Libya's prisoner transfer request

[On this date in 2009, while Abdelbaset Megrahi’s second appeal was ongoing, the Libyan Government submitted to the Scottish Government an application for his transfer to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Libya and the United Kingdom that had come into force on 29 April 2009.  A report on the BBC News website can be read here.

What follows is what I wrote on this blog about the law applicable to the transfer of Megrahi back to Libya on the day the PTA was ratified:]

Prisoner transfer: the relevant legal provisions

The relevant provisions of the prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya which was ratified today are as follows:

“Art 2(2): A person who has received a liberty depriving sentence in the territory of one Party may be transferred to the territory of the other Party, in order to complete the sentence imposed upon him. To that end he may express his interest to the transferring State or to the receiving State in being transferred under this Treaty.

Art 2(3): Transfer may be requested either by the transferring State or the receiving State.

Art 3: A prisoner may be transferred under this Treaty only if the following criteria are met: (...)

(b) the judgment is final and no other criminal proceedings relating to the offence ... are pending in the transferring State; (...)

(e) the transferring and receiving States agree to the transfer.”

The relevant UK legislation, which the Scottish Government would have to apply in the case of Mr Megrahi, used to be the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c 47), section 1 of which provided:

“(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where—

(a) the United Kingdom is a party to international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country of territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (7) below applies, and

(b) the relevant Minister [defined, in the case of prisoners in Scotland as "the Scottish Ministers"] and the appropriate authority of that country or territory have each agreed to the transfer under those arrangements of a particular person (in this Act referred to as “the prisoner”), and

(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements

the relevant Minister shall issue a warrant providing for the transfer of the prisoner into or out of the United Kingdom.”

This provision requiring the prisoner's consent was removed in 2006, but it is abundantly clear that, irrespective of the wishes of the UK, Scottish and Libyan authorities, Megrahi cannot in fact be transferred back to Libya without his consent since he cannot be transferred without his current appeal being abandoned and no-one but Megrahi can instruct the abandonment of that appeal.

"...there is a long way to go"

[The following are excerpts from two reports published in The Guardian on this date in 2000:]

Air controller tells historic court of final minutes of bombed Pan Am flight 103 
The final dramatic moments of Pan Am flight 103 before it exploded over Lockerbie nearly 12 years ago were recreated in a packed court yesterday at the start of the trial of two Libyans accused of murdering 270 people.

On the first day of the historic trial, the Scottish court in the Netherlands heard how air traffic controllers watched the radar blip of the doomed Boeing 747 shatter into fragments before it finally disappeared off their screens.

Questioned by Colin Boyd, the Lord Advocate, Alan Topp, descirbed how on the night of December 21 1988 he tracked the path of the aircraft on his radar monitor in the Scottish air traffic control centre at Prestwick, as the plane headed from London Heathrow towards New York.

Mr Topp, 64, of Troon, Ayrshire, said that at about 7pm he made contact with the jumbo as it entered Scottish air space. "Good evening Scottish, Clipper one zero three," he was told by the pilot, according to a transcript introduced in evidence. "We are at level three one zero." Those words were the last ever heard from the plane.

Lord Sutherland, sitting with two other judges, listened as Mr Topp described how at 7.02pm he first noticed a radar abnormality with Pan Am flight 103.

Just a minute later, according to a video recording of the radar screen shown in evidence, flight 103's blip fragmented into first three and then five discrete signals. "I had my radar opened out and you could see that one big bright square is made of up of several squares very close to each other," said Mr Topp.

"I had never seen anything like this happen before. Nobody had."

Several attempts to contact the aircraft were made by the air traffic control centre, but with no success. A KLM aircraft nearby was also unable to make contact with the plane, despite repeated attempts.

The court heard how Mr Topp called over his boss, Adrian Ford, 66, from Ayr, after a British Airways pilot, Robin Chamberlain, told him he had spotted a fire on the ground near Lockerbie. Mr Chamberlain, 52, told the court: "The closest I could put it is that it looked as if a petrol storage tank had blown up. If you imagine the things you see in films, it was like that - like a large explosion or a bomb - something of that nature."

At the air traffic control centre, Mr Ford immediately informed search and rescue teams that the aircraft was missing. "I said to the control there that Clipper 103 has vanished."

