The Chapter 25 of the SCCRC Report is particularly difficult to read as it deals with two protectively marked documents.
These documents were examined by a member of the Commission’s enquiry team whose notes are currently in the possession of D&G.
By a letter dated 27 April 2007, the Crown Office confirmed that neither of the protectively marked documents was disclosed to the defence. (…) It was also pointed out in the letter that:
“It has never been the Crown’s position in this case that the MST-13 timers were not supplied by the Libyan intelligence services to any other party or that only the Libyan intelligence services were in possession of the timers.”
The SCCRC seems to have a real issue with one of these documents.
25.6 In the Commission’s view the Crown’s decision not to disclose one of the documents to the defence indicates that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in applicant’s case. In reaching this decision the Commission has taken into account paragraphs 49, 73 and 74 of the trial court’s judgment.
All three paragraphs discuss the MST-13 timers. (See Lockerbie Trial: § 49, 73 and 74 )
 Despite this evidence we cannot, however, exclude absolutely the possibility that more than two MST-13 timers were supplied by MEBO to the Stasi, although there is no positive evidence that they were, nor any reasons why they should have been. Similarly, we cannot exclude the possibility that other MST-13 timers may have been made by MEBO and supplied to other parties, but there is no positive evidence that they were.
 The models being used were, however, different from the RT SF-16 used in the PA103 disaster, and the timers were of a type known as ice-cube timers. These were quite different from MST-13s, much less sophisticated and much less reliable, and the intention was no doubt to use them in conjunction with the barometric pressure devices to detonate the explosive.
 For the reasons given elsewhere, while a small quantity of such timers was supplied by MEBO to the East German Stasi, there is no evidence at all to suggest that any of them found their way into the hands of organisations such as the PFLP-GC.
Although I have not, of course, read the document, it is quite clear what it implies And it is uncomprehensible that the Crown did not disclose it to the defence at the trial.
But the story of the Appeal judges’ refusal to disclose to Megrahi’s defence the document (the non-disclosure of which at the trial had been deemed by the SCCRC as a possible cause of a miscarriage of justice) is a nightmare tale that Kafka and Orwell would have been proud to have co-written.