I am in possession of a page from the Rewards for Justice, Washington DC, website on which is written: "Seeking information against international terrorism. Success stories: RFJ has paid out more than $72m to over 50 people who have provided information that prevented international terrorist attacks or have brought to justice those involved in prior acts."

Included on the page, in the list of those brought to justice, is the name Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This document gives some idea of the scale of the payments. It also removes doubt as to whether payments were, indeed, made in this case.

I think many international jurists - I am merely a layman - would consider that promises of money in order to secure "evidence" from any individual do not accord with the best principles of real justice. It is the timing of such promises rather than the payments themselves which determine whether the "evidence" is likely to be degraded. To many witnesses, such sums would be profoundly life-altering.

Indeed, such promises, if concealed from a court, or perhaps divulged only to a prosecution if prosecution witnesses were involved, could be considered a deliberate perversion of justice through their potential to encourage perjury. It is hard to see how, if they were known to a competent defence, they would not be brought to the court's attention.

Perhaps RFJ would tell us of the timing of its promises of reward for the Lockerbie witness(es), who knew the details of those promises/payments and how they came to the conclusion that such promises were likely to enhance justice, as the title and text of the foundation proclaims.

Such promises may elicit information, but is that information fit for use in justice procedures? Does the end justify the means?

Dr Jim Swire, Rowans Corner, Calf Lane, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire.