Intelligence concerns over Megrahi conviction

[What follows is the text of an article that appeared in Times Higher Education on this date in 2004. It is a predominantly (though not completely) accurate account of an interview with me:]

Despite the conviction of a Libyan intelligence agent for the Lockerbie bombing, Robert Black QC, who helped bring the case to trial, has doubts about the outcome, as he tells Adam James

Academics do not generally receive out-of-the blue telephone calls from disgruntled members of the UK and US intelligence services - unless they are Robert Black QC, professor of law at Edinburgh University.

The intelligence agents have been eager to discuss their concerns over the conviction of Libyan Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi in 2001 for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people. Black, who describes himself as "just a quiet wee professor of Scottish law", is convinced that al-Megrahi should never have been found guilty and sentenced to life in prison and has been in close contact with the Libyan's lawyers.

He says the intelligence staff who have contacted him have "powerful" new evidence linking the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 to the Iran-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP-GC). Before the Libyan suspects entered the frame, Lockerbie investigators thought PFLP operatives were behind the bombing.

According to Black, there are "computer printouts" showing that Iran paid $11 million (£6 million) into the PFLP-GC's bank account on December 23 1988, two days after the flight was blown out of the sky. Black, himself from Lockerbie, says this new evidence was passed last year to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is expected to decide whether the case should return to court this summer. This, in turn, could lead to al-Megrahi being cleared.

Black thinks the information was handed over because intelligence agents thought al-Megrahi would be cleared without them having "to come out of the woodwork". "Their amazement (over the conviction) is almost as great as mine," he says.

Central to al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001 was the testimony of Tony Gauci, a shopkeeper in Malta. Gauci told a court sitting in the Netherlands that al-Megrahi, who worked in Malta for the Libyan state airline, "resembled a lot" a customer who had supposedly bought a T-shirt on December 7 1988, a fortnight before the bombing.

Among the wreckage of Pan Am 103 were remnants of such a T-shirt that had been in the suitcase containing the bomb. Al-Megrahi, prosecutors claimed, planted the bomb in the suitcase, which was loaded as unaccompanied baggage on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt and eventually ended up on the doomed flight to New York.

Black says he would have no doubts about the judges' decision if Gauci had been sure that al-Megrahi was the customer, but he said only that there was a resemblance and described the man as being 6ft tall and over 50 years old. "Al-Megrahi is 5ft 8in, and in 1988 was 36 years old," Black says.

The law professor now finds himself in an ironic situation because he played a key role in convincing Libya to agree to have al-Megrahi and his co-defendant, al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was acquitted, tried under Scottish law, arguing that this would guarantee a fair trial.

Despite the international media coverage given to the Lockerbie case - most recently during prime minister Tony Blair's much-vaunted meeting with Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi - Black's role in the affair has been kept under wraps. It began in 1993 when al-Megrahi and Fhimah were under house arrest in Libya, which had not authorised their extradition for trial in Scotland or the US, as was being demanded.

Black was approached by British engineering firms who believed the only way they could win lucrative contract work in Libya was if al-Megrahi's and Fhimah's lawyers - and the Libyan government - handed over the accused for trial.

To this end, Black sent the Libyan government a dossier that outlined Scottish law and the rights of the accused. Libya took Black's dossier seriously, and in 1993 - with travel costs paid by the British companies - Black flew to the Libyan capital, via Tunisia, to meet al-Megrahi's and Fhimah's lawyer.

Although Black was an authority on Scottish law, 95 per cent of his work until then had been as a civil lawyer. Overnight he was thrust into the middle of an international political stand-off involving the worst act of terrorism on British soil.

On arrival in Tunisia, Black was met by Libyan government officials and driven for five hours at breakneck speed to Tripoli. During his first meeting with Libyan officials, it became obvious they wanted to have a clear idea of whom they were dealing with.

