* A New York jury yesterday awarded #1.6m in damages to the parents of

Kenneth Bisset, a US college student killed in the Lockerbie bombing. It

was the second such verdict since courts decided three years ago that

Loading article content

PanAm was liable for damages on the grounds that its security procedures

had failed to prevent a suitcase containing the bomb from being placed

on Flight 103.

THE Lord Advocate yesterday effectively rejected the possibility of a

disgraced former American intelligence agent being granted diplomatic

immunity to allow him to give evidence on the Lockerbie bombing.

Mr Lester Coleman, a former US intelligence agent, has said he is

willing to come to Scotland to give evidence on the outrage provided he

was offered immunity from extradition to the United States.

However, Scotland's senior law officer said yesterday that neither the

Crown Office nor the Scottish Office had any role or authority in

relation to the extradition of Mr Coleman to the US, where warrants have

been issued for his arrest. That was a matter for the Home Office and

the English courts.

The comments by the Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, made in

a reply to Mr Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, came on the same

day that former Scottish Office Minister Allan Stewart called for the

former American intelligence agent to be granted immunity from

extradition to allow him to give evidence on the PanAm bombing to a

Scottish court.

Mr Stewart, Conservative MP for Eastwood, speaking on Radio Scotland's

Newsdrive programme yesterday, said: ''I think unquestionably he (Lester

Coleman) should be granted immunity from extradition.

''There are very many questions about the Lockerbie tragedy. He says

he has got very substantial evidence to offer. I cannot see why we in

Britain have anything at all to lose by giving Lester Coleman the

opportunity to put forward that evidence.''

He added: ''The Crown Prosecution Service appears to have decided who

is guilty. I cannot understand why they seem to have this single-track

approach and to be ruling out any other.''

Asked if he believed that the Lockerbie investigation was being

hampered by a cover-up, Mr Stewart said: ''I think it is extremely odd .

. . that other possible avenues of exploration to get at the truth about

Lockerbie simply appear not to be being explored. That cannot be

right.''

Mr Stewart's plea came just a few days after Mr Dalyell urged the Lord

Advocate to give diplomatic immunity to Mr Coleman to uncover the part

he claimed the US played in the Lockerbie tragedy.

Mr Dalyell said Mr Coleman was willing to speak to Scottish police

about an alleged security loophole set up by the US which resulted in a

bomb being placed on PanAm flight 103 at Frankfurt airport.

Mr Coleman's theory of a link with a drugs run from Lebanon through

Cyprus and Germany was the conclusion of a book about him by Mr Donald

Goddard, called The Trail of the Octopus. The book is now the subject of

a libel action by another US agent.

Mr Coleman believes the bomb got on to the jet because US intelligence

agents in Beirut in 1988 agreed with Lebanese terrorists to facilitate a

route for drugs from Lebanon to the US in exchange for information about

Western hostages.

Luggage containing drugs was protected by US intelligence, with normal

security restrictions on baggage at airports removed. However, he

alleges, the terrorists exploited the loophole by exchanging a bag of

drugs with a bag containing a bomb at Frankfurt airport.

Mr Coleman was based in Beirut at the time and often travelled to

Cyprus, where he had dealings with the American Drug Enforcement Agency.

Shortly after the book was published in 1993, Mr Coleman was indicted

on charges of perjury and travelling on a false passport. He fled the US

and is now in hiding.

The Lord Advocate, in his written reply to Mr Dalyell, the contents of

which were published yesterday, explained that the Crown's position was

based on evidence, and that careful consideration was given to any

information received and appropriate investigations carried out.

In reply to Mr Dalyell's request that Mr Coleman be allowed to enter

the UK with the promise of immunity from extradition to talk with the

police, the Lord Advocate, says: ''Neither the Crown Office nor Scottish

Office has any role or authority in relation to extradition to the

United States.

''The procedures for extradition as between the United Kingdom and the

United States are the responsibility of the Home Office and the English

courts.''

Mr Dalyell said he found it ''extraordinarily odd'' that

responsibility for extradition in Scotland was a matter for the Home

Office and the English courts.

The MP said: ''Two Scottish lawyers have told me that they thought

extradition and immunity from extradition north of the Border would be

the responsibility of the Crown Office or the Scottish Office.

''The Lord Advocate's statement has certainly raised eyebrows in

Scottish legal circles.''