Dewar acts to calm anger as Lockerbie prosecutor quits

Circumstances precluded my posting on this blog yesterday (Thursday, 18 February 2016). What follows is what I would have posted had it been possible.

[This is the headline over a report by Gerard Seenan in The Guardian on this date in 2000. It reads as follows:]

Scotland's first minister, Donald Dewar, yesterday moved to allay fears that the prosecution of the Lockerbie bomb suspects was in disarray by quickly nominating a replacement for the man who had been due to lead the prosecution team.

In less than six weeks, Lord Hardie, the lord advocate, Scotland's senior law officer, was supposed to lead the prosecution against the two Libyan suspects at Kamp van Zeist, in the Netherlands. But he quit late on Wednesday - and appointed himself a judge.

The move prompted accusations that Lord Hardie had left the families of the Lockerbie victims in the lurch, and led opposition politicians to call for an immediate review of the way judges are appointed, particularly the notion of self-appointment.

During an angry exchange at first minister's questions, the Scottish National party leader, Alex Salmond, accused Lord Hardie of letting Scotland down in the eyes of the world. Mr Dewar dismissed this as "over-dramatic".

By yesterday morning there was growing concern north of the border that Lord Hardie's decision would leave a vacuum at the heart of the case against the Libyan suspects.

The Scottish executive denied the departure would affect the trial and Mr Dewar announced he was recommending to the Queen that Colin Boyd, the solicitor general for Scotland, should become the new lord advocate.

Mr Boyd has played a prominent role in the Lockerbie case, appearing in person for the prosecution at some of the pre-trial hearings in Edinburgh and the Netherlands.

Roseanna Cunningham, the shadow justice minister, said many people felt let down by Lord Hardie's departure. "He has been responsible for key decisions in the Lockerbie prosecution, and the least he could have done was see this very important trial through to a close," she said.

Families of those who lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing said they were appalled by Lord Hardie's decision. Susan Cohen, from New Jersey, in the US, who lost her daughter Theodora, said: "I am appalled and amazed at a moment like this, that the lord advocate just decides to leave."

Lord Hardie recently came under fire over his role in the appointment of Scottish judges after a high court ruling that using temporary sheriffs was in breach of the European convention on human rights.

After the SNP claimed Lord Hardie had mishandled the incorporation of the convention into Scots law, the Scottish justice minister, Jim Wallace, gave Lord Hardie his backing.

Neutral venue Lockerbie trial inches closer

[What follows is taken from House of Lords Hansard for this date in 1998:]

HL Deb 30 July 1998 vol 592 cc1618-20 3.27 pm

Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will consider making arrangements for an international venue to try the two persons accused of the Lockerbie disaster under Scottish law in a neutral country.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) My Lords, although I remain committed to a trial in Scotland, I can confirm that I have considered alternative ways of securing my objective of bringing the accused to justice. We are currently involved in discussions of a highly complex nature and full consideration must be given to all the legal and technical aspects of such an initiative before a final decision can be made. It would be quite inappropriate for me to say any more at this time. I can assure the House that any steps that I take will be in accordance with my independent responsibility to discharge my duty as prosecutor.

Lord Steel of Aikwood My Lords, I should like to give a very warm welcome to the tone of the noble and learned Lord's Answer; indeed, it is the first sign of flexibility on the issue after nearly 10 years since the disaster occurred over Lockerbie. Will the noble and learned Lord at least recognise that there are many people who believe that if the authorities remain obdurate on this question there might never be a trial and we would never discover the truth of what happened at Lockerbie?

Will the noble and learned Lord accept that there is international unease at this stalemate and that the bereaved families themselves are pressing for the solution that I have put forward in this Question? Will he also recognise that citizens of some 13 nations were killed in this disaster, but that if the bomb had gone off either 10 minutes or 10 minutes later it would not have been in Scottish jurisdiction? If ever there was a major international crime, this was one.

Lord Hardie My Lords, I fully recognise all the points made by the noble Lord as I was involved in the Lockerbie incident from the outset. I was junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, when he was Lord Advocate, at the public inquiry.