Earlier, the two Libyans, described by the prosecution as intelligence agents, pleaded not guilty to murder, conspiracy to murder and contravention of the Aviation Security Act 1982. They also lodged a special defence of incrimination and blamed Palestinian terrorists for the bombing.

In a statement read by the clerk of the court, the defence claimed that members of two Syrian-backed Palestinian groups - one of them a prosecution witness - had planted the bomb on flight 103.

The defence was submitted moments after Lord Sutherland opened proceedings against Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who surrendered for trial last year. They claim to have been employees of Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta.

The defence statement also named Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian, as one of 10 other alleged conspirators. He is serving a life sentence in Sweden for earlier bombings in Denmark and the Netherlands.

Abu Talb was an early suspect in the case, but investigators abandoned that line of inquiry. He is listed as one of more than 1,000 prosecution witnesses.

Seven other named Arab men, whose whereabouts are unknown, were described as formerly directors of a bakery in Malta,where the suitcase containing the bomb was allegedly loaded on to a feeder flight to Frankfurt, and from there to London.

The defence statement referred also to members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and to Parviz Taheri, who is another crown witness.

First to testify was Richard Dawson, a civil aviation air traffic controller who was on duty at Heathrow airport on the night the plane crashed in flames on to the Scottish Borders town.

Mr Dawson, aged 52, described the routine procedures for departures from Heathrow, and radar control technology which allows the controllers to track the aircraft. He confirmed that the doomed flight made its first appearance in traffic control records at 6.18pm on December 21 1988, identified as Clipper 103, and that later it was cleared for takeoff, leaving the airport shortly afterwards.

Watching the trial throughout were the families of the Libyan accused. In total, 17 family members, including the children of the accused, witnessed the first day's proceedings - 10 of Mr Fhimah's relatives and seven of Mr al-Megrahi's. Mr Fhimah's uncle, Milad Fhimah, said: "We are Muslim, we look to Allah, we believe in God. We are not upset, because it is true that they are innocent."

Bruce Smith, a former Pan Am pilot whose wife, Ingrid, was killed in the crash, said: "This is the start of the trial and we welcome it, but there is a long way to go."

Judges and lawyers
Lord Sutherland, Presiding Judge Ranald Sutherland QC, 68, is one of the most experienced judges on the Scottish legal circuit. He was appointed to the bench in 1985 and has been an advocate, the Scottish equivalent of a barrister, since 1956. He frequently takes charge of the court of criminal appeal in Scotland and is used to high-profile cases.

Lord Coulsfield John Cameron QC, 66, was appointed to the bench in 1987 and first became an advocate in 1960. He took silk in 1973 and has had a long and varied career. He has lectured in law at Edinburgh University and was a judge in the courts of appeal of Jersey and Guernsey.

Lord MacLean Ranald MacLean QC, 61, is the newest of the judges to the Scottish bench. He was appointed to the bench in 1990, although he has been an advocate since 1964. In his advocate days he was most often a prosecutor.

William Taylor QC, Counsel for Al Megrahi Since the early 1980s, Bill Taylor has been one of the most prominent of Scotland's defence QCs. He has won a string of high-profile cases, helped by his good courtroom voice and what is generally regarded to be an extremely agile mind.

Richard Keen QC, Counsel for Fhimah Richard Keen's courtroom gifts are every bit as prominent as those of Bill Taylor. However his relative lack of experience in criminal cases made him, for many, a surprise choice as Fhimah's counsel.

The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC Since Lord Hardie unexpectedly stepped down at the start of this year, Colin Boyd has led the prosecution team. As the former solicitor general for Scotland, he knows the case well. However, it is widely believed he will hand over the main prosecution role to one of his junior counsel - Alastair Campbell QC and Alan Turnbull QC - when the trial gets under way in earnest.

The beginning of the Camp Zeist fiasco

[On this date fifteen years ago, the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah started at Camp Zeist. What follows is an excerpt from an Associated Press news agency report published that day:]

The trial of two alleged Libyan intelligence agents accused of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 opened today before three Scottish judges at a special court on this former US air base.

A Scottish High Court judge, Lord Ranald Sutherland, opened the proceedings against defendants Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, who surrendered for trial last year following nearly a decade of sanctions against Libya.

Members of the court rose as the judges, wearing white wigs and dressed in flowing ivory robes with embroidered red crosses, were led into the chamber by a sentry bearing a silver mace, the ceremonial staff symbolizing authority in Scottish courts.

