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.

HMA v HMA: The Next Pan Am 103 trial

[This is the headline over a blistering article on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm by Steven Raeburn, the editor. It reads as follows:]

As the discredited Pan Am 103 case continues to crumble further, with damning revelations coming to light on an almost daily basis, the failure of duty by some of Scotland’s senior law officers over the years since the aircraft was destroyed is becoming clearer. Their actions and inaction is being exposed to scrutiny that reinforces the UN trial observer Hans Kochler’s conclusion that they amount to new criminal offences in themselves. 

For example, The Herald is quoting former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd this morning as follows: 

“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 directed to me. 

“I am satisfied that the Crown acted with propriety throughout the trial and endeavoured in this case, as with any other conducted in my name as Lord Advocate, to secure the accused’s right to a fair trial.”

Subject to some exceptions... This is crucial, and reveals the identifiable moment when the showpiece trial (or was it simply a show trial?) trial was corrupted. 

Leaving aside for the moment the numerous flaws in the handling of the case between 1988 and the commencement of the trial, co-accused Fhimah's solicitor Eddie McKechnie told me that the process of disclosure of these cables was tortuous. 

He said the Crown dissembled, hummed and hawed and delayed passing them over to the defence for months. (it was reported yesterday that the SCCRC threatened civil action against the Crown Office for the same reason.) As is now well known, the cables revealed only the useless testimony of CIA salaried informer Abdul Majid Giaka, whose evidence as a "fantasist" was dismissed in its entirety by the trial judges. 

What is not generally known, McKechnie told me, is that Crown Office themselves did not know what was in the cables until after the trial had commenced, because they had only been given redacted versions from the CIA, and hollow assurances from US intelligence that they contained key evidence that would stand up in court. In particular, they were told that Giaka could positively identify Megrahi and Fhimah and link them to the atrocity. 

The material in the cables was not evidence gathered by COPFS or Dumfries and Galloway police, as would normally be the case in a trial brought in Scotland. It was delivered on a plate fully formed by US intelligence services, a somewhat murky group of people not renowned for their honesty nor the integrity of their motivations. 

This point is rarely if ever understood or reported. It is often overlooked that Megrahi and Fhimah themselves were sourced and presented to the Crown Office by the CIA. They were not tracked down nor placed in the frame by Scottish investigators.

By the time the cable contents were disclosed, the trial arrangements were irrevocable and the geopolitical deals that continue to define this case were done at UK level in Westminster. Scots law was a passenger from this point, and a hijacked one at that. 

The revelation of the non-redacted cables is the key moment when the case should have been dropped by Lord Fraser, and where the criminal ineptitude begins. Everything COPFS has done since then (and the Scottish Government, to a more or less equal degree) is designed to shore up that mistake and the shoddy trial that resulted from it, and to deflect any suggestion of error, or worse. It was under Fraser’s tenure that key witness Tony Gauci was bribed, or rather, received “possible reward payments.” [RB: My understanding is that the payments were not made until after the Zeist trial in Lord Advocate Colin Boyd's tenure of office. There were, of course, inquiries, nods and winks aplenty long before that time.] 

Key Crown personnel can be forgiven for naiveté, but the mistakes that have been evidenced escalate from incompetence in the first instance, but morph into negligence, malfeasance and dereliction of duty as time has gone on and every opportunity to address and correct these issues is not only spurned, but actively blocked. The trial itself was tainted by the perpetuation of this error, as witnessed by United Nations Observer Hans Koechler. In 2005 he said that "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services," he observed at the Zeist trial were "criminal offences in any country."

He said that the "possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities." 

Successive Crown regimes have aggressively protected their own flawed conduct to preserve the personal reputations of a very few. The justice system has suffered, and a new culture of paranoia, fear and insularity has put the Crown Office in a permanent mode of lockdown. The late Paul McBride described it as a siege mentality, although in the real world, removed from the paranoid fantasies of the Crown Office, the only assault it has actually been under is from the truth, sought by bereaved families, and, as time has gone on, a growing army of observers including luminaries such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Gareth Peirce, Robert Black QC, Cardinal Keith O Brien and those who signed an online petition submitted to the Holyrood petitions committee by the JFM group, all of whom have looked at the case for themselves and staked their reputations against the need for an inquiry. 