I am fully aware of the concerns of the families but the primary consideration for me must be to ensure a proper trial in accordance with Scots law in Scotland. If that cannot be achieved, other considerations will be taken into account. However, the overriding consideration must be to ensure that whatever arrangements are made do not interfere with the ability of the prosecution to conduct the case without any prejudice, nor to interfere with the interests of the defence, and that both of those interests are safeguarded. If those conditions cannot be met, I shall not prosecute anywhere other than in Scotland.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie My Lords, many of us in this House will be reassured by the noble and learned Lord's repeated and proper preference for a trial in Scotland of those accused of the Lockerbie murders. We strongly support his reassertion of his primacy in this matter as the independent public prosecutor in Scotland with a lonely responsibility and not a collective one. We offer that support particularly in the light of the clumsy, constitutionally improper and badly leaked efforts of the Foreign Office to usurp the noble and learned Lord.

If he takes an irreversible step to hold the trial outside Scotland—we understand why he might wish to contemplate that, given the decade of agony and uncertainty that the relatives of the victims of Flight Pan Am 103 have endured—I hope he will understand that, in spite of our understanding of why he is possibly looking to a way forward, we must reserve the right to scrutinise whether any agreement he reaches brings the prospect of a trial closer or whether it merely offers the opportunity for endless further wrangling from Tripoli.

Lord Hardie My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble and learned Lord about the lonely office of Lord Advocate. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I share his concerns about the press speculation as to what has been going on. I have been assured by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that it is not responsible for such leaks. In relation to the scrutiny of the agreement, if any agreement is reached the terms of that agreement and any necessary orders will, of course, be made available to your Lordships for consideration. I repeat that my sole consideration is to ensure that the prosecution of the accused is in accordance with Scots law and will take place preferably in Scotland. It will not take place outwith Scotland unless my two criteria are satisfied. I referred to those criteria when answering the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon My Lords, I refer to the proceedings before the International Court of Justice raised by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States. I seek the noble and learned Lord's assurance that, in reaching his decision on whether the trial may take place overseas, he will have regard to the existence of that litigation because there may be an argument that it would be highly undesirable for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to agree that the trial should be held in the Hague, or anywhere else, if at the same time Libya continues the action it has raised against this country and America.

Lord Hardie My Lords, the proceedings before the International Court of Justice are effectively civil proceedings relating to the interpretation of the Security Council resolutions and the applicability of the Montreal Convention. I am fully aware that these proceedings are continuing. At the present time I am involved in drafting and revising pleadings for the next stage. If a criminal trial were to take place either in Scotland or outwith Scotland, there may well be a case for making an application to the court to assist these proceedings, but that is further down the line.

Lord Steel of Aikwood My Lords, I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I fully respect the integrity and independence of his office and welcome everything he has said this afternoon. Will he confirm that the Security Council resolution on this subject refers to a trial either in Scotland or the United States? Accordingly, in arriving at his future conclusions, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that he is in touch with his opposite numbers in Washington?

Lord Hardie My Lords, as I have indicated, there have been detailed, complex negotiations which have involved myself with people of equivalent standing in other countries and officials. Clearly I am aware of the existence of the Security Council resolutions. The existence of those resolutions will be taken into account in any agreement, should agreement be reached.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accept that calls which have been made in the past to Lord Advocates that evidence in this case should be revealed in advance of a trial are totally inappropriate and could be prejudicial to the accused?

Lord Hardie My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. It is not the practice of the Lord Advocate ever to disclose evidence other than in the course of a trial. I do not accept that it would be appropriate to disclose the evidence while there is the prospect of a trial.

Labour Government policy on Lockerbie prosecution

[What follows is an exchange that took place in the House of Lords on this date in 1997, shortly after the election of Tony Blair’s Labour government, between the new Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, and one of his Conservative predecessors, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie:]

HL Deb 25 June 1997 vol 580 cc1571-3

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their policy concerning the prosecution of those responsible for the murder of those on flight PanAm 103 and of residents of Lockerbie in December 1988.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) My Lords, the Government's policy in relation to the prosecution of any crime is that those allegedly responsible should be brought before the courts having jurisdiction for such matters in order that the accused may receive a fair trial.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not quite answered the Question that I put to him. As the new Administration takes up office and as the noble and learned Lord as the new Lord Advocate takes over responsibility for these matters, it would be helpful if a clear signal were given not only to this country but also to the rest of the world that the policy pursued by previous Lord Advocates will be maintained. Even in the absence of a clear answer from the noble and learned Lord, I hope I may ask him two questions. First, he will appreciate that as the public prosecutor in Scotland in that respect he does not share a collective responsibility with other ministerial colleagues but has a singular and possibly rather lonely duty to determine whether or not there should be a prosecution. Will he guard against any attempt, however well intentioned, to fetter that discretion for foreign policy or trade reasons?

