Boyd stands on the burning deck…

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, now a consultant at Dundas and Wilson, has publicly defended the “robust” conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and claimed that he, his predecessors and successors in office were all “satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound.”

Boyd also rejected a suggestion published yesterday in The Times from Professor Robert Black QC that the three Camp Zeist trial judges may have “subconsciously” been unwilling to undermine the Lord Advocate’s judgement in bringing the Pan Am 103 case to trial, by returning not guilty or not proven verdicts.

“It’s a frankly pretty ludicrous allegation - a slur on the reputation of judges who are all very senior and experienced,” Boyd said.

“I had been in office for all of three months when the trial took place, so I could not possibly have been responsible for their appointment. Had I been, there is no question of my having a hand in influencing them. This is not the culture of the Scottish judiciary. I utterly reject the suggestion.”

“Every Lord Advocate from Peter Fraser to Elish Angiolini has examined the evidence at one time or another - six in total.

“All were satisfied that there was either sufficient credible evidence to prosecute or, in my case, and Elish’s, that the conviction on that evidence was sound. Not one of us would have prosecuted or defended the conviction if we considered that there was any doubt. The process was robust and the conviction sound.”

Professor Black’s suggestion was originally published some four years ago, and reiterated at a Q&A session following a public performance of David Benson’s one-man stage show [Lockerbie: Unfinished Business] at the Edinburgh Fringe on Monday afternoon. In 2007, Black said:

“It has been suggested to me, very often by Libyans, that political pressure was placed upon the judges. I don’t think for a minute that political pressure of that nature was placed on the judges.

“What happened, I think, was that it was internal politics in Scotland. Prosecutions in Scotland are brought by the Lord Advocate. Until just a few years ago, one of the other functions of the Lord Advocate in Scotland was that he appointed all Scottish judges.

“I think what influenced these judges was that they thought that if both of the Libyans accused are found not guilty, this will be the most fiendish embarrassment to the Lord Advocate."

In response to Boyd’s comments, Black said this morning that Boyd has overlooked that: “one of the six grounds upon which, after a three-year investigation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, was that, on the evidence led at Camp Zeist, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that Megrahi was the purchaser on Malta of the clothes that surrounded the bomb.

“Without that finding in fact, Megrahi could not have been convicted,” he added.

Lord Maclean, one of the three trial judges who acted uniquely as jurors in this case for the first time in their careers, in his only interview on the subject given to The Firm’s Editor Steven Raeburn in 2005, gave a carefully qualified and hedged defence of the unanimous split verdicts in the case.

“I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made and the verdicts we reached were correct," he said.

In February this year the Scottish Parliament was urged to undertake an investigation into the legal advice provided by the former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in her role as legal adviser to the Scottish Government over the Pan Am 103 debacle.

The committee highlighted errors in her legal assessment of the Megrahi case, and challenged “the quality and accuracy of the advice and information being given to the Scottish Government by Scotland’s senior Law Officer.”

In June this year Lord [Peter] Fraser was challenged by Dr Jim Swire to explain his position after he told an Al Jazeera documentary film crew that he accepted a key witness in the Pan Am 103 trial had been bribed by Scottish Police.

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will consider whether an inquiry into the affair is to be constituted in the new Parliamentary session.

[The glorious aptness of The Firm's brilliant headline can be gauged by reading the dreadful poem from which it is taken.]

SCCRC 2007 Megrahi report enters public domain

[With a fresh application lodged, it is worth recalling that it was on this date in 2012 that the Sunday Herald published the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s 2007 Statement of Reasons for finding that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Excerpts from an accompanying article by Lucy Adams were published on this blog. The Sunday Herald summarised the SCCRC report as follows:]

The SCCRC report criticises the former Lord Advocate who led the landmark prosecution. Colin Boyd QC, now Lord Boyd, was head of the team which has been accused of failing to disclose crucial information to Megrahi's defence team.

