Aamer
Anwar is a lawyer who unsuccessfully defended a client on terrorism
charges.
His client Mohammed Atif Siddique is currently serving eight years after
becoming the first Scot to be convicted of al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism
offences. The most serious being possessing al-Qaeda propaganda
material on his laptop computer for a purpose connected with terrorism.
He had also made a series of extremist claims to fellow students at
Glasgow Metropolitan College, including that he would "blow up" the
city.
Immediately after Siddique's trial, Anwar spoke with barely concealed
rage from the steps of the High Court in Glasgow, he spoke. He unleashed
a stinging verbal attack on Scotland's justice system.
Standing in the full glare nation's media, he described the verdict a
tragedy for justice and insisted the prosecution had been driven
by the state.
Anwar is now on trial himself accused of contempt of court as a result
of those remarks seven months before. In particular he is accused of a
common-law contempt or actions that are an affront to the court. That
might be willfully impeding the smooth running of the court, or doing
something that brings it into disrepute.
Supporters of free speech came out to support Anwar. They gathered in
their dozens outside the court building, holding banners in support of
the beleaguered lawyer.
Their message was simple: Defend Aamer Anwar. Defend the freedom of
speech.
Lord Carloway, the judge in the terror trial of Mohammed Atif Siddique,
described Anwar's statement as a multi-faceted tirade, and said
much of it was untrue or misleading. Referring the case to the panel of
three judges that yesterday began trying Anwar for contempt, Lord
Carloway said a defence lawyer had specific duties not only to his
client but to the court.
The case is unprecedented in British legal history. It has triggered
grave fears among civil-liberty groups that Scotland's judiciary could
be about to strike a serious blow against freedom of speech. The case is
likely to be ultimately decided in the European courts.
High-profile human-rights lawyers, including Michael Mansfield, Gareth
Peirce and Imran Khan, have publicly backed Anwar, as have writers,
academics, anti-war protesters and politicians.
A full-page advert in a Sunday newspaper branded the trial against Anwar
not only a violation of the right to free speech but also "an attack on
the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients".
Liberty, the UK civil-liberties group, has taken a keen interest in the
case. Yesterday, a representative of the group stood before the three
judges hearing the case and argued a guilty verdict would contravene the
right to free expression enshrined in European law. Its director, Shami
Chak-rabarti, earlier told The Scotsman: The ability of a lawyer to
protest on behalf of his client is crucial to both free speech and
justice in a democracy.
But while the roar of support from legal circles in England has been
deafening, lawyers in Scotland have been conspicuously quiet. The
Scotsman understands that many were asked to sign a letter of support,
but refused. They say talk about a threat to free speech is overblown.
John Scott, president of the Edinburgh Bar Association, said: The
problem was (Anwar] was inaccurately reporting what had happened in
court. His take for the cameras of what the jurors had decided was very
misleading. Aamer said his client had been convicted of finding answers
on the internet. In truth, he was found guilty of very serious offences.
Trying him for contempt was, I think, an overreaction.