relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster was submitted to the SCCRC in June. The same six family members gave written instructions to Aamer Anwar & Co to represent them in pursuing the application. Apparently this is not good enough for the Commission. Since June, it has proved extremely difficult, given the current situation in Libya, to make contact with the Megrahi family. So now the SCCRC is proposing to treat the application as if it were on behalf of the victims’ relatives alone. The question is (and has always been recognised to be) whether such persons would be regarded by the High Court of Justiciary as having a legitimate interest to conduct any appeal seeking to overturn Megrahi’s conviction.

It is devoutly to be hoped that contact can soon be re-established with the Megrahi family and their wish to participate duly confirmed, whereupon this “legitimate interest” problem should disappear.]

“Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?”

[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of The Times:]

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC, said “. . . not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case” (“Lockerbie conspiracy theory is dismissed”, Dec 20). To quote the late Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?” The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission carefully reinvestigated the case while Mr Megrahi was still alive and found no less than six reasons why the case should be the subject of a further appeal.

That appeal, as Lord [Advocate] Mulholland will remember, was cut short by the return of Megrahi to his homeland, just before crucial questions over the Crown’s case, such as the anachronistic fragment of circuit board, could be re-examined in court.

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.”

Lockerbie lies

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of the Morning Star.  It reads as follows:]

On the 25th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on British territory, Steven Walker looks at the evidence that the wrong person was convicted of the crime.

December 21 1988 is a date etched into the memory of the people of Lockerbie and Scotland more generally as the night all hell rained down from the skies above them.

What followed was a criminal investigation which quickly became mired in rumour, suspicion and evidence that the wrong people were blamed for the terrorist outrage that blew a Pan American airliner to pieces.

It is widely believed that the truth is yet to come out about who was responsible.

Relatives of those killed in the disaster, together with the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who is widely believed to have been innocent of the crime for which he served a prison sentence and died two-and-a-half years after being released, are still awaiting justice.

There is a new bid to get a Scottish court to review the original court proceedings, which were suspected of being part of a cover-up involving the CIA and the British government.

The relatives lodged an application in June with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), a body that reviews alleged miscarriages of justice in criminal cases and has the power to refer a case back to the High Court.

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

Previous official inquiries have raised more questions than answers about who was really responsible for the atrocity.

The Lockerbie case has been mired in controversy almost from day one of the investigation.

Critics have long wondered what the truth is.

Despite unreasonable pressure from a variety of sources, investigative journalists have established that many issues are still not resolved.

For example, a local Cumbrian GP who was brought in to recover and label bodies scattered over a wide area tagged 59 corpses but discovered that in the official records later published the total had dropped to 58.

His personal credibility and professional competence were questioned at the inquest but he remains adamant that one of the bodies had “disappeared” with no explanation.

Testimony from an eyewitness, a local farmer, was ridiculed by police when he saw a large tarpaulin covering an item in a field being guarded by an armed soldier while an unmarked helicopter hovered overhead.

The official inquiry contained no mention of the mysterious item under cover or reference to a helicopter on site.

Another farmer at Tundergarth Mains, Jim Wilson, found his fields were littered with bodies and debris from the airliner. The mess included a suitcase, neatly packed with a powdery substance that looked like drugs.

Wilson was one of the first witnesses to give evidence when the fatal accident inquiry started in October 1990. Yet no-one asked him about the drugs suitcase.

Two senior CIA agents were aboard Pan Am 103. The fact that Major McKee and his CIA associate Matthew Gannon, formerly deputy CIA station chief in Beirut, were among the dead passengers has raised suspicions that the US and British authorities interfered in the initial investigation of the crash site in order to ascertain whether national security might be compromised by a Scottish police investigation.

Up until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 the received view among Western media fed by government sources was that Iran or Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

After Saddam Hussein had finished his war with Iran in 1988, his regime was sold weapons by US, French and British arms manufacturers eager to re-equip his massive army and make huge profits on arms sales. Suddenly, with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the West needed Iran’s support and the story changed to suggest that Libya alone was behind the bombing.

In August 1997, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a long article about Lockerbie. It cited a new credible witness named as Abolghasem Mesbahi. What he was saying contradicted “the Anglo-American thesis of the sole involvement of Libya.”

Mesbahi’s story suggested that the bomb had been loaded in single pieces at Frankfurt airport into an aeroplane to London. The head of Iran Air at Frankfurt at that time, a secret service man, had smuggled them past the airport controls. They had then been assembled in London and put on Pan Am 103 at Heathrow airport.

Some of the British relatives argue that the wrong man was put behind bars and that the truth about who murdered their loved ones remains elusive. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was found guilty of mass murder following a trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001 and jailed for life.

He lost his first appeal in 2002. The following year, he applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for a review of his conviction. An investigation costing £1.1m by the body led to a finding in June 2007 of six grounds on which it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

But perhaps one of the most compelling facts which receives little mention in all the confusing theories, missing evidence and attempts to thwart the legal process by the US and British governments, is that an Iran Air A-300 Airbus was shot down over the Gulf in July 1988 by the US warship Vincennes, which wrongly identified it as an attacking fighter. All 290 people on board were killed.

There are credible reports that the Iranians hired freelance operatives to deliver an act of revenge against a US civilian airliner. Pan Am 103 was downed five months later.

At the time Iran was being targeted as the new threat to Middle East security. Iraq had been supplied with arms by the US to prolong its war with Iran, despite Iran being cynically used by President Ronald Reagan to fund illegal payments to the anti-Nicaraguan right-wing contras in exchange for selling the Iranians arms.

It is not unreasonable to suppose the Iranians were not best pleased at being betrayed in the war with Iraq and then have their civilian airliner shot down, and thus subsequently decided to exact revenge.