Secondly, if the noble and learned Lord should determine at any stage that there should not be a prosecution in this matter, will he give an assurance that he will explain that to your Lordships' House? It is not just the relatives of those 270 people who died at Lockerbie who would like to know on what evidence the original decision was taken, but those of us who were involved in the prosecution and the original investigation, who have had our integrity impugned as conspiracy theory has piled upon conspiracy theory, would like the opportunity to reflect on how we would wish to take the matter forward.

Lord Hardie My Lords, I assure the House—as I did in my maiden speech—that I intend to guard the independence of the office which I hold. I assure the noble and learned Lord that I shall not allow anyone from any side of the House to fetter my discretion in any way. As regards reaching any decision, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, I was involved, along with him, in the public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Since taking up office I have had access to much information that was not available to me at that stage and which is not in the public domain. I can assure the House that I am satisfied on the information available to me that there is no reason not to proceed with the petitions. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the situation is still fluid in the sense that if additional information becomes available any decision would have to be reviewed. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord that should it be decided that no prosecution will take place I shall return to the House and make a Statement to that effect.

Lord Bruce of Donington My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any prima facie evidence indicating the identity of those responsible?

Lord Hardie My Lords, as the noble Lord may be aware, there are petition warrants which name two people. Those warrants were issued on the basis of information available linking them with the disaster which occurred.

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.

Prosecution policy over Lockerbie

[On the formation of Tony Blair’s Labour government following the general election held on 1 May 1997, Andrew Hardie QC became Lord Advocate. What follows is an exchange in the House of Lords on this date in 1997 between him and the Lord Advocate who had been in office in 1991 when charges were brought against Megrahi and Fhimah:]

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their policy concerning the prosecution of those responsible for the murder of those on flight Pan Am 103 and of residents of Lockerbie in December 1988.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) My Lords, the Government's policy in relation to the prosecution of any crime is that those allegedly responsible should be brought before the courts having jurisdiction for such matters in order that the accused may receive a fair trial.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not quite answered the Question that I put to him. As the new Administration takes up office and as the noble and learned Lord as the new Lord Advocate takes over responsibility for these matters, it would be helpful if a clear signal were given not only to this country but also to the rest of the world that the policy pursued by previous Lord Advocates will be maintained. Even in the absence of a clear answer from the noble and learned Lord, I hope I may ask him two questions. First, he will appreciate that as the public prosecutor in Scotland in that respect he does not share a collective responsibility with other ministerial colleagues but has a singular and possibly rather lonely duty to determine whether or not there should be a prosecution. Will he guard against any attempt, however well intentioned, to fetter that discretion for foreign policy or trade reasons?

Secondly, if the noble and learned Lord should determine at any stage that there should not be a prosecution in this matter, will he give an assurance that he will explain that to your Lordships' House? It is not just the relatives of those 270 people who died at Lockerbie who would like to know on what evidence the original decision was taken, but those of us who were involved in the prosecution and the original investigation, who have had our integrity impugned as conspiracy theory has piled upon conspiracy theory, would like the opportunity to reflect on how we would wish to take the matter forward.

Lord Hardie My Lords, I assure the House—as I did in my maiden speech—that I intend to guard the independence of the office which I hold. I assure the noble and learned Lord that I shall not allow anyone from any side of the House to fetter my discretion in any way. As regards reaching any decision, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, I was involved, along with him, in the public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Since taking up office I have had access to much information that was not available to me at that stage and which is not in the public domain. I can assure the House that I am satisfied on the information available to me that there is no reason not to proceed with the petitions. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the situation is still fluid in the sense that if additional information becomes available any decision would have to be reviewed. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord that should it be decided that no prosecution will take place I shall return to the House and make a Statement to that effect.

HL Deb 25 June 1997 vol 580 cc1571-3

Lord Advocate accuses Libya of obstructing Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a press release issued by the Crown Office on this date in 1997:]

The Lord Advocate, the Rt Hon Lord Hardie QC, today reaffirmed his commitment to bring the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing to trial in Scotland or the United States and accused Libya of prevarication and inconsistency in preventing this.

Speaking at the International Court of Justice at The Hague this morning Lord Hardie, who is leading the British legal team at the case brought by Libya against the United Kingdom, said in his concluding remarks:

“This is not an ordinary case. I remind the Court of my primary responsibility as Lord Advocate of Scotland. It is my duty to bring persons charged with crimes to justice. In this case justice is being delayed and justice has therefore been denied since Libya first refused to hand over these two accused in 1991. I want to discharge my duty, which amounts to no more and no less than the presentation of the case to a jury of 15 ordinary citizens chosen at random.”

