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.)

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?

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.

I have never felt the trial was a fair one, even if Megrahi was guilty, and it did Scottish justice no favours at all.