Crown Office musical chairs

Posted from Istanbul Atatürk Airport:

In the course of my great trek from the Roggeveld Karoo to Edinburgh, I have belatedly discovered (a) that the Crown Agent, the civil service head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service, has resigned and (b) that the ministerial head of that department, the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, has announced that he will demit office after the Scottish Parliament elections to be held on 5 May 2016. 

Have the Megrahi case and the imminent submission by Police Scotland of the Operation Sandwood report on Justice for Megrahi’s nine allegation of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial any bearing on these departures? Who knows? And I have no doubt that the Crown Office would scathingly reject the suggestion. (Indeed, I see that it has done so.) Iain McKie makes some highly pertinent comments here.

As far as the replacement Lord Advocate is concerned, what I wrote when Mr Mulholland was appointed in 2011 is equally applicable to his successor:

“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.”

The present Solicitor General for Scotland, Lesley Thomson, like Frank Mulholland, was appointed from within the ranks of Crown Office staffers. It would be a grave mistake for her to be promoted to Lord Advocate.

The issue is public confidence in the administration of criminal justice

[Yesterday’s Justice for Megrahi press conference gets extensive coverage in the media today. Here are two samples:]

From The National:

Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 have said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the Crown Office should play no part in considering a Police Scotland report into criminal allegations they have made over the case.

And Len Murray, a leading figure in Scottish legal circles, said Mulholland’s position was “untenable”, although any question of resignation was a matter for him. (...)

JfM made nine allegations of criminality in September 2012 against police, Crown Office officials and forensic scientists involved in the original investigation into the bombing and the subsequent trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. They included perjury and perverting the course of justice.

However, JfM said the Lord Advocate and Crown Office personnel subsequently described them as “conspiracy theorists” and dismissed the allegations as “defamatory and entirely unfounded”.

“We feel very strongly that in the light of the sometimes scandalous outbursts that have come from Crown Office and the office of the Lord Advocate, they have disqualified themselves from considering the report which Police Scotland will be making following their inquiry into the nine allegations,” said Murray.

“It is perfectly obvious from these outbursts… that both the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have already taken a view on the matter, and therefore there is no prospect of that police report being considered fairly and impartially.”

[Brian] McConnachie [QC], a former principal advocate depute, said: “We know that Crown Office and the Lord Advocate have expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about the matter and that perhaps is simply symptomatic of the fact that Crown Office these days seem to consider as part of their job to pronounce in relation to pretty much any case or any profile at all.

“But the difficulty here is that if the Lord Advocate has expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about a matter, it is very difficult to see any way in which justice can be done or be seen to be done if the person who is deciding whether or not there are to be proceedings is the person who has already told us that the allegations are defamatory, unfounded and false.”

[John] Finnie [MSP] added: “Justice for Megrahi have posed a series of questions about how the police inquiry will be responded to by Crown Office – eight entirely reasonable questions, and I suspect had there been replies to these questions that you wouldn’t be sitting here today.

“What we maybe should do is tear the top of the paper off that says Justice for Megrahi and say ‘what does this mean for the ordinary citizen who makes serious and significant allegations against very senior people who are involved in our criminal justice system?’”

[Professor Alan] Page said the issue was about public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and that the allegations made by JfM had been dismissed “out of hand as unfounded, false and misleading”.

“This calls into question whether or not the Crown Office is capable of approaching them with the open mind that the administration of criminal justice, which in my view and I think in everyone else’s view, requires.”

From Sputnik International:

Lord Advocate of Scotland Frank Mulholland, the country’s most senior state prosecutor, will be deemed "unfit to hold office" if he does not pass a report into alleged criminality involving his office’s personnel to an independent prosecutor, spokesman for a justice campaign group considering the case told Sputnik on Wednesday.

After a three-year criminal investigation, Police Scotland are now set to pass a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scotland’s prosecution service. It follows allegations that senior prosecutors, police officers and prosecution witnesses acted with criminal intent during the trial of Libyan Abdelbaset Megrahi who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The claims against prosecutor's office include perversion of the course of justice and perjury.