"The first thing they wanted to find out was whether I was a British government stooge," Black recalls. After convincing them he was there as an independent expert on Scottish law, he proposed that a trial be held in the "neutral" Netherlands. There would be no jury, but three judges would rule and the court would adhere to Scottish judicial law. Libya accepted the proposal, but the US and UK governments refused outright.

Five years later, Black returned to Libya, which by this time was impatient and threatening to withdraw support for his proposal. This time Black met Gaddafi in the president's Bedouin tent. "At first, he was not friendly," Black recalls. "He would not look me in the eye. He just looked straight ahead, with his hands folded.

"But I made the point that the (Labour) government had been in office for under a year and that it was still finding its feet in foreign affairs - it was possible to detect signs that its position over Lockerbie might be more flexible than that of its Conservative predecessor."

Gaddafi agreed to accept the trial proposal for a further six months. Three months later, the UK and US governments accepted the no-jury Netherlands trial. Black, whose professional highlights before Lockerbie involved contractual law cases for hotel keepers, had masterminded a diplomatic coup.

But, despite his concerns over al-Megrahi's conviction, did he believe the Libyan government had been behind the bombing? "Absolutely not," he says.

"The Libyan government and its officials' view was always that they did not do it. Above all, they wanted closure to the Lockerbie affair so sanctions might be ended."

Black's outspoken views have brought him abusive emails from some relatives of Lockerbie victims. But his professional assessment is shared by no less a statesman than Nelson Mandela, who has visited al-Megrahi in Barlinnie prison in Glasgow.

Last month, leading Lockerbie campaigner Jim Swire, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, supported Black's view that al-Megrahi's conviction was unsound. For now, though, the case is in the hands of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Tripoli & Benghazi bombed by USA on this date in 1986

[On this date in 1986, US strike aircraft flying out of RAF Lakenheath bombed targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. What follows is a contemporary report on the BBC News website:]

At least 100 people have died after USA planes bombed targets in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and the Benghazi region. Around 66 American jets, some of them flying from British bases launched an attack at around 0100hrs on Monday. The White House spokesman, Larry Speakes, has said that the strike was directed at key military sites but reports suggest that missiles also hit Bin Ashur, a densely populated suburb in the capital. Colonel Muamar Gaddafi residential compound took a direct hit that killed Hanna Gaddafi, the adopted baby daughter of the Libyan leader. President Reagan has justified the attacks by accusing Libya of direct responsibility for terrorism aimed at America, such as the bombing of La Belle discoteque in West Berlin 10 days ago. President Reagan made a TV address to the American people two hours after the attack. In it he said : "When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I'm in this office." He argued that America was exercising its right to self defence as defined by Article 51 of the UN charter. The presidential spokesman, Larry Speakes, said, "US forces have executed a series of carefully planned air strikes against terrorist targets in Libya." He added: "Every effort has been made to avoid hitting civilian targets." The attacks began soon after an increase in coded radio traffic between US ships and planes off the Libyan coast had been noticed. The fighter jets appear to have been both carrier based aircraft, operating in the Mediterranean and British based bombers which would have refuelled in mid air. The Americans hit the harbour's naval academy, the capital's military airport and army barracks. Tripoli's embassy area and residential districts also suffered extensive damage. The Tripoli central hospital and two other medical centres say they have treated hundreds of injured people, including a number of Greeks, Italians and Yugoslavs. Mobs of angry survivors have taken to the streets shouting: "Down, down USA. Death to all Americans." There are also fears that Britain may be subject to terrorist attacks because some of its involvement in the raids. The Syrian based terrorist group, Arab Revolutionary Cells, has announced on Lebanese radio that it will target both British and American interests. [RB: A fuller account of the operation (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) can be found here. IF the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 was a Libyan operation, the April 1986 Tripoli/Benghazi raids are usually said to have provided the motivation. If, as some contend, the Lockerbie bombing was carried out by the PFLP-GC at the behest of Iran, then the motivation may have been the July 1988 shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 by the USS Vincennes.]

Colin Boyd to speak about Lockerbie in New York

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

Thursday, April 16, 12:30–1:50 pm

Vanderbilt Hall, Room 216

CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR:

Prosecuting the Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing Case

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

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

Lunch will be provided.

