Judges yesterday ordered the UK Government to hand over two confidential documents which relate to the Lockerbie bombing to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Judges yesterday ordered the UK Government to hand over two confidential documents which relate to the Lockerbie bombing to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Scotland's top judge, Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, said the material should be submitted to the court within seven days.

He said that a future hearing or hearings would be held behind closed doors to determine whether the documents should be disclosed to lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. But the judges said they would not make a decision on whether to appoint a security-vetted special advocate to represent Megrahi's interests in future hearings about the documents until they had seen the material.

The judgment came after three days of submissions from the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in Scottish legal affairs, the Crown Office and Megrahi's defence team.

Lord Hamilton said: "The Advocate General should produce to the court for examination by it copies of the documents in question.

"That should be done, subject to appropriate security arrangements being in place, within the next seven days."

One document, which is thought to contain information about the timer used to detonate the bomb, was uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

It said that failure to disclose the document, which comes from an unnamed foreign country, could constitute a miscarriage of justice and referred the case back to the courts for a new appeal.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said that disclosing the document would cause "real harm" to national security and international relations and has lodged a claim of "public interest immunity".

The PII certificate signed by Mr Miliband covers both the document referred to by the commission and a second document, which is linked to the first.

Earlier yesterday, Advocate General Lord Davidson QC dismissed a proposal by the Crown that limited access to the documents could be given to the defence. Ronald Clancy QC, for the Crown, had said that the "best option" would be for a "summarised or redacted" version to be handed over, providing national security is not put at risk.

At the time Mr Clancy said: "I do not understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage."

But yesterday, Lord Davidson told the appeal judges: "I don't know where that understanding came from. Not from me.

"Let me be clear. The (foreign) secretary's judgment is that any worthwhile summary or redaction would cause harm to the UK national security and international relations interest."

The Advocate General has put forward a plan for a special security-vetted advocate to be appointed to replace the defence in the hearings which will address the issue of public interest immunity.

He has also suggested that the special advocate could play a role in the appeal itself, a proposal which was criticised by the defence.

Margaret Scott QC, for the defence, said: "It is a radical departure and an unprecedented use of special representatives. It involves the improper use of special advocates. The result would be... to deny the appellant to a fair hearing in his appeal."