A full re-examination of the case will reveal the truth of Pan Am 103. It will also expose those culpable in our system to ridicule and the damning judgement of history.

If Scotland retained an independent Lord Advocate and a mature justice system, rather than the current degraded, paranoid runt of the once proud system, indictments would be issued at once by Frank Mulholland against former Lords Advocate Fraser, Boyd and Angiolini. Mulholland himself would step aside and submit to his successor for criminal scrutiny. The fact that the case of HMA v HMA is unlikely to appearing on the rolls of court anytime soon demonstrates the scale of the problem our system now faces in respect of this case. Her Majesty’s Advocate requires to investigate itself, but will not. Does the ICC now beckon? We are through the looking glass now.

Pro-Megrahi backers flayed by new Lord Advocate

[This is the headline over an article by Magnus Linklater (whose views on Lockerbie are well-known) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads as follows:]

Scotland’s Lord Advocate has launched a powerful and stinging attack against “conspiracy theorists” who claim that the Lockerbie bomber was wrongly convicted.

In the most detailed rebuttal yet made to the case mounted by campaigners who argue that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent and that Libya was not involved in the terrorist bomb plot that brought Pan Am 103 down over Lockerbie 24 years ago today, Frank Mulholland, QC, calls the allegations “without foundation”.

He goes on to accuse those making them of uttering “defamatory” comments against High Court judges who are unable to respond. [RB: Justice for Megrahi has made no defamatory comments against any High Court judge.  It is not defamatory of the Zeist judges to say that they were wrong in finding Megrahi guilty. Lawyers all the time say that judges got things wrong (and almost every time an appeal is allowed, other judges say so too). And in the Lockerbie case even the SCCRC concluded that, on an absolutely crucial point, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Zeist judges reached.  JFM in its recent allegations of criminality was very careful not to say that then Lord Advocate (and now High Court judge) Colin Boyd had attempted to pervert the course of justice.]

Mr Mulholland, who has relaunched an investigation into what he calls an act of “state-sponsored terrorism” by the former Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, says that he has been through all the evidence and is convinced that al-Megrahi’s conviction was “safe”.

An outside counsel invited by the Lord Advocate to conduct an independent review of the evidence has also concluded that the conviction was sound. [RB: It would be interesting to know the identity of this outside counsel.  Here, by contrast, is a short list of eminent lawyers who have concluded that the conviction was not sound: Benedict Birnberg, Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, David Wolchover, Len Murray, Ian Hamilton QC, Jock Thomson QC, John Scott QC.  There are many more.]

“I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process,” Mr Mulholland said. “I saw a report on the BBC that [claimed] a high court judge — Colin Boyd, Lord Advocate at the time — perverted the course of justice. And it frustrates me that they’re not in a position to answer these allegations, these can be made without being challenged and without any real foundation.” [RB: At least Mr Mulholland does not here make the error of accusing JFM of responsibility for the BBC’s egregious misinterpretation of the English language.]

He compared the allegations to the uncontrolled media attempts to blacken the name of Lord MacAlpine, the former Conservative Party treasurer, over child abuse.

“I deplore any of that,” he said. “The appropriate place for voicing any concerns about the evidence is before a court of law, not in the court of public opinion, or the media. I haven’t spoken to the people who are affected by this, but I would imagine that they are frustrated that their reputations can be so easily attacked, and they can’t do anything about it.”

Mr Mulholland, who has been to Libya to make contact with the new regime, is hopeful that permission will be given soon to send Scottish police officials to Tripoli to gather evidence that would not only buttress the case against al-Megrahi, but reopen the wider plot to down the US airliner.

He believes that a criminal investigation rather than a public inquiry is the best way to resolve the 1988 Lockerbie case.

“I take the view that the calls for a public inquiry are essentially to set up a vehicle which would be a surrogate criminal court, he said. “I believe that the guilt or innocence of al-Megrahi is entirely a matter for the courts.”

He issued a challenge to the al-Megrahi apologists: “If you don’t like the set-up of the justice system, then what you do is you change it, through the democratic vehicle of parliament. You change the law.”