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

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

Megrahi and Fhimah committed for trial 16 years ago today

On this date in 1999 Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah were committed until liberated in due course of law (“full committal”) in separate brief hearings before Sheriff Principal Graham Cox QC sitting at Camp Zeist. No judicial examination was sought by the Crown.

What follows is taken from a long article on the Lockerbie case on the My Libya website:]

On 5 April 1999, after some months of discussions on concerns from the accused and their lawyers, al-Megrahi and Fhimah surrendered for trial in the Netherlands at the Dutch military airbase of Valkenburg, just outside The Hague. They were swiftly extradited to Scottish jurisdiction at Camp Zeist, just outside Utrecht. Camp Zeist, a former American airbase, had been agreed between the British and Dutch governments as the most suitable site for the trial. On the second of two appearances before Sheriff Principal Graham Cox QC, sitting at Camp Zeist, they were committed for trial on 14 April 1999. The normal period under Scots law within which the trial must commence, 110 days from the date of full committal, has been extended on application to the High Court, again sitting at Camp Zeist. The trial proper begins in early 2000 and is expected to last for at least a year.

"I wouldn’t want to be convicted on identification evidence of that quality”

[On this date in 1999, Abdelbaset Megrahi took part in an identification parade at Camp Zeist. The Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci picked him out with the words “Not exactly the man I saw in the shop 10 years ago, but the man who look a little bit like exactly is the number 5". The trial judges were satisfied on this evidence (and a somewhat similarly qualified courtroom identification) that Gauci had identified Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes that accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. This “identification” would have been seriously challenged had Megrahi’s second appeal not been abandoned. It will undoubtedly be challenged if the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allows a further appeal.

What follows is excerpted from an article in the Scottish Sunday Express on 21 August 2011:]

A dossier for Megrahi’s appeal – which was dropped days before his release – claims the ID parade in April 1999 “fell short of what was fair”. Gauci, who sold clothing that was later packed in a suitcase with the bomb, said he could not be sure if any of the men were the same individual who had visited his shop a decade earlier.

Eventually, he picked out Megrahi as the one who “looked a little bit like exactly” the purchaser.

The report claims the parade was carried out after “an extraordinary length of time” using “stand-ins” who were not “sufficiently similar”.

It also points out that Megrahi’s photograph had been widely published. Police reports from the parade are described as “incomplete and confusing”.

Professor Steven Clark, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, states: “At no time did [Gauci] ever clearly and definitively assert that Mr. Megrahi was the man who came into his store.

“Rather, in each identification procedure, he stated that Mr. Megrahi was ‘similar’ or ‘resembled’ the man.” 

Another eyewitness identification expert, Professor Tim Valentine, of Goldsmiths University of London, said: “I do have concern of the quality of the identification evidence. I wouldn’t want to be convicted on identification evidence of that quality.”

Scottish campaigner Iain McKie, a member of the Justice for Megrahi committee,  added: “The identification process of Megrahi was totally and utterly flawed and wrong. Yet the conviction rests on that identification. The whole process was rotten.”

[Professor Steve Clark’s report on the “identification” of Megrahi can be read here (paragraphs 77 to 90 deal particularly with the ID parade).  Professor Tim Valentine’s report can be read here (paragraphs 8.18 to 8.30 and 9.2 are particularly relevant).]

Allowing Moussa Koussa to leave UK "betrayal" by Government

What follows is part of an item that appeared on this blog on this date in 2011:

Lockerbie families attack UK over Moussa Koussa travel plans

[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have accused the British government of "betrayal" after it allowed Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan foreign minister, to leave the UK to attend an international conference.

Koussa, who defected to Britain at the end of last month, was en route to Doha in Qatar on Tuesday, where an international conference on the future of Libya is to be held with representatives from the Benghazi-based opposition.

He is expected to return to the UK after the conference, but is free to travel as he pleases.

