Anwar court case "unnecessary"

Counsel for solicitor accused of contempt contends that full and free comment is paramount

News, 30 April 2008

Aamer Anwar's defence counsel claimed yesterday that the outspoken solicitor should not be on trial for contempt of court, as three High Court judges considered whether to find an allegation of contempt established in relation to his remarks following a trial last year.

Mr Anwar is facing the charge after claiming in public that his client Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was jailed for eight years for terrorism offences, did not get a fair trial. In remarks following Siddique's conviction, he described the verdict as a tragedy for justice, the prosecution as driven by the state, and the trial as taking place in an atmosphere of hostility following the terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport.

Paul McBride QC for the solicitor submitted that trial judge Lord Carloway had overreacted to Mr Anwar's comments and it had not been either necessary or appropriate to refer the case to the court.

A number of prominent figures from within and outwith the legal profession have declared their support for Mr Anwar, arguing that freedom of speech should be paramount. Hundreds of supporters cheered the lawyer outside the High Court in Edinburgh.

In a novel move a lawyer from the human rights organisation Liberty was allowed to address the judges on freedom of speech.

Mr McBride said it was a fundamental principle of Scots law that cases could be commented on by the defence solicitor freely and without fear of penalty. Mr Anwar's remarks, even if not tactful, did not challenge the authority of the court of the supremacy of the law, and the court should not penalise people for crticising its decisions.

He produced an affidavit by Siddique stating that the remarks were a toned down version of what he would have said, to counter Lord Carloway's comment that the statements appeared to be Mr Anwar's own.

The judges, Lords Osborne, Kingarth and Wheatley, will give their decision at a later date.