It is vital that Mulholland avoids a conflict of interest between himself and his duty to the Scottish public, Robert Black of the Justice for Megrahi committee said.

"If the Lord Advocate and COPFS do not recognize and appreciate this, then the Lord Advocate is unfit to hold office and COPFS has lost its moral compass," Black said.

Police appoint independent QC to oversee investigation into alleged wrongdoing by Lockerbie prosecutors

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Police Scotland is close to ending a two-year probe in to allegations of criminality by Lockerbie investigators and prosecutors.

In an unusual move, the national force has has appointed an independent QC to advise it on the inquiry because it could not ask Crown lawyers to assess evidence of alleged wrongdoing against the Crown.

Detectives are investigating nine allegations made by the Justice for Megrahi or JFM group, who believe that the only man ever convicted of the 1988 bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Megrahi died in his native Libya in 2012 protesting his innocence despite his 2001 conviction at a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Crown officials have stressed that the Lockerbie case remains live and that they have not ruled out further prosecutions.

Police Scotland has been looking in to the JFM allegations since February 2014 under Operation Sandwood. The campaign group has been lobbying for an independent prosecutor to investigate. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has previously said he will appoint a QC to deal with any report from the police. This person would not be the same person as the senior advocate advising the police. [RB: A media conference organised by Justice for Megrahi to be held in Edinburgh today will consider the Lord Advocate’s proposal for dealing with the Operation Sandwood report.]

Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has now written to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament confirming progress.

He said the allegations were "diverse in nature, resulting in a protracted inquiry".

Mr Livingstone added: "It has required a detailed and methodical approach, to ensure the necessary rigour to investigate the matter of complexity and sensitivity raised.

"As a result the investigation has taken longer than initially assessed.

"I can nevertheless confirm that the investigation has entered its final phase. A detailed report will be submitted by the senior investigating officer to me within the next two months.

"To ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence from the Crown, the report will be scrutinised by the independent Queen's Council appointed by Police Scotland."

Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone, Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Sandwood, said:

"The Operation Sandwood enquiry into nine allegations by the Justice for Megrahi group is still ongoing; it started in February 2014.

"The operation is reaching its final stages and is being dealt with as a major investigation by Police Scotland.

"A draft report is in the progress of being compiled, drawing on the findings and conclusions of two years of detailed examination and investigation.

"To ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence form the Crown, the report and its findings will be scrutinised and assessed by the independent Queen’s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland to provide independent direction and advice."

Lord Advocate criticised after Lockerbie response arrives only 15 minutes before MSPs meet

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The National. It reads as follows:]

The Lord Advocate has come under fire at Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee [sic; this should read “Justice Committee”] after his office lodged a reply to a letter from it regarding the Lockerbie case minutes before its meeting started. Committee members wrote Frank Mulholland QC on January 12, seeking a response to calls made by the Justice for Megrahi (JfM) group for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town.

They also sought answers to JfM fears over the appointment of Crown Office chief executive Catherine Dyer as the Crown’s point of contact for Police Scotland’s Operation Sandwood into allegations of criminality surrounding the investigation.

However, the response was only handed to committee convener Christine Grahame 15 minutes before the committee meeting started.

She told MSPs: “I think as I’ve scolded Police Scotland I’ll scold the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office because we previously asked the Lord Advocate to respond to JfM’s latest submission. This morning, at 9.45 when I was sitting here ready to chair the committee, a response arrived. This is not good enough. It’s quite a short letter and can’t have taken long to write.”

Grahame then went on to read the letter, to “put it in the public domain”. It said Police Scotland was considering the JfM allegations “in accordance with due process”.

The letter added: “An independent senior counsel at the Scottish Bar with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution has been appointed to undertake prosecutorial functions in relation to the police investigation. This will include providing an independent legal overview of the evidence, conclusions, recommendations and directing the inquiry when required.”

It added that Mulholland did not agree that processes in place at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) needed to be amended to address the “sweeping and unfounded assertion that Scotland’s prosecution service cannot act independently in the public interest in a criminal investigation”.