In its 800-page report, the SCCRC criticises Lord Boyd for his handling of CIA cables about a key witness.

The cables refer to Abdul Majid Giaka, an alleged double agent who was a Crown witness. Giaka identified Megrahi as a member of Libyan intelligence, but his subsequent evidence was rejected following revelations in the US intelligence agency's much-redacted cables that he had demanded and received reward money.

Lord Boyd originally told the trial there was no need for disclosure of the cables. However, the SCCRC said it was "difficult to understand" his assurances from August 22, 2000 that there was "nothing" in the documents relating to Lockerbie or the bombing which could "in any way impinge" on Giaka's credibility.

Lord Boyd rejected the commission's claim. He said: "I reject the suggestion that I or anyone else in the prosecution team failed to disclose material evidence to the defence. All of the relevant CIA cables were disclosed subject to some exceptions, principally to ensure that the lives of named individuals were not put at risk. They were disclosed as a result of a request from the court."

The SCCRC report refers to a number of occasions when it was not granted full access to security documents from the CIA. It was not allowed to disclose certain documents about the case – including one relating to timers found in Senegal which were similar to those thought to have caused the tragedy, and claims by former CIA staff.

The appendices contain a number of references to other CIA cables which have never been fully scrutinised.

The UK Security Services complied with all requests to share information with the SCCRC but said a number of documents could not be disclosed because of national security.

The six different grounds on which the SCCRC said Megrahi could have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice are:

Unreasonable verdict. Due to uncertainty over the date on which Megrahi was supposed to have bought clothes in Malta which were found among the plane debris.

Undisclosed evidence concerning the Gauci identification.

Undisclosed evidence concerning the date of the clothes purchase.

Undisclosed evidence concerning Gauci's interests in financial rewards.

Undisclosed secret intelligence documents –the documents' contents remain unknown.

New evidence concerning the date of clothes purchase.

The report refers to several documents which were not revealed to Megrahi's defence team.

Three of the undisclosed documents related to payments of around $3 million (£1.9m) made by the US Justice Department to Paul and Tony Gauci – key witnesses in the Crown's case.

Tony Gauci claimed Megrahi resembled the man who bought clothes in his Malta shop which were later found to be in the suitcase that contained the bomb which killed 270 people over Lockerbie in December 1988. His identification of Megrahi was critical to the prosecution case.

However, the defence did not know he had discussed and shown an interest in reward money before identifying Megrahi. If they had known, they could have challenged the credibility of the prosecution case. In its report, the SCCRC says: "Such a challenge may well have been justified, and in the commission's view was capable of affecting the course of the evidence and the eventual outcome of the trial."

The commission also found Tony Gauci had a magazine with a photograph of Megrahi stating he was the Lockerbie bomber three days before Gauci identified Megrahi at an identification parade in Holland. We now know that Gauci had it for several months prior to the parade.

Colin Boyd to speak about Lockerbie in New York

[There’s a treat in store for our US friends. Here is the text of a flyer announcing a forthcoming seminar at New York University:]

Thursday, April 16, 12:30–1:50 pm

Vanderbilt Hall, Room 216

CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR:

Prosecuting the Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing Case

Colin Boyd, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, discusses his experience prosecuting this famously complex and controversial case when he was Scotland’s Lord Advocate.

Lord Boyd is a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland, a Privy Councillor, and a Life Peer.

Lunch will be provided.

Please rsvp to monica.cortez@law.nyu.edu

[Here’s hoping that Lord Boyd’s address will be made available to the rest of us at some point.]

Reaction to Colin Boyd QC's forthcoming elevation

[The following are excerpts from a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald:]

Meanwhile, the news Lord Boyd is due to become a judge has provoked criticism.

He led the prosecution of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and was criticised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for failing to disclose information to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's defence. He rejected the claims.

When he resigned as Lord Advocate in 2006 there was speculation his decision was connected to the Shirley McKie fingerprint inquiry and Lockerbie case criticisms. He denied that and said it was just time to move on.

