Professor Robert Black has drafted and published an amendment which he proposes should be inserted into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1995 -the "bible" of criminal law, to enable Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al Megrahi's appeal to be dealt with swiftly.

The Justice For Megrahi campaign, of which Black is a founding  member, have consistently criticised the Crown Office for prevaricating and delaying the hearing of Megrahi's second appeal. The group have stated publicly that they believe the Crown Office are hopeful that Megrahi will die before his appeal can be heard.

Now, Professor Black has published a proposed amendment, which MSP Alex Neil is understood to be willing to introduce in Holyrood, which would allow Megrahi's appeal to be staggered, and therefore facilitate an early disposal if such a conclusion was warranted.

Such a move would also make it more likely that the full hearing of an appeal would be avoided, potentially satisying the perceived concerns of the Crown and facilitating a way out of the impasse.

"It is rumoured that the various stages in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal, which is scheduled to begin on 28 April 2009, may not be concluded until well into 2010," Black said.

"Mr Megrahi is terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer. The purpose of this piece of law reform is to make it possible for his conviction to be quashed without his having to wait until after all the separate stages of his appeal have been concluded for the court to deliver judgement. This will maximise his chances of seeing his name cleared before he succumbs to his disease."

Professor Black previously called for amendments to be made to the 1995 act as part of the Greshornish Accord of 2008.

The new section is proposed to be inserted into Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and reads as follows:-

(1) Where an appeal is heard in stages with specific grounds of appeal allocated to each stage and there is an interval of more than four weeks between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next, the court, if the appellant at or before the end of any stage requests, shall (a) give judgment on such grounds of appeal as have been argued, and (b) exercise such of its powers under section 118(1) as it deems appropriate before the commencement of argument on the grounds of appeal allocated to the succeeding stage.

(2) Where the interval between the end of any stage and the beginning of the next is less than four weeks, the court may, if it thinks fit and the appellant requests, exercise the powers conferred in subsection (1).

(3) Where the court exercises the power conferred in subsection (1) or subsection (2), it shall continue to hear and shall give judgment upon the grounds of appeal allocated to the remaining stages of the appeal unless the appellant intimates his abandonment thereof.

(4) Where, in respect of each individual stage, the court has disposed of the grounds of appeal allocated thereto by affirming the verdict of the trial court, the court shall, at the conclusion of the appeal, consider whether, having regard to the whole grounds of appeal, a miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceedings in which the appellant was convicted.