Campaigners welcome judgement in Anwar case
Posted by seumasach on July 1, 2008
Press Release from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities
Tuesday 1 July 2008
Tuesday 1 July 2008
Campaigners welcome judgement in Anwar case
Lord Carloway accused of “misusing” contempt law
SACC welcomes the judgement given by three judges at Edinburgh High Court today that human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar did not commit contempt of court in statements he made last September following the conviction for “terrorism” of his client Mohammed Atif Siddique.
Nothing contained in the judgement, and nothing said when the case was discussed in court on 29 April, suggests that there was ever any serious basis for supposing that Aamer Anwar’s statements constituted contempt of court. It is deeply worrying that Lord Carloway – the judge in the Siddique case – should have chosen to initiate these unprecedented legal proceedings on such flimsy grounds.
Lord Carloway seems, at best, to have been misusing the law of contempt to create an opportunity for the court to express its views on Aamer Anwar’s statements. At worst, his actions look like a politically motivated attempt to silence a courageous lawyer.
We are disappointed that, while rejecting the contempt of court allegations, the court today used the opportunity to comment critically on Aamer Anwar’s statements. SACC fully supports the statements that Aamer Anwar made last September on the steps of Glasgow High Court, in the media, and in his press release.
The judges today described these statements as “angry and petulant.” It would surprise no one if the guilty verdict in the Siddique case – which came as a surprise to many who had followed the case – left Aamer Anwar and his client feeling angry. But the only petulance that anyone has shown in this protracted saga came from Lord Carloway, who chose to use the might of the contempt of court law to hit back at statements that he happened not to like.
The judges also referred, apparently in criticism, to “a range of political comments concerning the position of Muslims in our society” included in Aamer Anwar’s statement. It is surely beyond dispute that this is an issue of critical importance for our society, that it was essential background to the Siddique case, and that it played a key role in the jury’s interpretation of the actions of Mohammed Atif Siddique. We think it bodes ill for the future of Scottish justice that the judges should treat this matter in such a dismissive way.
We believe that the right of lawyers to speak in the sort of terms used by Aamer Anwar is an essential protection both for individuals who find themselves accused of crime and for society at large.
In the Siddique case, the interpretations that the police and the security services placed upon the guilty verdict were reported immediately and widely by the press. Lord Carloway’s own interpretations, issued at the later sentencing hearing, were reported just as widely. Since then, much of the public discussion of anti-terrorism policy has included references to Mohammed Atif Siddique’s supposed acts of terrorism. In these circumstances, it is of vital public interest that people should be told of alternative interpretations of the case.
Lawyers south of the border have long been in the habit for making forceful statements outside the court. We hope their more timorous cousins in Scotland will be encouraged by the outcome of this case to do the same, despite the huffing and puffing of the judges over the content of Aamer Anwar’s statements. And we hope that this is a trend that the Law Society of Scotland will support.
We wish Mohammed Atif Siddique well in his appeal against his conviction.
Notes
For the Summary of the Opinion of the Court, 1 July 2008, see http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=583&catid=33
For the statement issued by Aamer Anwar after the conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique, 17 September 2007, see http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=527&catid=33
In These New Times 
Leave a comment