Ms McKie's father Iain said the news "took my breath away". He said: "That the Judicial Appointments Board should recommend to the First Minister that Lord Colin Boyd be appointed as a judge to the highest court in the land set new standards for being out of touch."

Tam Dalyell, the former MP and father of the house, said: "The fact he may well become a judge should not inoculate Lord Boyd from the obligation to answer questions on Lockerbie over the period that he headed the Crown Office.

"The Crown Office, and I would have thought Lord Boyd in his position in the Crown Office, have an obligation to address powerful criticisms of non-disclosure."

Angiolini succeeds Boyd as Lord Advocate

[On this date in 2006 the Scottish Parliament approved the nomination of Elish Angiolini as Lord Advocate, in succession to Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC (Colin Boyd). What follows is excerpted from a report on the BBC News website:]

MSPs have approved the appointment of Elish Angiolini as Scotland's first female lord advocate.

Ms Angiolini was nominated as Scotland's new senior law officer by First Minister Jack McConnell after Colin Boyd's sudden resignation.

Her nomination was broadly welcomed by MSPs at Holyrood but the Scottish Conservatives raised concerns about judicial independence. (...)

Scottish National Party Holyrood group leader Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the appointment but questioned the post's dual role.

Tory Leader Annabel Goldie also voiced "real concerns" about the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Cabinet being the country's leading prosecutor.

She said: "There is a real and visible conflict of interest."

Ms Goldie proposed a commission to examine the "proper separation of powers, responsibilities and duties" in relation to the post.

The Scottish Tory leader also questioned whether Ms Angiolini had the "breadth of legal experience" for the job and said she opposed John Beckett QC as the new solicitor general, because he was a Labour member. (...)

She [Ms Angiolini] said her appointment [in 2001] as the first female solicitor general had been "a huge leap of faith".

"It has been a privilege over the past five years to serve along with Colin Boyd as lord advocate," she said."He is a man of great integrity and has been a quiet revolutionary in setting about the way in which the prosecution has gone about its business.

"It has transformed over the past five years but that transformation is something which is a work in progress."

Announcing his intention at a press conference in Edinburgh, Mr McConnell praised Ms Angiolini's performance as solicitor general.

"Five years on, I have no doubt whatever that the appointment of Elish Angiolini as solicitor general is one of the best decisions I have made as first minister of Scotland," he said.

"Our prosecution services today are admired, not ridiculed.

"Victims and witnesses see justice implemented in the system, not delays or chaos."

[On the occasion of the appointment of Ms Angiolini’s successor, Frank Mulholland, in 2011, I wrote the following:]

This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).

The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.

Trial examines 'secret' CIA papers

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2000. It reads in part:]

The Lockerbie trial has been shown the CIA documents at the centre of a dispute between prosecution and defence lawyers.

Scotland's senior law official, Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, said the papers - which contain details of cable communications - featured new information.

He said the documents included remarks made by Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka, who worked as a CIA agent at Malta Airport and whom the prosecution wants to call as a witness at the trial.

Mr Boyd said: "This is the first time the CIA has produced evidence for a foreign court.

"It may also be the first time that cables themselves have been used in any court either in the US or outwith.

"It's been emphasised to me that the amount of information now in the public domain far exceeds that ever put in the public domain before by the CIA in relation to these events."

Mr Boyd said he watched last week at the US Embassy in The Hague as a CIA records custodian identified as William McNair undid deletions in the cables from Giaka, whom crown prosecutors refer to as "Mr Majid".

He said: "I can tell the court that everything Mr Majid is reported to have said in these cables is revealed except for three matters."

These refer to the identities of CIA informants and methods of operation.

Newly revealed information included references to CIA payments to Giaka and his request for "sham surgery" to secure a waiver from military service in Libya.

There is also mention of payments from the CIA he could receive in return for giving evidence.

