Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
If the report in The Herald is correct, there must be a question over the Judges' assessment of al-Megrahi's guilt ("The commission has reached the view that the trial court's verdict is at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned." - post 62 above.)
So, if the Herald is right, only 2 out of the 3 bodies to examine the evidence felt sure he was guilty. Megrahi himself refused to allow their report to be disclosed, by slightly circuitous means, and engaged in odd delaying tactics along the way ... odd if he were innocent and finally had something to show that, why not hurry up and show it?

Incidentally, while Megrahi blocked the release of the full Commission report, they indicate specifically that 'much of the information that has been written about the Commission’s investigations has been either inaccurate or incorrect' and that there was only one issue about which they felt there was a question, the timing of the purchase of the clothes in the suitcase. The Herald appear to be grossly misrepresenting the SCCRC's position: it was not the verdict itself they felt unreasonable, but one particular detail from the prosecution case - a very, very different situation.

With a little more digging, it seems the Herald have misinterpreted the wording of section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act - in reality, Megrahi's own defence team specifically conceded that the original verdict was not "a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned": exceedingly sloppy reporting at best. The so-called "quote" does not actually appear anywhere in the SCCRC release, nor is it at all compatible with what they actually say!

If the prosecution did not disclose the evidence it proposed to use against al-Megrahi, then that is surely a failure to observe standard procedure, don't you think?
This was not 'evidence it proposed to use against al-Megrahi' - it was a document Megrahi wanted to get his hands on. Given the nature of his previous employment - Libyan intelligence/security - and the nature of the document - classified European counter-terrorism information regarding their investigation of supplies to Libya - it is not a great leap to suspect he might have had another motive for wanting to get hold of that information, is it?

There was one unusual feature, but it's a matter of historical/legal trivia rather than relevant: being the first PII signed since Scottish devolution, it was signed by the Foreign Secretary and introduced by the Advocate General rather than by the Lord Advocate, because the latter was no longer a UK government post as it had been for all previous PIIs. I understand it's a long-established rule that defendants can be denied access to information which is important for law enforcement: informant identities, surveillance techniques and equipment - not normally controversial.

It always strikes me as flagrantly unjust that a defendant might be unable to see evidence coming from the secret services on the grounds of national security: the words Show Trial spring to mind.
It's not ideal, but that debate was over many, many years ago. It's important, though, to note this was not evidence: the prosecution were not showing something to the judge and refusing to allow it to be challenged or disputed, the government was refusing to allow it to be made available to the court at all.

I have never felt the trial was a fair one, even if Megrahi was guilty, and it did Scottish justice no favours at all.
The bizarre circus of shipping the court off to another country to hold precisely the same procedure they would normally have held in Scotland never made any sense, but making us jump through absurd hoops apparently pleased the Libyans as well as allowing the trial to proceed at last. It's no surprise that some counterterrorism documents are classified and not available to us or to the court, but it is a shame Megrahi himself chose not to allow the release of other material.