Independent MSP John Finnie said: “We would have had some clarity if the Lord Advocate had provided JfM or indeed this committee with specific responses to the eight legitimate questions that were asked. And again I would make an appeal for that clarity.”

He also dismissed Mulholland’s claim that the allegations were being considered in accordance with due process, saying: “There’s been a significant deviation – for the better – from the normal process and that deviation is, and I quote the Lord Advocate ‘an independent senior counsel at the Scottish Bar with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution’.”

Iain McKie, a retired police officer and member of JfM, who attended the meeting, told The National: “The Lord Advocate has thrown down the gauntlet to the justice committee, saying ‘this is our business, we’ll deal with it’. I’m actually shocked at the Lord Advocate’s response because he owes a duty to Parliament and the people of Scotland to show independence in his prosecutorial role.”

A Crown Office spokesperson said: “The Lord Advocate has the utmost respect for the Justice Committee, and has provided information and assistance to it throughout this Parliament.

“As the Lord Advocate has made clear to the Justice Committee and JfM on a number of occasions, the Lord Advocate has had no involvement in the appointment of counsel undertaking this work other than to identify their criteria of independence and no previous involvement with the Lockerbie investigation.

“The counsel undertaking this work is not under the direction of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate considers it important that any criminal allegations against persons who were representing the Crown are dealt with independently.

“As indicated above steps have been taken to ensure this is the case.” 

[RB: The committee’s Minute of Proceedings records that the committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate expressing disappointment at his late reply to the Committee, and to consider the petition further at a future meeting.]

Megrahi campaigners welcome MSPs' decision to keep petition 'open' on Lockerbie investigation

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The National. It reads as follows:]

A campaign group calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing has welcomed a decision by MSPs to keep its petition “open” and maintain a watching brief on a police inquiry into the case.

Justice for Megrahi (JfM) had claimed the findings of the Police Scotland investigation into allegations surrounding the disaster might “never see the light of day”, because the Crown Office and Lord Advocate had “already come to a view” on allegations it had made casting doubt on the conviction.

Al-Megrahi died in May 2012, three years after the Scottish Government released him from a life sentence on compassionate grounds.

JfM had written to the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC early in November, asking a series of questions about his intentions regarding the report of the investigation – named Operation Sandwood – and the appointment of an independent counsel to consider it.

Mulholland had named the Crown Office point of contact as crown agent and chief executive Catherine Dyer, who, he said, had “no involvement whatsoever” in the investigation into the bombing.

Retired police officer Iain McKie, a member of JfM, said yesterday: “We had sent eight questions to the Lord Advocate about how they would deal with the police report, which he failed to answer.

“The committee have now decided to ask these questions on our behalf and that’s a significant step forward.”

The group’s questions focused on the status of the “independent counsel”, their association with the Crown Office and whether they would receive the Operation Sandwood report directly from Police Scotland without any intervention from the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office.

Independent MSP John Finnie told the committee the issue was “all about process” and not personalities.

He said: “We do have the suggestion that the Crown agent is an independent person in this process, or will play a role in this process and, as we’ve seen from the letters, I think any reasonable judgment would say that that’s not necessarily the case, given that the crown agent defended the Crown Office’s position on this in a letter of 2012.”

Finnie added: “I would like the clerk to write to the Lord Advocate with the particular questions.

“Hopefully we’ll get some response to them that would advise what further action, if any, we would need to take.”

A Crown Office spokesman told The National: “Further to the Lord Advocate’s letter of 8 May 2015 to the Justice Committee, and his letter of 24 December 2015 to Justice For Megrahi, the Lord Advocate can confirm that he has had no involvement in the appointment of Counsel undertaking this work other than to identify their criteria of independence and no previous involvement with the Lockerbie investigation.

“The counsel undertaking this work is not under the direction of the Lord Advocate.

“The Lord Advocate considers it important that any criminal allegations against persons who were representing the Crown are dealt with independently of the Crown.

“As indicated above steps have been taken to ensure this is the case.”