Giaka has been living for the last 10 years under a witness protection scheme in the US and is regarded as a crucial witness against the accused men. He is expected to take the stand later this week. (...)

Arguments over the CIA papers have dominated the last few days of the trial of the two Libyans who are said to have bombed Pan AM flight 103 over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie.

The special court in the Netherlands was adjourned on Monday to give the defence time to consider the new information.

[RB: What follows is part of an account of the CIA cables saga written by me for The Scotsman  some ten years ago:]

The behaviour of the Crown in the Lockerbie trial was certainly not beyond criticism - and indeed it casts grave doubt on the extent to which the Lord Advocate and Crown Office staff can be relied on always to place the interest of securing a fair trial for the accused above any perceived institutional imperative to obtain a conviction.

To illustrate this in the context of the Lockerbie trial, it is enough to refer to the saga of CIA cables relating to the star Crown witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, who had been a long-standing CIA asset in Libya and, by the time of the trial, was living in the US in a witness protection programme. Giaka's evidence was ultimately found by the court to be utterly untrustworthy. This was largely due to the devastating effectiveness of the cross-examination by defence counsel. Their ability to destroy completely the credibility of the witness stemmed from the contents of cables in which his CIA handlers communicated to headquarters the information that Giaka had provided to them in the course of their secret meetings. Discrepancies between Giaka's evidence-in-chief to the Advocate Depute and the contents of these contemporaneous cables enabled the defence to mount a formidable challenge to the truthfulness and accuracy, or credibility and reliability, of Giaka's testimony. Had the information contained in these cables not been available to them, the task of attempting to demonstrate to the court that Giaka was an incredible or unreliable witness would have been more difficult, and perhaps impossible.

Yet the Crown strove valiantly to prevent the defence obtaining access to these cables. At the trial, on 22 August 2000, when he was seeking to persuade the Court to deny the defence access to those cables in their unedited or uncensored form, the then Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, stated that the members of the prosecution team who were given access to the uncensored CIA cables on 1 June 2000 were fully aware of the obligation incumbent upon them as prosecutors to make available to the defence material relevant to the defence of the accused and, to that end, approached the contents of those cables with certain considerations in mind.

Boyd said: "First of all, they considered whether or not there was any information behind the redactions which would undermine the Crown case in any way. Second, they considered whether there was anything which would appear to reflect on the credibility of Majid... On all of these matters, the learned Advocate Depute reached the conclusion that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special defence... I emphasise that the redactions have been made on the basis of what is in the interests of the security of a friendly power... Crown counsel was satisfied that there was nothing within the documents which bore upon the defence case in any way."

One judge, Lord Coulsfield, then intervened: "Does that include, Lord Advocate... that Crown counsel, having considered the documents, can say to the Court that there is nothing concealed which could possibly bear on the credibility of this witness?"

The Lord Advocate replied: "Well, I'm just checking with the counsel who made that... there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Majid on these matters."

Notwithstanding the opposition of the Lord Advocate, the court ordered the unedited cables to be made available to the defence, who went on to use their contents to such devastating effect in questioning Giaka that the court held that his evidence had to be disregarded in its entirety. Yet, strangely enough, the judges did not see fit publicly to censure the Crown for its inaccurate assurances that the cables contained nothing that could assist the defence.

First sitting of High Court at Camp Zeist

[On this date in 1999 a High Court judge sat for the first time in the Scottish Court in the Netherlands at Camp Zeist. The following are extracts from two reports to be found here and here in The Guardian:]

1.   The prosecution today won the first skirmish in the Lockerbie trial when a Scottish judge ruled that the two Libyan suspects in the Pan Am bombing should stand on conspiracy to murder charges.

In a significant victory for the prosecution ahead of next year's trial, presiding judge Lord Ranald Sutherland rejected a defence motion that the conspiracy to murder charges must be dropped because the December 1988 bombing which killed 270 people had not been planned on Scottish soil.

