The Regional Court in the Black Sea city of Varna was ready to make a video-conference connection with the UK and hear the testimony of Graham Sankey regarding the Michael Shields case but at the time the UK did not offer such a choice, judge Angelina Lazarova told Bulgarian Focus news agency.

On September 9 2009, Lazarova, who presided over the jury that sentenced Shields to 15 years' imprisonment for hitting Bulgarian bartender Martin Georgiev with a brick in 2005, shed more light on the issue of Sankey which Shields' supporters have always claimed was the key to Shields' innocence.

Sankey and Shields were part of a group of Liverpool fans arrested after Georgiev was attacked by Englishmen outside the bar in which he worked in Zlatni Pysatsi Black Sea resort on May 30 2005.

Sankey was questioned by police and set free to return to the UK after 24 hours in custody. Shields, on the other hand, was prosecuted and convicted for causing the blow to Georgiev's head that seriously injured him.

Later, Shields' supporters repeatedly claimed that Sankey confessed after he returned to the UK that he was the guilty one and not Shields. They have always stated the the Bulgarian court refused to accept this new evidence in its ruling.

Lazarova told Focus that she was ready to listen to Sankey's testimony via video link but at the time the UK did not provide for such an option.

"All our efforts in calling him to the witness stand and organise a video link did not meet the understanding or co-operation of the other side," she told Focus.

"Sankey was arrested for 24 hours, he was questioned and we had a copy of his passport and photograph and all this was included in the case," she said.

"The confessions he made through the media and his lawyers were also discussed by us," she said.

Lazarova also commented on the words of UK justice secretary Jack Straw who had said on September 9 that "important new evidence came to light". Straw was apparently told of a visit by two members of the Shields family to the home of another man alleged to be responsible for the crime.

"I was told that in the course of the visit that a man made a verbal confession to the crime in front of several other people. When looked at alongside all the previously available evidence, (it) has now satisfied me that Mr Shields meets the high test set by the court," said Straw.

"This confession, however, has no legal value as court evidence. This is some kind of retelling of a story that has served as a pretext for Straw to shift position on the case," she said.