[RB: The eight questions referred to by Iain McKie are contained in a letter dated 5 November 2015 sent by JfM’s secretary, Robert Forrester, to the Lord Advocate. That letter is now to be found on the Scottish Parliament website (link here). It reads as follows:]

Date: 5th November 2015 

Dear Lord Advocate, 

Justice for Megrahi: Criminal Allegations: Appointment of Independent Prosecutor 

I refer to my previous letter of 24th August 2015, your response of 18th September and your recent correspondence with the Justice Committee on the above subject. 

JFM is still unclear as to your intentions in respect of any report emanating from the police ‘Operation Sandwood’ investigations. 

To assist us in our understanding we would appreciate it if you would answer the following questions. 

1. What is the status of the appointed independent Counsel? Is he or she a present or former member of Crown Office staff? Or a member of the Bar who has had no previous association with Crown Office? 
2. Who appointed the independent Counsel? If it was not the Crown Office, who was it? 
3. What are the ‘Terms of Reference’ under which the independent Counsel is working and who created them? 
4. Under whose ‘direction’ is the independent Counsel working? 
5. Will the independent Counsel receive the ‘Operation Sandwood’ report directly from the police/police QC without any intervention or comment by the LA or Crown Office and before those authorities are aware of the report’s  contents? 
6. Will the independent Counsel make a totally independent decision on the report without any input from the Crown Office? 
7. Will Crown Office have authority to reject or change any recommendation made by the independent Counsel? 
8. Will the recommendations of the independent Counsel be implemented in full and if not who will make this decision? 

We believe that answers to these questions are essential if we are to have any faith that a truly independent and objective assessment of the police report will be carried out. 

Given the importance of the legal and constitutional issues under debate we have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Convenor of the Justice Committee and have supplied them with a copy of this letter. 

We look forward to an early response.

Operation Sandwood Report: Public Statements by Lord Advocate and Crown Office

[In the item The Crown Office - cause for serious concern? posted earlier today on this blog, mention is made of statements by the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate that, in the view of Justice for Megrahi, disqualify them from playing any part in assessing Police Scotland’s forthcoming Operation Sandwood report into JfM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. What follows is the text of a document released today by JfM on the Crown Office’s and Lord Advocate’s statements:]

Introduction

In relation to the forthcoming police Operation Sandwood report into Justice For Megrahi’s (JfM’s) 9 criminal allegations which is due to be submitted to the Crown Office early in 2016 we have consistently argued that this authority and the Lord Advocate have disqualified themselves from receiving, considering and making any prosecutorial or other decisions flowing from this report because of related public statements made by them.

Public Statements

In September 2012, following JfM’s letter to the then Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill laying out the allegations and seeking an independent investigation into them, and before they had been reported to the police, the Crown Office authorities publicly dismissed them as being without foundation in an article in The Scotsman:

‘But the Crown Office yesterday branded the allegations “defamatory and entirely unfounded”. A spokesman added that one of the allegations had been investigated by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which found no basis for appeal, while it was also found there was “no basis” for claims that any police officers or officials fabricated evidence.

“It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way,” he added. The Lockerbie conviction has already been upheld by five appeal court judges, while Megrahi abandoned a second appeal.’ http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/deliberately-false-and-misleading.html

In December 2012 shortly after the allegations were officially delivered to Dumfries and Galloway Police, in widely reported statements, the Lord Advocate went public calling the JfM members who has made the allegations, “conspiracy theorists” and labelling the allegations, ‘defamatory and entirely unfounded ....... deliberately false and misleading.’

‘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. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/pro-megrahi-backers-flayed-by-new-lord.html

It is against this background of unprecedented public vilification of JfM’s legitimate allegations and those who made them that the subsequent behaviour of Lord Advocate/ Crown Office must be judged.

Having set themselves firmly against JfM and its claims their subsequent behaviour can clearly be seen as a consistent pattern of behaviour proactively supporting this totally unjustified bias and prejudice.

In June 2014 the BBC reported that the Megrahi family had instructed a Scottish lawyer to apply to have his conviction reviewed by the SCCRC and published a Crown Office response to the application.