"I am satisfied that on the basis of what is set out in Charge 1, Scottish courts do have jurisdiction," judge Sutherland said. "When ... a crime of the utmost gravity has been conspired abroad, it appears to me quite illogical to say that we cannot put the conspirators on trial in Scotland, even though the conspiracy has been entered into abroad."

The judge also rejected a defence argument that that the suspects' alleged membership in the Libyan intelligence service was irrelevant to the case, saying "there is sufficient connection" to the men's background and the charges against them. (...)

The defence also wanted the description of the men as Libyan intelligence agents struck from the indictment, asserting that it casts doubt on the character of the defendants in violation of Scottish judicial procedures. The lead prosecutor, Scottish solicitor general Colin Boyd, rejected the notion that the court lacks jurisdiction and said the defendants' alleged membership in the Libyan intelligence agency was "the glue that holds the conspiracy together".

Mr Boyd also maintained that while the plan to blow up the jet was formed in Europe and north Africa, it was a "continuing crime" that ended only at the moment of the explosion over Scotland.

Legal experts said that despite the prosecution's weak showing on Tuesday, when Mr Boyd fumbled in rebutting defence arguments, there was a strong enough legal basis to support the court's authority to hear the conspiracy charges.

2.  Presiding over a pre-trial hearing at a specially-constituted court in the Netherlands, Lord Sutherland struck a serious blow at defence efforts by dismissing arguments that the two men should not face a count of conspiracy.

But he agreed to delay the start of the trial until May 3, and warned that witnesses appearing for the prosecution of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima could not be heavily disguised, despite fears for their safety.

Colin Boyd QC, solicitor-general for Scotland, had referred to the need to protect serving CIA officers as well as former officers of the East German ministry of state security - the Stasi - and a Libyan defector and witness named Abdul Majid Abdul-Salam Giaka, now believed to be living in the US.

Also included in the prosecution request were a Swedish intelligence officer, a Maltese woman translator, and a member of the British security services - "Mr A".

William Taylor QC, for Megrahi, complained: "It would be a travesty of justice and inevitably restrict the court's examination of those individuals."

Lord Sutherland said: "'The court must have regard to the demeanour of a witness, including facial expressions."

Granting the defence request to put back the start of the trial, originally due to start on February 2, the judge said: "It is abundantly clear from the nature of the indictment ... that preparation of the defence case is one of exceptional difficulty."

Over 1,100 witnesses and more than 2,300 documents are expected to be considered in the case against the two Libyans, accused of murder, conspiracy to murder and contravention of the aviation security act for their alleged role in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 on December 21, 1988.

Lawman's Lockerbie mission

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2000. It reads as follows:]

Scotland's senior law officer has continued his efforts to reassure members of families of Lockerbie victims in the United States over the trial of two Libyans accused of the bombing.

Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, is in Washington, where he addressed 20 families in the Office for the Victims of Crime. He is going on to meet US Attorney General Janet Reno in the Justice Department.

He will be outlining to her the protocol and practice for the trial , which is due to start at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands on 3 May.

The purpose of his visit is to reassure the families that last month's resignation of the previous Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, will not affect the prosecution.

Over the weekend he spoke to 50 families in Boston, Massachusets with the same message.  

Mr Boyd got a positive response from the president of the US families group, George Williams:

"From what I understand Colin Boyd was doing all the nuts and bolts to begin with, and that Lord Hardie was the head honcho but he was the supervisor.

"We feel that they haven't lost anything serious by losing Lord Hardie. We wish he hadn't gone, but we feel he's been replaced admirably."

Earlier, the United Nations said it had no plans to publish a controversial secret letter from its Secretary General Kofi Annan to the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi.

The document was written last year shortly before the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing were extradited to the Netherlands.

US President Bill Clinton has been sent an appeal from American relatives of those who died on Pan Am 103 urging him to put pressure on the UN to release the letter.

Some US relatives have claimed it contains details of a secret deal with Libya and they have written to President Clinton.