Mr Mulholland says he has studied all the claims advanced in the book Megrahi: You are my Jury by the writer John Ashton, and finds no evidence to support them. He urged those arguing that al-Megrahi was innocent to put any additional evidence to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

“Mr Megrahi stood trial before a Scottish court and was convicted by three judges unanimously, then an appeal, where five judges unanimously upheld the conviction, hearing additional evidence about the Heathrow break-in [the claim that the bomb went aboard there],” he said. “Having heard all the arguments presented to them, they upheld the conviction. Part of our justice system is the [commission] for which I have the highest regard. Anyone who is concerned about a conviction can make an application to the commission.”

He added: “The commission had access to all the Crown’s papers, and they took the view that in relation to a very limited number of grounds, the case should be referred back to the appeal court, which they did. The defence were entitled to expand the appeal beyond the grounds of referral, and they included a number of grounds which had been rejected by the commission, and the court was in the process of hearing that appeal when al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

“Now, whatever you think, and everyone is entitled to their view as to whether he is guilty or not, the courts took the view that following a trial and an appeal and a subsequent appeal, which was abandoned, al-Megrahi’s conviction still stands and that is the application of the rule of law.”

Mr Mulholland believes the evidence shows that the previous Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi was involved in “an act of state-sponsored terrorism”.

He is working with the FBI, the US Attorney-General and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pursue investigations. “We are applying the rule of law,” he said. “If you follow the evidence, it leads to Libya.”

Crown desperately fights to maintain secrecy of CIA Lockerbie cables

[On this date fourteen years ago, the Scottish Court in the Netherlands was still engaged with the issue of the CIA cables relating to Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka. Redacted versions of the cables had been made available to the defence, over the Crown’s strenuous objections. The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, was now opposing the defence’s contention that the redacted portions (or some of them) should be disclosed. Here is how the matter was reported on the website TheLockerbieTrial.com:]

The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, addressed the court this morning and defended the CIA's position on the three remaining areas that are yet to be un-redacted from the cables supplied to the defence.

He told the court that those areas concerned operational matters and the identity of individuals whose lives could be at risk if identified. He spoke of the unprecedented actions of the CIA in placing these documents into this or any other jurisdiction.

He also told the court that there was nothing in the cables, which supported the special defence that has been lodged by the accused's legal teams. The Lord Advocate then indicated that much of the cables' content is not admissible to the court, as it is gossip, hearsay or speculation.

The court heard that one of the names mentioned in the cables is that of Vincent Vassallo, the Maltese businessman who was a partner in the Medtours business along with Fhimah.

He informed the court that the Crown was given access to the unedited versions of the cables in the US Embassy in The Hague, but that those present had to undertake not to disclose any of the information and were not to take notes. He then said that the Crown had behaved properly.

Without elaborating, William Taylor QC for Megrahi told the court there were now "a number of routes available to the accused" which would have "repercussions for the court itself".

The court adjourned until Tuesday morning to allow the defence to take instructions from their clients.

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.]

Report fails to address crucial evidence

[This is the headline over an article by John Ashton in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads in part:]

The 821-page SCCRC report is impressively detailed and argued, but important areas of evidence remain untouched and it's clear the commission missed important facts that strengthen Megrahi's claims of innocence.

The most notable is the failure to consider evidence from the three airports that, according to the Crown, the Lockerbie bomb passed through: Luqa in Malta, Frankfurt and Heathrow.

The Crown case relied on documents from Frankfurt, which seemed to show that an unaccompanied bag was transferred from an inbound Air Malta flight to Pan Am 103's Heathrow feeder flight.

Evidence from Malta suggests this was unlikely, and there was also evidence from Heathrow, not available to the trial court, suggesting that the bomb was loaded onto PA103 before the feeder flight arrived.

The FBI played a big role in the investigation, yet the only FBI files to which the commission had access were the ones held by the Crown Office. During its four-year review the commission only interviewed one US investigator, former CIA agent Robert Baer, and failed to conduct any investigations in Germany, home of the Palestinian cell who were the original suspects in the bombing.

The report's 24 volumes of appendices contain some important information, which the commission failed to comment upon. For example, a police report concerning possible reward payments to star witness Tony Gauci also states that he gave 23 statements and was visited by the police more than 50 times. Only 19 statements were disclosed to Megrahi's lawyers and the details of most meetings have never been revealed.

The biggest omission concerns the key forensic evidence that convicted Megrahi: a piece of circuit board alleged to be from one of 20 timing devices supplied to Libya. Last month the biography Megrahi: You Are My Jury, revealed that a metallic coating ruled it out as part of one of those timers. A supplementary report noted the discrepancy but said it was not "significant". 