Of course Libya paid $2.5 billion in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing, which strongly suggests Colonel Gadaffi accepted guilt for the atrocity.

But this ignores the fact that Libya was desperate to have sanctions lifted and admitting guilt for Lockerbie was the price to be accepted back into the fold to do business with the West.

But whatever the truth, Lockerbie remains a textbook case of a terrible tragedy in which the pain and suffering of relatives whose search for answers about why and how their loved ones died has taken second place to geopolitical manoeuvres and deliberate meddling in legal processes, and the murky world of secret service wheeling and dealing on behalf of governments with no respect for human decency. 

[A further report in today's Morning Star is headlined Megrahi conviction "must be reviewed".]

Fhimah not focus of "ongoing Lockerbie investigation"

[The following are excerpts from an article published today in the Scottish Daily Express:]

Prosecutors still believe former airline manager Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah played a part in the 1988 terror attack and are constantly reviewing the case against him.

Sources within the Scottish legal establishment insist that, if fresh evidence comes to light, he will be brought back in front of a court to face justice. (...)

Recently reformed double jeopardy laws now permit suspects, who have previously been acquitted, to face retrial for the same crime if any new evidence comes to light.

And an insider yesterday suggested the change in the law could put Fhimah back in the dock.

They said: “It has always been believed that Megrahi acted with others and prosecutors obviously thought they had enough evidence to bring Fhimah to court, but he was acquitted.

Their position remains unchanged and the case against Fhimah will probably always be open, always under review.

“He is not the single aspect of the current investigations as there are many different strands to consider.

"However, with double jeopardy now being what it is, if strong new evidence emerged, Fhimah could face another trial.”  (...)

Campaigners, including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed at Lockerbie, do not believe Megrahi was guilty and say the authorities bungled their inquiry. (...)

An official application to review Megrahi’s conviction has been lodged by six of his family members, and 24 British relatives of the victims including Dr Swire.

But solicitor Aamer Anwar, who is co-ordinating the legal bid, said: “The Lord Advocate’s speech in Washington makes for great sound bites with an American audience but lacks analysis of the essential facts.”

He accused the Crown Office of repeating “an age old mantra of the Crown of never doubting the safety of the conviction”, despite “many miscarriages of justice over the years”.

Mr Anwar added: “The case of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi is described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history for a reason.

“A reversal of the verdict would mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years, by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent.”

A Crown Office spokesman said: “Fhimah is not the focus of the ongoing investigation.

"However, if any further evidence against him comes to light, it will be considered as part of the wider inquiry.”

US and UK living "a monumental lie for 26 years"

[The following are excerpts from a report published yesterday evening on the BBC News website:]

Scotland's top law officer has met the director of the FBI to discuss progress in the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing.

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC described Friday's talks with James Comey as "very useful".

Mr Mulholland also revealed he recently met the Libyan ambassador to the UK. (...)

On Saturday, Mr Mulholland said he continued to believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was guilty of carrying out the bombing, and pledged to continue tracking down his accomplices. (...)

But his involvement in the bombing of the flight from London to New York has been called into question by campaigners who believe evidence in the case was manipulated to implicate Libya and divert attention away from Iran and Syria. (...)

The Lord Advocate said he was also keeping in close contact with the UK ambassador to Libya, who is currently based in Tunis, to get regular updates on what is happening.

The ambassador has been "able to get information for us which has been helpful in shaping our approach going forward." Mr Mulholland said.

Turning his attention to work with officials in the US, the Lord Advocate added: "I met with Director Comey of the FBI on Friday to discuss progress in the inquiry. It was a very useful meeting and the avenues of enquiry currently under investigation were discussed in detail.

"Despite the difficulties we remain hopeful that progress will be made. We reiterated our commitment to work closely together to make progress in Libya and elsewhere; wherever there is an opportunity we will be there. We will follow the evidence relentlessly."

Details of the ongoing investigation have not and will not be made public, the Lord Advocate said.

But he added: "What I can say however is that in addition to the lines of enquiry in Libya there are other lines currently being pursued outwith Libya.

"We remain cautiously optimistic that these lines of enquiry will bear fruit." (...)

An investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) led to a finding in 2007 of six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, paving the way for a second appeal.

But Megrahi dropped that appeal in 2009 before being released from prison by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds in light of his diagnosis with terminal prostate cancer. (...)

But earlier this year, Megrahi's relatives embarked on a legal bid to clear his name amid claims that his case is the "worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history".

Six immediate members of his family joined forces with 24 British relatives of those who died in the atrocity to seek, ultimately, a third appeal against his conviction in the Scottish courts.

They united to submit an application to the SCCRC for a review of the conviction, a move which could see the case referred back to the High Court. (...)

Solicitor Aamer Anwar, who is co-ordinating efforts to quash Mr Megrahi's conviction, said: "The Lord Advocate's speech in Washington makes for great sound bites with an American audience but lacks analysis of the essential facts."

He accused the Crown Office of repeating "an age old mantra of the Crown of never doubting the safety of the conviction", despite "many miscarriages of justice over the years".

Mr Anwar added: "The case of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi is described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history for a reason.

"A reversal of the verdict would mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years, by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent."

In a statement, the Megrahi family said it would "keep fighting for justice to find out who was responsible for 271 victims of the Lockerbie disaster."

Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, has also expressed his disappointment at Mr Mulholland's latest comments.

Dr Swire said: "For me this case is about two families, mine and Abdelbaset's, but behind them now are seen to lie the needs of 25 other families in applying for a further appeal 26 years after the event itself.

"We need the truth and Scotland's management of this case produced a verdict perfectly tailored for use by those who would seek to ensure that the full truth remains hidden."