Bob Monetti, of US Families of Victims of Pan Am 103, said they want to see what is in the letter.

"It's incredibly bizarre for everybody to assure us that the letter means nothing and yet not to show it to us," he said.

Mr Boyd said he had seen the letter and would have no problems if it was published.

The contents of the secret UN letter would not prejudice the trial of the Libyans, due to start on 3 May.  

"I have seen the letter in the past few days, together with the annexe which is referred to in it," he said.

"Neither the letter nor the annexe in any way inhibits my responsibility, which is to prosecute and bring evidence in the case.

"I told the relatives that if it were to be published I would have no difficulty at all with that."

However, a spokesman for the UN secretary general told BBC Scotland that the letter was a private communication between Kofi Annan and a head of state and would not be made public.

A welcome, albeit grudging, change of tune

[On Tuesday, 6 November the following item appeared on this blog:]

In the (redacted) version of Justice for Megrahi’s letter alleging criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution that was released to the press on 23 October 2012, allegation no 1 reads as follows:

“1.  On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A B and C D] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”

A number of journalists have interpreted this paragraph as embodying an allegation that Colin Boyd attempted to pervert the course of justice. The latest of these is Kenneth Roy in an article in today's edition the Scottish Review headlined A High Court judge and an allegation of criminality.  This raises concerns about the standard of English comprehension amongst journalists, because the paragraph makes no such allegation -- indeed was very carefully drafted in order to avoid it. What the paragraph alleges is that two members of the prosecution team, A B and C D,  supplied to Colin Boyd information about the CIA cables which A B and C D knew to be false (because they had scrutinised the cables) and which they knew he was going to, and did, communicate to the court.  That is the perversion of the course of justice that is alleged.

I am disappointed when journalists attempt to explain or excuse their flagrant misinterpretation of a text by reference to its -- non-existent -- ambiguity. The paragraph quite simply does not say that Colin Boyd perverted the course of justice. To represent that it does is an error on the part of the reader, not the writer.

[In today’s edition of the Scottish Review Kenneth Roy’s article There is a greater tragedy this weekend than the disgrace of the BBC contains the following:]

Most recently, here in Scotland, we have had an allegation, published by the BBC, of criminal wrongdoing against a High Court judge; although the source of the allegation has assured this magazine that it did not intend to make any such allegation, and that it was based on a misunderstanding, we have seen no correction or clarification of it by BBC Scotland. How fruitily ironic that the man drafted in by George Entwistle to investigate the goings-on at Newsnight is none other than the director of BBC Scotland, who seems to be unaware of the need to correct an injustice on his own doorstep.

Boyd makes the Bench despite Pan Am 103 stain

[This is the headline over a report published on Friday on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads in part:]

Former Lord Advocate has, as predicted earlier this year, been appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice and will become a High Court Judge.

The appointment comes despite ongoing concern over his role in the Pan Am 103 debacle, where further questions surrounding the actings of the Crown Office in relation to disclosure of material evidence continue to challenge the conviction. New revelations have come to light only this morning.

"That the Judicial Appointments Board should recommend to the First Minister that Lord Colin Boyd be appointed as a judge to the highest court in the land set new standards for being out of touch," campaigner Iain McKie said at the time his appointment was leaked.

Former MP Tam Dalyell said the appointment "should not inoculate Lord Boyd from the obligation to answer questions on Lockerbie over the period that he headed the Crown Office.

"The Crown Office, and I would have thought Lord Boyd in his position in the Crown Office, have an obligation to address powerful criticisms of non-disclosure."

The appointment comes on the day Lord Gill [currently Lord Justice Clerk, number two in the Scottish judicial hierarchy] was confirmed as the new Lord President. [RB: Many, many years ago I spent some of the happiest months of my life devilling to Brian Gill, then a junior counsel and an Advocate Depute, before I entered practice at the Scottish Bar.]