The Lockerbie bomber is dying of cancer. That’s no laughing matter for anyone, but, days after his illness was announced, a bizarre story raised some chuckles over breakfast. Prisoners in Greenock, where Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is held, are panicking about his impending demise — because they will lose their Sky TV. It is claimed Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, pays the satellite subscription so Megrahi can watch Arabic channels. Fellow cons get to watch the best football as an added bonus, so Megrahi’s a popular guy. The Daily Record story carried impish quotes about candle-lit vigils, with lags praying Megrahi lasts till the Scotland-Argentina game on November 19 and, by some miracle, the Old Firm derby on December 27.

The tale raises a guilty smile. But we really shouldn’t be laughing. This is a man in the last stages of a painful and distressing disease. His prostate cancer has spread to other vital organs. He is far from home and family and his conviction is considered unsafe by several learned people. Viewed from this perspective, he deserves sympathy.

Yet this is also a man convicted of the biggest mass murder on British soil. He was found guilty after a painstaking criminal investigation and a hearing before three Scottish judges. None of the conspiracy theories advanced by his supporters has been tested with such rigour. The Libyan government, his former employer, has paid compensation to the families of the victims (though Gaddafi now claims this was only to get the sanctions against his country lifted). If Megrahi put the suitcase containing the bomb on to the connecting flight for PanAm 103, he is responsible for the calculated deaths of 270 people, many more than Rose West, Ian Huntley and Ian Brady combined. Considered from this perspective, he is a less sympathetic character. Yet we treat him with indifference, compared to other mass murderers.

Megrahi has become a political symbol rather than a human being. We seldom see him in the context of the crime. His humanity is obscured by the legal processes that have sprung up, like a complex maze of mirrors. The humanity of all those people who perished on the night of December 21, 1988 is also eclipsed. While we argue over evidence and motives and the reliability of witnesses, let us not forget the unfortunate passengers. Many regained consciousness during their two-minute plunge through the freezing winter sky. The plane broke up in seconds and the blast tore off their clothes. They spent their last waking moments cold and naked in the dark. Eleven people on the ground were incinerated in an instant. The residents of Lockerbie were left to pick up the pieces, including human body parts.

This tragedy was quickly subsumed in the long process of getting the alleged bomber to trial and the extraordinary set-up in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, where a Scottish court sat amid unprecedented security. There followed one failed appeal. Last year, after four years of deliberation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission suggested there may have been a miscarriage of justice. The new appeal will take place next year, missing the 20th anniversary of Lockerbie this December. By then, Megrahi will probably be dead as well.

Robert Black QC, the emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, believes a miscarriage of justice has indeed occurred and is scathing about the legal establishment’s apparent reluctance to put this right. He has accused the Lord Advocate and the British government of resorting to “every delaying tactic in the book” to obstruct an appeal, exposing Scottish justice to ridicule around the world. This view is shared by Professor Hans Kochler, the UN observer at the Camp Zeist trial, and one of its biggest critics.

Given the circumstances, there are many who believe it appropriate for the Libyan to be released early, so he can spend his last days with his wife and children. The law, quite correctly, allows the early release of prisoners who face imminent death. There are some, however, who the public would never tolerate releasing, even on humanitarian grounds, such as West and Huntley. But if Megrahi is guilty, then why should his terrible murders be seen as less serious than their terrible murders? It is easier to be compassionate if you think the man is innocent. Some individuals, including Tam Dalyell MP, describe him as a quiet, cultured man who is incapable of such a ghastly act. I do seem to remember the late Lord Longford saying something similar about the child killer Myra Hindley. Nobody paid much attention.

For the moment, Megrahi is a convicted child killer — the youngest person on PanAm 103 was nine months old. Many, including the families of most American victims, are convinced of his guilt. The families have, after all, received millions of dollars of compensation from Gaddafi, his employer. This leaves a terrible taste. If Megrahi, an intelligence agent, placed the bomb, it was at the command of a president who is now our new best friend.

It is for the court of appeal to determine the facts. Black argues it can proceed even if Megrahi dies. Beyond that, we need to nail allegations that Scottish justice was compromised. Was evidence withheld from the defence for political reasons? Why is the appeal process so slow the appellant is likely to die first? Lockerbie is more damaging to our legal system’s reputation than the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal. Like the McKie case, it should be scrutinised by a full public inquiry.

As for Megrahi, he should be treated with compassion in his last days. But unless and until his conviction is overturned, that must be within the walls of Greenock prison.

joan.mcalpine@sunday-times.co.uk

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden