The Crown Office has refused to hand over a secret document vital to unearthing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing.
The defence team of the Libyan convicted of the bombing has now called for a procedural hearing to discuss the Crown's refusal to disclose the document from an unnamed "foreign" country.
At the hearing, in the High Court in Edinburgh on Thursday, the defence will ask the three judges to decide whether the document should be disclosed.
It is understood to be about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is currently serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing.
The document was discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) team, which spent three years investigating his conviction.
Using its enhanced powers, the commission compelled the Crown to show it the document and decided the contents were sufficiently important for a court to have conclude the conviction could have been a miscarriage of justice. Proving the MST13 timer found at the site was purchased by the Libyans was pivotal to the conviction at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
The SCCRC referred the case back to the Scottish courts in June on six separate grounds, including non-disclosure.
Two months ago, the Crown Office was instructed to pass on the document or provide substantial reasons as to why it could not be given to the defence.
However, The Herald can reveal the Crown has since opposed the petition and suggested it has no duty to disclose. It has refused to reveal, even to the defence, the country from which the document originated, or its full reasons for not sharing the information.
The defence team is understood to be seeking the document which relates to supply of timers and an additional paper.
At a hearing in October the Crown asked the court for more time and agreed to come back with a response within six weeks.
At the time, Ronnie Clancy, QC, the advocate-depute, said the documents were handed to prosecutors on the basis they remained confidential.
He told the court: "The documents were passed on the basis they were regarded as being confidential by the authority that passed them over. That being so, the Crown has taken the position that, if possible, confidentiality should be respected and there are public interest considerations in regard to keeping the confidentiality of information coming from a foreign source."
Legal experts expected the reasons for non-disclosure to centre around the foreign country's refusal to hand over the documents on national security grounds. This does not appear to be the case.
Professor Robert Black, QC, one of the architects of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist, said: "The Crown was given six weeks to provide the document or to produce valid reasons as to why that would not be possible. The fact they are neither providing a detailed explanation nor the document seems a bit fishy to me.
"Ultimately it will be for the court to make up its own mind."
The full grounds for the appeal will be lodged by the defence team by Friday and are expected to include details undermining the reliability of the Crown's key witness and forensics evidence. It will also contain arguments based on the Crown's failure to disclose documents to the defence at the time of the trial.
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "We have lodged our response to the court within the time limit set by the court and this response sets out our position in relation to the material sought by the defence."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article