[Another article by John Ashton in the same newspaper headlined "The other prime suspect and doubts over conviction" can be read here (and here); and a report by Lucy Adams headlined "Lockerbie trial QC criticized" can be read here (and here). The QC in question is Colin Boyd (Lord Boyd of Duncansby) who was Lord Advocate at the time of the Zeist trial. The criticism is as follows:]

In its 821-page report, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) criticises Lord Boyd for his handling of CIA cables, referring 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.

However, the SCCRC said it was "difficult to understand" his assurances on August 22, 2000, that there was "nothing" within the documents relating to Lockerbie or the bombing which could "in any way impinge" on Giaka's credibility. It added: "The matter is all the more serious given that part of the reason for viewing the cables on 1 June, 2000, was precisely in order to assess whether information behind the redacted sections reflected upon Majid's credibility."

The Crown subsequently shared some of the redacted cables after demands from the defence. 

[I have previously written about this utterly disgraceful episode in an article published in The Scotsman on 23 July 2007. Today's edition of that newspaper contains a report headlined Lockerbie: Fresh plea to release Lockerbie dossier as 6 key doubts emerge.]

Call to clear up Lockerbie doubt

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2005. It reads in part:]

Lord Advocate Colin Boyd has asked one of his predecessors to clarify an apparent attack he made on a key witness in the Lockerbie trial.

Remarks by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who issued the indictment against two Libyans charged with the 1988 bombing, were reported in a Sunday newspaper.

Lord Fraser said he had attempted to correct the "erroneous interpretation" of his views on Tony Gauci's evidence.

He said he had written to Mr Boyd expressing his dismay over it. (...)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted of smuggling a bomb aboard the New York-bound flight on 21 December, 1988.

The former Libyan intelligence officer was found guilty after a trial by a specially convened Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted.

On Friday, Mr Boyd said that remarks attributed to Lord Fraser expressed doubts about Mr Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing to Megrahi which was used to pack the bomb suitcase.

Mr Boyd said: "It was Lord Fraser who, as Lord Advocate, initiated the Lockerbie prosecution.

"At no stage, then or since, has he conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to those who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service."

The lord advocate said that the position of the Crown both before and after Lord Fraser left office in 1992 had always been that Tony Gauci was a reliable and credible witness.

He said that the three High Court judges who saw Mr Gauci giving evidence said that they found him entirely credible.

Lord Fraser said: "I have already told the Crown Agent in two telephone calls that I have no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci's evidence."

"Indeed such was the thoroughness of the investigation and the way in which it developed that I probably would place greater emphasis and credibility on Mr Gauci's evidence than any of my successors as lord advocate."

He added: "As the present lord advocate wholly correctly asserts, however, any view of mine is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the judgment of the court.

"Three of Scotland's High Court judges heard him give evidence properly subject to cross-examination and they were specific in their conclusion that he was entirely credible."

Lord Fraser and the unanswered questions

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of the Scottish Review by the editor, Kenneth Roy.  It reads as follows:]

Two of the leading figures in the Lockerbie scandal have fallen off their perches within 13 months of each other. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man to have been convicted of the bombing, died on 20 May 2012, aged 60, and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the lord advocate who drew up the indictment against al-Megrahi and his co-accused, died on 23 June 2013, aged 68.

Few tears were shed for al-Megrahi, except by those – a small minority, though a significant one – who believed him to be innocent. In remarkable contrast, the tributes to his accuser, in the few days since his sudden death at the weekend, have been fulsome. Leaders of most parties, including Scotland's ruling one, have been at pains to assure us that he will be keenly missed from Scotland's public life.

Perhaps he will. He was certainly an ornament of it for long enough; and he had an enviable capacity for bouncing back from life's adversities. Just before Christmas 2006 he was charged with disorderly conduct on board an aircraft; two months later the Crown Office dropped the charge 'due to insufficient evidence that an offence had been committed'; and by August of the following year he was back in business as a member of the government-appointed Scottish Broadcasting Commission. This swift rehabilitation said much for his essential geniality and his popularity with the political and media classes.

In the general election campaign of 1979, which brought Margaret Thatcher to power and Peter Fraser into parliament as the member for South Angus, the young advocate (as he then was) took part in a BBC outside broadcast of the 'Any Questions' type. I was in the chair that night and remember him as pleasant but unremarkable. Three years later he became solicitor-general for Scotland and in 1989, at the age of 44, he was promoted to lord advocate. Not bad going, all things considered.