Brian Flynn, the brother of JP Flynn, who died in the 1988 attack and now organises the Victims of Pan Am 103 Incorporated campaign group in New York, said the UK authorities had "crossed a line" by allowing Koussa to attend the conference and thereby suggest he is a peace negotiator rather than, as they believe, a key instigator of the bombing.

"I think the British are being played by him … he has convinced them he can be valuable in this process, but he is not the suave diplomat in the suit sitting on the sidelines, he is one of the key guys who masterminded [the bombing of] Pan Am flight 103," Flynn said.

"He is a stated enemy of the British government. Our feeling is that the British government gave a nod to Lockerbie by questioning him two days before this conference, but that feels disingenuous. The Scottish and American prosecutors on Lockerbie are being betrayed by the politicians and the diplomats. Cameron has been good on Libya, but this sounds an awful lot like Tony Blair is back in charge."

Flynn's organisation, the largest victims' group in the US, seeks to discover the truth behind the bombing and win justice for those who died. He said the families believed the decision to allow Koussa to travel to the meeting in Qatar was part of a British strategy to encourage other defectors to flee to Britain from Gaddafi's regime, as there was no way either the rebels or the regime would trust him as an intermediary.

"He blatantly betrayed the Libyan regime and for more than 25 years he betrayed the Libyan people, so why is this the guy we are sending [to the talks]?" said Flynn.

Koussa is said to be travelling to Doha in order to establish whether he has a role to play in the rebel movement along with other senior defectors from the Gaddafi regime – perhaps by brokering a deal between Tripoli and Benghazi. (...)

Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her 29-year old son Alistair when the Pan Am flight was blown up in mid-air, said she was mystified by the decision to let Koussa travel.

"It is very unexpected," she said. "Is he the basis of a new Libyan opposition, or what? He doesn't seem a very suitable person. Our aim is always to get more of the truth and we want a full public inquiry. Koussa must have some interesting knowledge. It is hard to know what to make of it. We will wait and see and watch with interest."

[A report on the CBS News website reads in part:]

Libya's former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa is traveling to Qatar to share his insight on the workings of Muammar Qaddafi's inner circle, a British government official said Tuesday.

Koussa has been asked to attend the conference on Libya being held in Doha as a valuable Qaddafi insider, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

MI6 agents stopped questioning Koussa last week, according to the official. Koussa had been staying in a safehouse until late Monday night, according to Noman Benotman, an ex-member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and relative of Koussa who has been in regular contact with the former foreign minister since he fled to Britain.

Although Koussa was provided with legal advice, Benotman said he believed he had "cleared most of the legal hurdles in the UK" surrounding his alleged involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and arming the IRA.

Britain's Foreign Office confirmed the trip in a statement Tuesday, saying that Koussa was "traveling today to Doha to meet with the Qatari government and a range of other Libyan representatives."

The statement added that Koussa was "a free individual, who can travel to and from the UK as he wishes."

Libya and Lockerbie compensation

[What follows is taken from a report headlined Diplomatic row threatens payout in Lockerbie compensation deal which was published in The Herald on this date in 2005:]

A lawyer representing relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing last night expressed optimism that they would receive a final compensation payment, despite a row between the US and Libyan governments which threatens the settlement.

The hopes expressed by Peter Watson, a Glasgow solicitor-advocate, followed news that the Libyan Central Bank had withdrawn a payment of £277m intended for relatives of 270 people killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.

No reason was given for the withdrawal of the money, intended as a final instalment of £1.1m per family.

Libya, which has acknowledged responsibility for the bombing, is understood to have already paid each family £4.4m in compensation after the US and the United Nations agreed to lift sanctions. [RB: Libya has not “acknowledged responsibility for the bombing”; what it has done is “accept responsibility for the actions of its officials”.]

The US State Department, however, has not removed Libya from its list of states that sponsor terrorism - the condition Libya set for the final payment. The State Department has refused to comment.