Replying to suggestions that the United Nations Security Council, which supports Britain’s position, did not fully represent international opinion the Lord Advocate said:

“I will say only this. It is from the whole membership of the United Nations that the changing membership of the Security Council is drawn. It is the whole membership of the United Nations who have entrusted the responsibility of international peace and security to the Security Council. It is the whole membership of the United Nations who have agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. It is the whole membership of the United Nations who now look to Libya to implement the resolutions of the security council without further evasion and procrastination.

“On behalf of the relatives of the dead, on behalf of the people of Scotland, on behalf of the broader international community, who are watching these proceedings, I would urge this court to reach a decision which will expedite a trial of these men in Scotland or the United States of America.”

Earlier the Lord Advocate had said that while Libya had repeatedly talked about removing its constitutional impediment to the handing over of the accused it had done nothing about it. The Lord Advocate pointed out that several times in the past Libya had referred to action which could be taken to overcome these internal obstacles to extradition of its nationals. “If action had followed these words,” he said, “there would be no obstacle to a trial in Scotland.”

The Lord Advocate also repeated his offer to invite international observers to attend and monitor the trial and detention of the accused and stressed that any matter relative to the fairness of the trial could also be considered under the European Convention on Human Rights. He rejected as “offensive and without substance” Libyan claims that “incantations on the virtues and impartiality of Scottish or American judges are derisory” and underlined that the United Kingdom had been at pains to avoid making statements which prejudge the criminal case. He said “potential jurors are more likely to have been bombarded with ubiquitous reports, films, books and articles putting forward alternative explanations for the responsibility of the crime and suggesting the innocence of the accused.”

It is expected that the International Court will come to a decision on the case brought by the Libyans early in the New Year.

[RB: The case in the International Court of Justice was withdrawn by Libya after Megrahi and Fhimah surrendered themselves for trial. The UK and the USA had earlier sought to have the case dismissed on the basis that the UN Security Council Resolution requiring Libya to hand the suspects over trumped the Montreal Convention which entitled Libya to try them in its domestic courts. The Court resoundingly rejected the UK/US arguments (with the UK and US judges dissenting).

It was another nine months from the date of Lord Hardie’s statement before the UK and the USA agreed to a non-jury trial in the Netherlands, a proposal that had been accepted by the Libyan Government and the Libyan defence lawyers since January 1994. The history can be found here.]

QC: Crown Office "institutionally corrupt" - system "going to hell"

[This is the headline over a letter from Justice for Megrahi committee member Jock Thomson QC published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

Following the monumental mess made of the trial for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, Lord Hardie (then Lord Advocate) and the trial Judge (Lord McCluskey) engaged in a highly publicised spat - gloves and jackets off - it was to figure in the subsequent appeal.

Crown Office at the time, to the great fury of the Lord Advocate and the then First Minster (Donald Dewar), was described as being "institutionally racist". The Lord Advocate was told to do something about it - you must understand, there was a separation of powers in those days which Jack McConnell was about to change dramatically by appointing a career prosecutor/civil servant, Elish Angiolini, Procurator Fiscal, as Solicitor General - and Lord Hardie promptly declared Crown Office squeaky clean and attempted (pathetically) to point elsewhere to explain the alleged racism. At least he demonstrated publicly that the Office of the Lord Advocate was answerable and accountable, to the Executive and to the public.

Now we are told that Crown Office is "institutionally corrupt" (Scottish Law Reporter 17 October). What response from Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill or the Lord Advocate has there been to that extraordinary claim? In a word, NONE.

What are we to make of the deafening silence?

And yet, when all of Scotland's Judges, Lord Justice-Clerk Carloway apart, disagree with the Justice Secretary's proposals to get rid of corroboration, we are told that "Crown Office is angry and its spin doctors have lodged personal attacks on some of the Judges." (Scottish Law Reporter).

Who are these "spin doctors? Are we paying them to attack our judges? Are they civil servant members of Crown Office? Do the Law Officers have any control over what that say? Do they speak on behalf of the Law Officers, Crown Office or COPFS? Are they part of the MacAskill/Crown apparatchik? How dare they attack any judge? Which judges? Why not all the dissenting judges?

These questions,and many more, demand answers...
...but I won't be holding my breath.

We should all be very afraid. Our system of criminal justice is rapidly going to hell in a handcart.