But the fulsome tributes should not be allowed to obscure important questions of continuing public interest about his record as Scotland's chief law officer (1989-92).

It was Fraser who was responsible for the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103; Fraser who issued warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans; Fraser who initiated the prosecution which led to the trial at Camp Zeist. And it was Fraser's opinion that Tony Gauci could be depended upon as the chief prosecution witness – relied upon to the extent that, without Gauci's testimony, the case against al-Megrahi effectively collapsed.

Did Fraser really think that Gauci could be trusted? Or was the lord advocate bounced into the prosecution of al-Megrahi and his co-accused by the US justice department? The architect of the Camp Zeist trial, Professor Robert Black QC, believes that improper influence was exerted on Fraser and that he bowed to it. We shall probably never know.

It was five years after the trial that Fraser, long out of major public office by then, gave an unguarded interview to The Sunday Times in which he cast doubt on Gauci for the first and only time. This is what he said (and never denied saying): 'Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say he was an apple short of a picnic. He was quite a tricky guy. I don't think he was deliberately lying, but if you asked him the same question three times he would just get irritated and refuse to answer.'

These comments scandalised the legal establishment. The lord advocate at the time, Colin Boyd, said that at no stage had Fraser 'conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to those who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service'. Colin Boyd challenged Fraser to clarify his apparent repudiation of Gauci. Fraser declined to rise to the challenge: there was no clarification.

William Taylor, the QC who defended al-Megrahi at his trial, went further: 'A man who has a public office, who is prosecuting in the criminal courts in Scotland, has a duty to put forward evidence based upon people he considers to be reliable. He [Fraser] was prepared to advance Gauci as a witness of truth in terms of identification and, if he had these misgivings about him, they should have surfaced at the time. The fact that he is coming out with this many years later, after my former client has been in prison for four and a half years, is nothing short of disgraceful. Gauci's evidence was absolutely central to the conviction and for Peter Fraser not to realise that is scandalous.'

Lord Fraser had nothing to say publicly about these serious allegations. But in August 2009, long after the fuss had died down, he gave a little-noticed television interview which was concerned mainly with al-Megrahi's release and the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's handling of it. In the course of the interview he again referred to Tony Gauci, but in rather different terms. I was so struck by what he said that I played it back and took a note of it: 'I have always been of the view and I remain of the view that both children and others who are not trying to rationalise their evidence are probably the most reliable witnesses and for these reasons I think that Tony Gauci was an extremely good witness.'

How could Gauci be 'not quite the full shilling' according to Lord Fraser in 2005, yet 'an extremely good witness' according to the same Lord Fraser four years later? Is there any way of reconciling these conflicting assessments of the chief prosecution witness?

After the death of al-Megrahi, and the Justice for Megrahi committee's clumsy attempts to revive interest in the scandal, it seemed unlikely that the truth about Lockerbie would ever be established. But I suppose some of us were clinging to a faint hope that, in his old age, in some distant memoir serialised by The Sunday Times, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie would reveal all about his pivotal role in the affair. Since, like al-Megrahi, he has failed to reach old age, that hope has now gone. The unanswered questions seem destined to remain just that: unanswered.

A murky web of lies

[Today marks the fifth anniversary of the release from HMP Greenock of Abdelbaset Megrahi.  

On this date three years ago he was still alive, to the annoyance of much of the media. However, The Scottish Sun published a long article by Marcello Mega headlined The dossier of doubt over Lockerbie. The following are excerpts from the article, as reproduced on this blog:]

The Scottish Sun today lifts the lid on a top-secret dossier that accuses Scots cops and prosecutors of suppressing seven key areas of evidence that cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission looked into the evidence against Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi - and found a murky web of lies.

The SCCRC's explosive report suspects the Scots authorities are behind a deliberate cover-up over the trial that saw Megrahi jailed for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Dumfriesshire town.

Now on the second anniversary of cancer-stricken Megrahi's controversial release from a Scots jail, we can reveal the commission has grave concerns over the evidence against the 59-year-old following a multi-million-pound, four-year investigation.

In the dossier - seen by The Scottish Sun - Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who helped finger Megrahi as the bomber, is described as an "unreliable" witness.