In September, George W Bush signed an order removing a ban on commercial air services to Libya and released £720m in Libyan assets in recognition of steps it had taken to eliminate its programme for weapons of mass destruction. The move was seen as the trigger for the release of more than £560m in compensation to relatives of victims of the bombing.

Under the terms of a compensation deal involving the US, British and Libyan governments, each victim's family was to receive pounds £7m - 40 per cent to be paid when UN sanctions were lifted, and a further 40 per cent once US sanctions were ended.

The final 20 per cent was to have been paid when Libya was removed from the State Department's list of countries that sponsor international terrorism.

Before the weekend, Libya had paid 80 per cent of the agreed compensation. The final 20-per cent (£277m), which was held in the Bank of International Settlements in Geneva, was due to have been paid at the end of February.

However, Mr Watson explained last night: "In terms of the agreement that was reached, the money was due to go back to Libya in the absence of all of the requirements of the agreement being satisfied.

"The US, for the moment, has not removed Libya from the list of states that sponsor terrorism.

"As a result, the final part of the payment has not been paid.

The parties involved continue to meet and hope that a mechanism will be found to complete the payment and reach a settlement."

Jim Swire, a spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 Group, said: "Libya appears to have stuck to its part of the agreement. We need an answer from the US as to why Libya's name remains on its list of countries that sponsor international terrorism."

A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said: "The UK families remain a priority. We hope the compensation paid allows the families some comfort on Lockerbie, although we recognise they remain committed to finding the truth about the bombing."

[RB: The final tranche was eventually paid over by Libya at the end of October 2008, Libya having been removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism in mid-2006.]

UK Government "game plan" on Megrahi release

[What follows is excerpted from a report that appeared on The Telegraph website on this date in 2011:]

The British ambassador to the US told America it should not intervene to stop the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison, according to leaked diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to the Daily Telegraph.

Nigel Sheinwald told James Steinberg, the US Deputy Secretary of State, that he was "concerned" that the demands of victims' families were unduly influencing US policy.

His comments came during critical negotiations over whether Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103, should be switched to a Libyan jail to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Sir Nigel was Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser between 2003 and 2007 and played a key role, alongside the Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, in bringing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi back into the international fold. He was at Mr Blair's side for the first meeting with Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 that resulted in a substantial BP oil contract. [RB: Sheinwald was at Blair's side throughout the negotiations that resulted in the "deal in the desert".]

The cable, obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to the Daily Telegraph, is dated February 2009. It states: "Sheinwald asked that the US continue to consult with the UK in the possible transfer of ailing Pan Am bomber Abdel-Basset al-Megrahi from the UK to Libya. Specifically, he said HMG supported the discussions this week between UK and US officials to define a common strategy.

"Sheinwald cited concern that the Pan Am victims' families were asking for direct US intervention to stop the transfer. He asked that the United States delay "for a few days" any intervention with the Scottish authorities, who will ultimately decide on the transfer." [RB: At this stage, only repatriation under the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement was in issue. No application for compassionate release was made by Megrahi until several months later.]

He was firmly rebuffed by Deputy Secretary Steinberg. The cable states: "The Deputy said the UK government needed to understand the sensitivities in this case, and noted he was acutely aware of the concerns of Lockerbie victim's groups from his previous time in government."

Mr Megrahi was controversially released on compassionate grounds seven months later after being diagnosed with cancer.

Last night the victim's families were furious that British diplomats actively lobbied to stop the US intervening in Megrahi's release.

Kathleen Flynn, whose son John Patrick died in the bombing, said: "It is disgraceful that the British were complicit in his release. This man was a killer who took 270 innocent lives but was allowed go free and live the life of riley in Tripoli."

Sir Nigel Sheinwald also reportedly gave Gaddafi's son, Saif, help with his PhD thesis. The doctorate awarded him by the London School of Economics was already thought suspect because he followed it with a £1.5 million donation. Mr Sheinwald denied the allegation, saying he met Saif Gaddafi while he was writing his thesis but had not helped him. (...)

