More about the procedural hearing

From what was said at yesterday's procedural hearing, it appears that Mr Megrahi's Grounds of Appeal will cover, at the very least, the following issues:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence in law to justify a conviction.

2. Whether, on that evidence, any reasonable tribunal could have reached a verdict of guilty.

3. Whether the appellant received a fair trial, within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This could embrace, amongst other things, the question of non-disclosure by the Crown of material potentially favourable to the defence; and defective or inadequate representation by Mr Megrahi's original legal team.

4. New evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of the original trial. It was indicated that this might include forensic scientific evidence challenging the methodology of the forensic scientists who gave evidence at the trial; and evidence relevant to the credibility and reliability of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, who was regarded by the trial court as having identified Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes that were in the Samsonite suitcase along with the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103.

Both the Crown and the presiding judge indicated that the issue of whether Grounds of Appeal relating to matters that were rejected by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and excluded by it from its reasons for referring the case back for a further appeal should be allowed to be argued at the full appeal hearing, would require to be addressed. It appeared to be accepted that this was not an issue of the legal competency of advancing such Grounds of Appeal, but rather an issue of the court's exercising its power under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to exclude grounds of appeal that are unarguable. The implication seemed to be that Megrahi's counsel would require to persuade the court that, even though the SCCRC found no substance in a particular ground of appeal, that ground was nevertheless still arguable.