The three judges and one reserve judge took their seats on the bench underneath a Scottish royal crest bearing the Latin words: “Nemo me impune lacessit,” which literally means “None dare meddle with me.”

“It is time for justice. We want to hold the government responsible, not these guys,” said Bruce Smith, an American whose British wife, Ingrid, was killed in the crash. “I am convinced that they have a good case against the Libyan government. This should be the start, not the end.”

The trial began with the defendants and lawyers identifying themselves for the judges.

The sleek, state-of-the-art courtroom, built over the past year at a cost of $18 million to British taxpayers, provides computer monitors for all judges, lawyers, defendants, and clerks to view exhibits and follow the court transcript in real time.

Wireless headphones receiving signals from infrared transmitters were available for the defendants to listen to the proceedings via simultaneous translation in Arabic.

For more than 11 years, investigators of the world's worst airliner bombing pursued a trail of evidence across Europe and the Mediterranean to the defendants.

The proceedings, expected to last about a year, follow the largest international murder probe on record, with investigators interviewing 15,000 witnesses in more than 20 countries and sifting through 180,000 pieces of evidence since the midair blast. (...)

Camp Zeist, an old US air base 40 miles southeast of Amsterdam, has been declared Scottish sovereign territory for the duration of the trial.

It was chosen as the venue in a UN-brokered compromise following years of sanctions aimed at forcing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to hand over the suspects, who were indicted in November 1991.

More than 30 American victims' relatives were getting front-row seats in the public gallery, separated from the court by bulletproof glass. Many other family members could watch via closed-circuit television linkups to sites in Washington, New York, London and Dumfries, Scotland.

For the relatives, the long-awaited start of the trial elicited mixed emotions. It marked a milestone in their crusade for justice for the deaths of their loved ones. But it also raised doubts whether those truly responsible for the crime will be punished.

“I feel a sense of relief and a sense of accomplishment that we pursued it long enough and hard enough,” said Maddy Shapiro, of Stamford, Conn, whose daughter Amy was on Flight 103.

Nevertheless, she expressed concern that even if the men are found guilty, “whatever higher-ups gave the orders” won't be pursued.

“The people who are really responsible are who we are after,” said Kathleen Flynn of Montville, NJ, whose son, John Patrick Flynn, was among the victims.

Relatives believe the bombing plot involved senior figures in the Libyan government as well as other terrorist organizations.

They have also voiced worry over reports that the prosecution case suffered setbacks as a result of contradictory witness statements and inconsistencies in the evidence against the Libyans.

Prosecutors allege that the defendants planted the suitcase rigged with a plastic explosive onto a flight from the Mediterranean island of Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred as unaccompanied luggage onto a feeder flight connecting with Pan Am 103 at Heathrow.

According to Scottish legal experts, the prosecution has no eyewitness who can establish incontrovertibly that the defendants planted a suitcase bomb aboard the doomed airliner.

[Contemporaneous reports on the BBC News website can be read here and here; and the detailed report on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website can be read here.

A diary entry by Dr Jim Swire reads as follows:]

Neither of us [Dr Swire and his wife, Jane] slept last night. Today is the first day of the trial and we both tossed and turned, thinking about Flora. I am acutely aware that I have been on the verge of obsession for a long time. When Flora died, I was engulfed in raw pain. But that has turned to determination for justice. I worry about the effect on my family. I have put such pressure on Jane and yet she has shown such strength. I worry, too, about my children, Catherine and William. They loved their sister dearly but there must be times when they have felt frustrated that the family's focus is forever on Flora. Times when they have wanted to scream: "We are still here." But I know they are with me.

It is stiflingly hot, 77F. We had both brought warm clothes but thankfully Jane has found some short-sleeved shirts. We hold hands as we walk into court. Jane tells me later that she was struck by how the defendants have aged. They are greyer, more gaunt. She says she had an overwhelming desire to walk over, bend down and quietly ask: "Did you do it? Did you take Flora from me?"

She is constantly plagued by thoughts of Flora's last moments. Those 30 seconds it took to fall to earth. She has counted them out many times in the kitchen of our home. She cannot get over not being with her firstborn when Flora needed her most.