‘A Crown Office spokesman said they "do not fear scrutiny of the conviction by the SCCRC." The spokesman added: "The evidence upon which the conviction was based was rigorously scrutinised by the trial court and two appeal courts after which Megrahi stands convicted of the terrorist murder of 270 people. We will rigorously defend this conviction when called upon to do so. In the meantime, we will continue the investigation with US and Scottish police and law enforcement.” ‘ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27698626

In December 2014, at the Lockerbie commemoration ceremony in America, the Lord Advocate once again re-emphasised Mr Megrahi’s guilt and stated the only remaining question was, ’who were his accomplices’? These comments were made in the full knowledge that Operation Sandwood was ongoing and that if any one of the criminal allegations was upheld this would call Mr Megrahi’s guilt into question and could point to Crown Office and police culpability.

The Daily Telegraph reported: ‘Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, used the 26th anniversary of the bombing to reaffirm his belief in the guilt of the only man convicted of the attack, and said Scottish prosecutors would never give up the fight to find his accomplices.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11306609/Lockerbie-bombing-senior-law-officer-vows-to-track-down-Megrahi-accomplices.html

The BBC reported: ‘Mr Mulholland said: "During the 26-year long inquiry not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case. "We remain committed to this investigation and our focus remains on the evidence, and not on speculation and supposition. "Our prosecutors and police officers, working with UK government and US colleagues, will continue to pursue this investigation, with the sole aim of bringing to justice those who acted along with al-Megrahi.” ‘

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30560364

In October 2015 the BBC reported: ‘A Crown Office spokesman said: "The Lord Advocate and the US Attorney General have recently agreed that there is a proper basis in law in Scotland and the United States to entitle Scottish and US investigators to treat two Libyans as suspects in the continuing investigation into the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34543983

Unfortunately these public statements by the Lord Advocate and Crown Office, highlighting and reinforcing Mr Megrahi’s guilt, fail to acknowledge, what they well knew, that there are two ongoing major investigations.

The first of them, to which the above quotations refer, is being conducted by a Crown Office/Police Scotland ‘Lockerbie Investigation Team’, in close liaison with the American FBI, and has been ongoing for a number of years. Its enquiries are based on the clear assumption that Megrahi did not act alone and his accomplices have still to be identified. The Lord Advocate has recently confirmed that as part of this investigation he is applying to interview two further Libyan suspects incarcerated in Libya.

The second investigation, mounted in 2012, followed JfM's nine allegations of criminality relating to the actions of Crown Office and police personnel and persons who were cited as Crown witnesses in the trial of the two Libyans. This investigation is now being carried out by a dedicated team of Police Scotland officers under the codename Operation Sandwood and a report is expected early next year.

As the Crown well knows the two investigations referred to above are potentially in direct conflict in that the first is predicated on the assumption that Mr. Megrahi is guilty. The Operation Sandwood enquiry however is into allegations that, if proved, point to his innocence and that there may have been malfeasance by some associated with the prosecution including Crown office personnel.

Conclusion

In publicly condemning the JfM allegations and the individuals who made them and by continuing to give such open public support to their own investigation the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have prejudiced and prejudged the outcome of Operation Sandwood.

In 2012 as soon as they were aware of our allegations, the resultant police investigation and the fact that if proved they could challenge the previous assumptions so actively being promoted by the Crown, these authorities should have taken immediate action to protect its integrity and made no further public comment which could be in any way related too that investigation.

As far as we can judge the Lord Advocate/Crown Office have taken absolutely no action to protect the ongoing Police Scotland major investigation and in fact have actively acted against it.

JfM believes that this consistent pattern of biased public statements, in addition to being completely inappropriate, has had the clear potential to influence and prejudice Operation Sandwood witnesses who have been required to provide statements against a background of this very public interference by Scotland’s senior prosecution authorities. We also fear that certain Crown, Police and expert witness, encouraged by the Crown statements, might seek to withhold from or alter legitimate evidence to Operation Sandwood.

