Lockerbie bomber in appeal judge call

Lawyers for the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing have asked a court not to allow the trial's presiding judge "a second bite of the cherry".

William Taylor, QC, says Lord Sutherland should not be allowed to submit a further written report giving his opinion on the case.

He told five judges, during a preliminary appeal hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh, that the trial's 82-page written judgment should be sufficient.

Anything further would be prejudicial, he told the judges headed by Lord Kirkwood.

Earlier this month Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 49, lodged the grounds for his appeal against conviction and his case is expected to be heard later this year.

Normally the presiding judge in an initial trial would give the Appeal Court a written report giving his opinion on the case generally and on the grounds of appeal.

But in a petition lodged on behalf of his client Mr Taylor argued that such procedure should not apply to the Lockerbie case.

He told the judges that if Lord Sutherland were to give a further report "it would be impossible for him not to add, to qualify, supplement and further explain the court's reasons for conviction and would give an opportunity to advance a different basis for the decision and to give further and different reasons".

He said such an opinion from Lord Sutherland would have great force and weight in a matter which the Appeal Court should decide independently.

Lord Kirkwood, one of the five judges, asked Mr Taylor if he was advancing the "two bites of the cherry argument". Mr Taylor agreed that the phrase summed up his argument.