I gaze at the defendants. Did they do it? I don't know. I have chosen my seat with care - directly behind the witness stand so that the judges are reminded that I am here. I am utterly taken aback when a special defence is launched. The defendants have cited two organisations and 10 individuals whom they say were responsible for the bomb. I had thought that the trial would cut through the conspiracy theories.

I listen to the details of how the bomb was allegedly planted. Again, I wonder if Flora is proud of me. I have prevented your death becoming a mere statistic, I tell her. I think of the last time I saw her. I insisted on seeing her body. I touched the little mole on her toe and cut a lock of her hair. But she was so lifeless. I think of how she would be now had she lived. A glittering career, babies. Anger wells and I clasp Jane's hand.

Outside the court, there is a round of quick-fire questions from reporters. I sat up late last night learning a statement but my bottle goes and I read it instead. I am grateful for their intelligent and gentle questions.

When we get home we eat scrambled eggs and fall onto our mattress from exhaustion. We knew today would be tough. There will be a whole year of this for me.

Found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves...

[What follows is an excerpt from a column by Richard Ingrams published in The Independent on this date in 2009:]

There is never enough evidence

We are not looking for anyone else. That is the traditional response of the police when faced with the acquittal of men they are convinced were guilty all along. They were at it again this week when three men accused of assisting the 7 July suicide bombers were found not guilty. Andy Hayman, former commissioner of Special Operations at Scotland Yard, wrote of "a sense of bitter disappointment" at the acquittal of the men. And this he said was probably "the last throw of the dice". The police had done a very thorough investigation but the evidence was "not convincing enough".

The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.

The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.

Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.

No positive identification of Megrahi

[What follows is a report published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.

A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

The clothes were found to have been in a suitcase which housed the bomb that blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the skies over the Dumfriesshire town in December 1988 killing 270 people.

Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.

She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."

The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001.

Megrahi (57) whose health is "deteriorating" as he suffers from prostate cancer, is appealling against the conviction claiming he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He was jailed for life following the guilty finding and ordered to serve at least 27 years for the mass murder.

Megrahi has previous unsuccessfully challenged his conviction, but his case has now been referred back to the appeal court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which examines alleged miscarriages of justice.

His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.

"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.

She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.

Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.

She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.

The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."

Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".

She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.

"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.

Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.

She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.

Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.

The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."

The hearing before five judges continues.

Identify a foreign “bad guy” and then exaggerate his faults

[What follows is excerpted from a long article published yesterday on the Consortium News website, authored by its editor, Robert Parry:]

What Americans should have learned from Iraq was that just because the neocons and their liberal-interventionist friends identify a foreign “bad guy” – and then exaggerate his faults – doesn’t mean that his violent removal is the best idea. It might actually lead to something worse. There is wisdom in the doctor’s oath, “first, do no harm,” and there’s truth in the old warning that before you tear down a wall, you should ask why someone built it in the first place.

However, in the propaganda world of Official Washington, a different lesson was learned: that it is easy to create designated villains and no one of importance will dare challenge the wisdom of removing that villain through another “regime change.”

Instead of the neocons and their liberal helpers being held accountable and removed from the corridors of power, they entrenched themselves more deeply inside the US government, mainstream media and big-name think tanks. They also found new allies among the self-righteous “human rights” community espousing the theory of “responsibility to protect” or “R2P.” (...)

In 2011, the R2Pers, as the neocons’ junior partners, largely initiated the US-orchestrated “regime change” in Libya, which starred Muammar Gaddafi in a returning role as “the world’s most dangerous man.” All the old terror charges against him were resurrected, including some like the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that he very likely didn’t do. But, again, no one wanted to quibble because that would make you a “Gaddafi apologist.”

So, to the gleeful delight of Secretary of State Clinton, Gaddafi was overthrown, captured, beaten, sodomized with a knife, and then murdered. Clinton made no effort to conceal her glee. “We came, we saw, he died,” she joked at the news of his murder (although it was not clear that she knew all the grisly details at the time).

But Gaddafi’s demise did not bring Nirvana to Libya. Indeed, Gaddafi’s warning about the need to attack Islamic terrorists operating in eastern Libya – his military offensive that led to the R2P demand that Obama intervene militarily to stop Gaddafi – proved to be prophetic.

Extremists grabbed control of much of Libya. They overran the US consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. A civil war has now spread anarchy and mayhem across Libya and nearby countries.