[These faults within the Crown Office are also, of course, amply demonstrated in its handling of the Lockerbie case and in its intemperate response to Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of serious criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution.]

BBC renews attempt to be allowed to televise Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a report headlined BBC renews bid to show Lockerbie trial that was published on the BBC News website on this date in 2000:]

The BBC has returned to court in a renewed attempt to be allowed to televise the Lockerbie bomb trial.

Last month, a judge turned down the corporation's original request saying the Libyan defendents' right to a fair trial was more important than the media's right to freedom of expression.

The BBC, which is seeking to broadcast the entire trial on the internet and show extracts on BBC news programmes, has taken its appeal against that decision to the High Court in Edinburgh.

The BBC's [counsel] Roy Martin QC has asked the panel of judges, headed by Lord Kirkwood, to overturn the judge's decision.

He told the court the Lockerbie trial was of unique interest, nationally and internationally.

He added: "It is of international significance. There is clearly very large international interest in the trial."

The BBC argues that the former Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, was breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now a part of Scottish law, by not allowing the trial to be broadcast.

Mr Martin said the BBC would ask the court to refer the matter to the judicial committee of the Privy Council to decide on the differing rights to a fair trial and to the media's freedom of expression.

The BBC contests Lord Macfadyen's ruling that witnesses at the Lockerbie trial would be affected by the presence of cameras.

The judge had said there was the risk of witnesses not attending the trial in Camp Zeist, Holland, if they knew it was being televised.

There were also concerns that witnesses would know what evidence had been given, and that some might play to the cameras.

Relatives of the people who died when the Pan Am flight 103 from Heathrow to New York blew up in the skies over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, killing 270 people support Lord Macfadyen's decision however.

Spokesman Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the tragedy, said: "We feel in the case of this court, which does not have the power to subpoena witnesses except those living in the UK, there is a paramount need to avoid deterring witnesses from coming forward or from giving the fullest possible evidence.

"We had feared that broadcast televising of the trial might adversely affect the contribution from witnesses."

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 47, and Al Ali Khalifa Fhimah, 43, both deny conspiracy, murder and a breach of the 1982 Aviation Security Act.

At last month's hearing the BBC argued the Lockerbie trial, due to take place in Holland in May under Scottish legal procedures, should be televised.

The corporation's case centred on the decision by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, to allow relatives of those killed in the 1988 bombing to watch encoded pictures of the trial in four locations - Dumfries, London, New York and Washington.

The BBC said as they were physically outside the court, broadcasting had already been agreed.

But in his judgement, Lord McFadyen said there was a clear distinction between transmitting pictures to remote sites, to allow relatives to watch proceedings, and broadcasting to the general public.

[RB: The BBC’s appeal failed.]

BBC fails in legal bid to televise Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2000:]

The BBC has lost its appeal to televise the trial of the two Libyans accused of causing the Lockerbie bombing.

The corporation learned on Thursday that its court action to broadcast the trial on television and the internet had been rejected by the High Court in Edinburgh.

Two men, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 47, and Al Ali Khalifa Fhimah, 43, stand accused of killing 270 people in the tragedy on 21 December 1988.

All 259 on board Pan Am flight 103 from Heathrow to New York perished, along with 11 people in the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

The BBC had appealed against an earlier ruling which said the proceedings could not be televised.

The original request was turned down because it was judged that the Libyan defendants' right to a fair trial was more important than the media's right to freedom of expression.

The trial begins on 3 May [2000] and the BBC had hoped to broadcast proceedings live on the internet and show extracts on BBC news programmes.

The panel of appeal judges, headed by Lord Kirkwood, heard pleas from the BBC's QC, Roy Martin, that the initial decision should be reversed.

He told the court the Lockerbie trial was of unique interest, nationally and internationally.

The BBC had argued that the former Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, was breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now a part of Scottish law, by not allowing the trial to be broadcast.

It contested Lord Macfadyen's ruling that witnesses at the Lockerbie trial would be affected by the presence of cameras.

The judge had said there was a risk of witnesses not attending the trial in Camp Zeist, Holland, if they knew it was being televised.

There were also concerns that witnesses would know what evidence had been given, and that some might play to the cameras.

The corporation's case centred on the decision by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, to allow relatives of those killed in the 1988 bombing to watch encoded pictures of the trial in four locations - Dumfries, London, New York and Washington.

But in his judgement, Lord McFadyen said there was a clear distinction between transmitting pictures to remote sites, to allow relatives to watch proceedings, and broadcasting to the general public.