On our letters page today, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, makes an impassioned case for the release on bail of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing for the second time against his conviction for playing a prominent part in planning and perpetrating the atrocity. Dr Swire was moved to respond by the decision of the Appeal Court yesterday to reject Megrahi's application for bail pending the hearing of his complex appeal. Megrahi is serving 27 years for the 270 murders but has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Dr Swire argues that the refusal to return to his family a dying man whose conviction is not even secure appears inhumane and could make a martyr of Megrahi should he die in prison and his conviction be subsequently overturned. It is a powerful argument that has greater weight and resonance coming as it does from a man who lost his daughter when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up.

The three Appeal Court judges said the critical question was whether Megrahi's health was such that he should be allowed bail on compassionate grounds. They decided it was not and turned down the appeal on that basis. While he suffered from an incurable illness, his life expectancy could be in years if he reacted well to palliative treatment. The judges contrasted his appeal with the most common type of case, where a factor in favour of bail being granted pending an appeal is that, in the absence of bail, the whole sentence is likely to have been completed before the appeal is disposed of.

Megrahi's appeal is complicated and likely to be protracted (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which recommended that the appeal should be allowed, submitted a 790-page report, while Megrahi's legal team's report runs to 317 pages).

Justice will be served best by ensuring that the case is heard in great detail and evidence is rigorously tested and weighed. That will clearly take time. However, the judges concluded that the lapse of time until the disposal of the appeal was not a "very compelling" factor in this case. We concur. As the judges point out, Megrahi is not at present suffering significant pain or disability, has the services of the NHS at his disposal and does not appear at immediate risk of his condition deteriorating seriously. His type of cancer can be contained successfully for several years, given appropriate treatment, which would allow time for the appeal process against his conviction to be exhausted and a ruling delivered.

Taking account of all these factors, and the severity of the crime of which he was convicted, we believe there is more of a case for keeping him in jail while his appeal progresses than for releasing him on bail while the process continues. A key factor in our decision to endorse the ruling is the court's willingness to consider a renewed application for bail from Megrahi should his prognosis become clearer and poorer. On balance, he cannot expect better than that.

Click here to comment on this story...