Libya also now has its own branch of the Islamic State, which videotaped its beheadings of Coptic Christians along a beach on the Mediterranean Sea, a sickening sign of what could be expected after a possible Syrian “regime change” next.

Encouraged by senior civil servants to apply for prisoner transfer

[What follows is a report published in the edition of The Times for 30 April 2009:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must decide whether to apply to serve the rest of his sentence at home in Libya, surrounded by his family, or remaining in a Scottish jail and attempt to clear his name.

The choice comes after Britain ratified a long-awaited prisoner transfer agreement with Libya yesterday. In order to pursue a move to a Libyan jail, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has continually protested his innocence and is dying of cancer, would have to abandon his appeal, which began on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal, in Edinburgh.

Last year it emerged that al-Megrahi has prostate cancer, which has now reportedly spread to his bones. On Tuesday, Margaret Scott, QC, counsel for the Libyan, told appeal judges that his health was deteriorating and that he would require frequent breaks from watching the proceedings via a live link to Greenock prison, where he is being held.

Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years after being convicted in 2001 of the atrocity.

All 259 men, women and children on board Pan Am Flight 103 died, along with 11 residents of the Scottish Borders town who were killed by falling wreckage.

A spokesman for the [UK government] Ministry of Justice confirmed yesterday that the prisoner transfer agreement had now come into effect. “The instruments of ratification have been exchanged and the agreement is now in force,” he added.

Last night al-Megrahi's legal team refused to be drawn on whether or not he will apply for a transfer. Should he do so, the decision will ultimately be made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary.

Although the transfer deal, negotiated between Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in 2007, caused a furious cross-border row when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted that Scotland should have been consulted, the fate of prisoners in Scottish jails remains a devolved matter. A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said: “It would be for Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prison transfer in relation to any prisoners in Scotland.

“We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision. Scottish ministers judge each application on its own merits,” she added.

[A report published in The Herald on the same date contains the following:]

In a tacit acknowledgement that Megrahi is likely to be allowed to return home, the Crown Office wrote to all relatives of the victims two weeks ago explaining the transfer process.

Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement was ratified.

Megrahi, whose case was referred back for a fresh appeal in June 2007 because it "may be a miscarriage of justice", is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and relatives and campaigners are concerned that he will not survive the appeal, which is expected to last at least 12 months - partly because the court will be sitting for only four days a week on alternate months.

His request for interim bail was last year turned down by three appeal court judges.

"No reasonable jury could have drawn the critical inferences"

[What follows is the text of an article by Lucy Adams published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

The son of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was in court yesterday alongside Libyan lawyers, international observers and the relatives of the victims, to hear the first day of his father’s new appeal.

Khalid al Megrahi, 22, the eldest son of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was present to hear his father's case to clear his name at the Court of Criminal appeal in Edinburgh.

Senior judges heard that the health of Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, has deteriorated and that he would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings.

Megrahi, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, will be watching the appeal at HMP Greenock through a live video link. However, Margaret Scott QC, his defence advocate, said he would need to take breaks and attend medical appointments during the appeal.

Megrahi, 57, is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years after being convicted in 2001 of bombing Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 and murdering 270 people.

He lost his appeal in 2002 but was referred back to the courts in June 2007 by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) whose three-and-a-half year investigation found that his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice on six different grounds.

Beginning legal submissions on Megrahi's behalf, Ms Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."

She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was involved in the crime.

"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said. She told them that Megrahi would require to take breaks due to pain and is to see doctors later this week over a new course of treatment. (...)

In the gallery were a number of relatives of victims of the tragedy, including Dr Jim Swire, the Reverend John Mosey, and Hairat Ade-Balogun, an international observer for the UN.

Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".

These were that Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing 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 was "ingested" at Luqa airport in Malta.

But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.

"No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty," she said.

She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.

Megrahi's request for interim bail was last year turned down by three appeal court judges and there is concern that he may not survive the lengthy appeal process.

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK, which was signed by Westminster last year and is due to be ratified shortly, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. [RB: The PTA was ratified that very day, 29 April 2009.] Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.

Libyan officials say they have been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified.

[A report in The Scotsman concentrates on the difference in attitude towards Megrahi and his appeal between US and UK relatives of Lockerbie victims. The most informative account of the first day of the appeal, and of the background to it, is that of Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer (whose new blog PT35B should be followed by anyone interested in the Lockerbie case) which can be found here.]