Read the judgment in the case
A Scottish lawyer who claimed his client did not receive a fair trial on terror charges was today found not guilty of contempt of court.
But Aamer Anwar was told he had put forward misleading views and his conduct fell short of the highest professional standards.
The judges added: "The court is entitled to expect better of those who practice before it."
Following today's judgment, Mr Anwar said he welcomed the finding of no contempt.
"As a defence lawyer I never set out to win a popularity contest, but I was taught it is a lawyer's duty to fearlessly represent his clients no matter what crime he is accused of or how demonised he is by society.
"As our Government criminalises communities and creates 'thought crime', lawyers still have a responsibility to be the guardians of our liberties and to campaign against injustice.
"Everyone likes to talk of the independence of the judiciary and prosecution but an independent defence able to speak without fear of recrimination by the state is an essential for freedom and justice."
The allegation had centred on a critical statement which the prominent human rights lawyer made denouncing the guilty verdict for Mohammed Atif Siddique, 21, who was jailed for eight years for a series of offences in what was Scotland's first Islamist terrorism conviction.
Standing outside the court just after Siddique was convicted, Mr Anwar said the verdict was "a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech". He also alleged that the prosecution was "driven by the state" and voiced concerns that the computing student's case was heard in an "atmosphere of hostility" following the recent failed terror attacks on Glasgow Airport.
The trial judge, Lord Carloway, accused the lawyer of making "disparaging remarks" about him, the jury and the prosecution.
Lord Carloway said Mr Anwar's statement seemed to criticise the court as "not being an independent and objective forum for the determination of criminal charges but part of a system of unfairness and repression".
He added that it seemed to be "an attack on the terrorist laws themselves" and that while "private citizens" could choose to make such criticisms or attacks on the courts and the law, it was "another thing for a law agent in a particular case to use his position in that case to do so".
The ruling is believed to be the first time in the UK that a solicitor had faced a contempt of court allegation, following the conviction of a client and in relation to comments made outside court.
In the summary judgment, Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth and Lord Wheatley said: "Having considered all of the relevant material in detail the Court has concluded that, while the statements it examined embody angry and petulant criticism of the outcome of the trial process and a range of political comments concerning the position of Muslims in our society, no contempt of court has been committed by the respondent Aamer Anwar.
"However we feel both entitled and bound to comment on the conduct of the respondent as an officer of the court, for, as a practitioner in this court, that is what he is. In our opinion, the existence of that duty implies certain obligations upon such solicitors. They have a duty to ensure that their public utterances, whether critical or not, are based upon an accurate appreciation of the facts of those proceedings, and that their comments are not misleading. Regrettably, we do not think that those standards were met in this case and the court is entitled to expect better of those who practice before it."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article