Police are also accused of lying in court while prosecutors - including then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC - are suspected of suppressing bombshell evidence that would likely have seen Megrahi walk free.

Last night Robert Black QC, retired Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the Lockerbie trial, told how he believes Megrahi is innocent.

Mr Black said: "Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber and these revelations further underline that.

"I said after reading the daily transcripts of the evidence at the trial and before the judges delivered their verdict that there was no way Megrahi could be convicted on the evidence presented.

"That the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith on a number of crucial matters that had not been proven by the Crown, remains a matter of profound concern for all of us."

Mr Black said it was now vital that a top-level public inquiry is held to get to the truth.

He said: "We need strong leadership now. We need to admit publicly that we got it wrong, and set about putting right that injustice." (...)

Seven key flaws

Denied fair trial

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission says Megrahi WAS denied a fair trial in their damning report.

They said the Crown suppressed from Megrahi's defence team statements showing how much key witness Tony Gauci changed his mind about crucial details over the years.

Maltese shopkeeper Gauci's evidence fingered Megrahi as the man who bought clothes in his shop on the Mediterranean isle that were linked to the suitcase carrying the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103.

The SCCRC report says Gauci was an "unreliable" witness but this was not shown to be the case in court.

They said: "The effect of all of these inconsistencies is powerful. The court was left with a distorted and different impression of the witness. In this way Megrahi was denied a fair trial."

Cop lies

The SCCRC found that police said in evidence they first showed Gauci photos of Megrahi on September 14, 1989 - when he had in fact also been shown them on September 8.

The report said: "This was not disclosed to the defence. There is no statement from Gauci produced, no police witness statements produced."

The SCCRC said if Gauci had been shown Megrahi's pic six days before he picked him out as resembling the buyer at his shop, then that ID was totally undermined.

Diary dispute

In its report, the SCCRC challenges the integrity of evidence given by retired Strathclyde DCI Harry Bell, who had a close bond with Gauci.

The commission found that events recorded in Bell's diaries didn't always match what he said in evidence.

The commission noted that Bell claimed the Megrahi photo shown to Gauci on September 14, 1989, was the first one. This was not true.

It also reveals Bell, DC John Crawford, a retired Lothian and Borders cop, and an FBI agent all made statements claiming that Gauci had talked of a "striking similarity" between Megrahi and the buyer.

But Maltese officers revealed Gauci was unsure, was coached and told to age the photos by ten to 15 years.

The report says: "This is different to DCI Bell's evidence at trial. It also implies the witness is unclear."

Cash for answers

The commission obtained evidence from police memos that Gauci was made aware from his first contact with investigators that his testimony could be worth MILLIONS.

This contradicted evidence given by Scots and US investigators at Megrahi's trial.

One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".

If a judge was made aware of this in another case, they'd tell a jury to discount the evidence.

Xmas lights lies

In court Gauci was vague about the exact date on which the clothes were bought.

The date was narrowed to either November 23, 1988, when Megrahi was not on Malta, or December 7, 1988, when he was.

Gauci said Christmas lights were NOT on yet in his hometown Sliema when the suspect visited his shop.

Cops said they could not find out when the lights were switched on.

But the SCCRC easily established it was December 6 - a day too early for Megrahi to have been the buyer.

The commission's report says: "It is clear that the police were in no doubt that Gauci was clear in his recollection." It adds "no reasonable court" could have concluded Megrahi bought the clothes from Gauci's shop.

Defence in the dark

It appears efforts were made to cover up key evidence that would have been useful for Megrahi's defence team.

The commission noted that early uncertainty on the part of Gauci was never passed over to the defence, nor was the fact that Scots detectives feared he was trying too hard to please them.

The fact a senior Maltese detective also considered Gauci to be an unreliable witness was never disclosed to lawyers representing Megrahi.

Evidence supressed

The SCCRC claims Colin Boyd QC, who was Lord Advocate at the time of Megrahi's trial and conviction in 2001, suppressed key evidence.

The trial judges maintained Gauci was "entirely reliable" on the list of clothing he claimed the buyer suspect purchased.

Yet a statement he made in 1999, and discovered by the SCCRC, saw him produce "a wholly different list of items and prices". This, along with many other files that could damage the Crown case, was suppressed. The report says Mr Boyd failed in his duty of disclosure to the defence.