Such blatant publicity also serves of course to set the whole of the Crown Office against any contradictory findings from Operation Sandwood thus making it entirely inappropriate for anyone associated with the Crown Office to receive, assess and decide on any action resulting from this report.

Since we made these allegations JfM has become increasingly concerned about the capability of the Lord Advocate/Crown Office to make objective and impartial decisions on any report emanating from the Operation Sandwood investigations. We believe that they have comprehensively disqualified themselves from such decisions and make it essential that a prosecutor completely independent of the Crown Office receives the report, assesses it and makes decisions arising from it without any Crown Office input.

Two new Lockerbie bombing suspects identified

[This is the headline over a report published late last night on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

Scottish prosecutors want to interview two Libyans they have identified as new suspects over the Lockerbie bombing.

They believe the two suspects acted along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi - the only person to have been convicted of the atrocity.

The BBC understands the pair are Mohammed Abouajela Masud and Abdullah al-Senussi.

A total of 270 people died when the Pan Am 103 flight was blown up on the evening of 21 December 1988.

The flight was on its way from London to New York when it exploded above Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, killing everyone on board and 11 people on the ground.

Senussi was the brother-in-law and intelligence chief of former Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi. He is currently awaiting execution in a Libyan jail.

Masud is reported to be serving a prison sentence in Libya for bomb making.

Both men were named as possible suspects in the bombing by an American TV documentary last month.

Scotland's Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC recently met the US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in Washington to review progress made in the ongoing investigation.

They have now requested permission from the Libyan authorities for Scottish police and the FBI to interview the two new suspects in Tripoli.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "The Lord Advocate and the US Attorney General have recently agreed that there is a proper basis in law in Scotland and the United States to entitle Scottish and US investigators to treat two Libyans as suspects in the continuing investigation into the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

"The Lord Advocate has today, therefore, issued an International Letter of Request to the Libyan attorney general in Tripoli which identifies the two Libyans as suspects in the bombing of flight Pan Am 103.

"The Lord Advocate and the US Attorney General are seeking the assistance of the Libyan judicial authorities for Scottish police officers and the FBI to interview the two named suspects in Tripoli.

"The two individuals are suspected of involvement, along with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, in the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 in December 1988 and the murder of 270 people."

The Libyan attorney general declined to comment to the BBC on whether a letter had been received from the Crown Office and whether the Libyan government would be assisting in the investigation.

Libya has struggled to stabilise since ousting long-term leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Elections in 2014 produced two rival governments as Islamist and secular militias fight for control of the country.

The Crown Office said it would be inappropriate to confirm any identities to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Megrahi's part in the bombing has been called into question in a series of books and documentaries.

And a petition seeking "Justice For Megrahi", backed by politicians and family members of some victims, was raised at the Scottish Parliament in 2012.

Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing, told the BBC: "I think there is a need for evidence to be made available as to why these two are suspects.

"We have recently been refused permission in Scotland to have to have a further appeal held into Megrahi's conviction, and many in this country simply don't believe Megrahi was involved and that this was a miscarriage of justice.

"To try and bolt two more names on top of that is a very difficult situation. It will need to be supported by better evidence than was produced to achieve the conviction of Megrahi."

But Frank Duggan, president of Pan Am 103 Relatives, told BBC Radio Scotland's Newsdrive programme he was not confident there would be further prosecutions.

He said: "I would like to think there would be, but they would have to be indicted by the US government or by the Scottish government and the Libyan government would have to turn them over - the Libyans have always said they are not going to turn over anyone to a foreign government.

"And it's been 26 years. It's too long, people are dead, stories have been forgotten.

"I'd like to think that it will be one small measure of closure but I don't expect the kind of justice that we all hope for."

Stephanie Bernstein, who lost her husband in the bombing, told the BBC that she was "surprised, delighted and really gratified" by the announcement.

She added: "There are many, many people who I hope are not sleeping so well tonight knowing that the Scottish government and the US government are committed to pursuing this case."

[Other reports about this development can be read here (Reuters news agency); and here and here (both The New York Times).]