Senior Labour Cabinet ministers always denied being involved in any backstairs deals over the release in August 2009, yet a secret Foreign Office memo referred to a "game plan" to facilitate Megrahi's move to Libya.

Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, said in an analysis of the papers: "Once Megrahi had been diagnosed with terminal cancer in September 2008, (government) policy was based upon an assessment that UK interests would be damaged if Megrahi were to die in a UK jail."

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We do not comment on leaked documents."

[The following is taken from an item posted on this blog on 15 July 2010:]

The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.

"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.

[I commented as follows:]

The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered [RB: from me] what the true position was.

“At the meeting on 9 April, I proposed that US $2m should be paid to Anthony Gauci"

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in the the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times on 24 November 2013:]

The lead investigator in the Lockerbie bombing personally lobbied US authorities to pay two Maltese witnesses at least $3 million for their part in securing the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, documents published today in The Sunday Times of Malta reveal. (...)

In one of the documents, Detective Superintendent Tom McCulloch, from the Scottish Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, wrote to the US Department of Justice on April 19, 2002, making the case for Maltese witness Tony Gauci and his brother Paul to be compensated for their role in the trial from the US Rewards for Justice programme.

McCulloch wrote: “At the meeting on 9 April, I proposed that US 2 million dollars should be paid to Anthony Gauci and US 1 million dollars to his brother Paul. However, following further informal discussions I was encouraged to learn that those responsible for making the final decision retain a large degree of flexibility to increase this figure.”

The letter followed on from a meeting with the Justice Department and the FBI and another letter sent a year earlier in which Mr McCulloch first made his plea on behalf of the Gaucis.

In this first letter, he wrote: “There is little doubt that (Tony Gauci’s) evidence was the key to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi. I therefore feel that he is a worthy of nominee for the reward...”

Mr McCulloch said he had discussed the reward with the Crown Office (the prosecution) but they would not offer an opinion on whether the Gaucis should be paid as this was deemed “improper”.

“The prosecution in Scotland cannot become involved in such an application,” Mr McCulloch wrote. (...)

Mr Gauci himself gave evidence before the commission and stressed that he had never shown any interest in receiving payment. To sustain his point, he underlined the fact that he had turned down various offers for payment by journalists, who had been hounding him and his brother for an exclusive, over the years.

He had also turned down an offer made by an unidentified Libyan man for compensation from the Libyan regime.

However, extracts from a diary kept by Dumfries and Galloway Inspector Harry Bell give a different picture. In a note dated September 29, 1989, early into the investigation, Mr Bell noted that FBI Agent Chris Murray had told him he had “the authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci” and that he could arrange for “$10,000 immediately”.

Moreover, there are also various entries in the classified documents in which Scottish police describe Paul Gauci as being very forceful about seeking some sort of financial gain and also that he influenced his brother greatly.

“It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have...” (...)

Robert Black, an emeritus professor of Scots law, who is widely credited as having been the architect of the non-jury trial at the neutral location of Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said he found one of the documents shocking.

In this document, dated January 12, 2001, the officer, whose name was redacted, writes: “(the Gauci brothers) will maintain their current position and not seek to make adverse comment regarding any perceived lack of recognition of their position. Nor is it anticipated would they ever seek to highlight any remuneration perceived”.

Reacting to this passage, Prof Black said: “It is no part of an investigator’s or prosecutor’s function to seek to secure that a witness maintains his current position.

“To try to influence a witness, or secure benefits for him, to achieve this result is grossly improper. The passage also recognises that it is important that the remuneration arrangement should not be ‘highlighted’. This manifests a clear, and correct, understanding that the arrangement is not one that would meet with legal or public approbation.”

The act itself of paying out money to a witness is no longer illegal under Scottish law, although it once was. However, Prof Black insisted, it is something that should always be disclosed to the defence.

“In this case, the authorities did everything in their power to conceal it, including ‘mislaying’ Harry Bell’s diary until it was eventually unearthed by the SCCRC in the course of their investigation of the Megrahi conviction.”