A controversial Scottish lawyer is to face a contempt of court hearing over remarks he made about the conviction of a student on terror charges.
A controversial Scottish lawyer is to face a contempt of court hearing over remarks he made about the conviction of a student on terror charges.
Lord Carloway had been considering whether to act against Aamer Anwar over a statement he read outside a court in September.
It fiercely denounced the guilty verdict for Mohammed Atif Siddique, a student from Alva in Clackmannanshire, over a series of Islamic terrorism offences.
Lord Carloway, who heard the trial, accused Mr Anwar of making "disparaging remarks" about him, the jury, and the prosecution.
After two weeks of deliberation over whether contempt of court had been committed, the judge today passed the decision to the High Court in Edinburgh.
Lord Carloway said a panel of three judges could eventually be convened to make a final ruling.
Siddique, 21, was found guilty in September of providing material on bomb-making and weapons training, and threatening to become a suicide bomber.
He was jailed for eight years last month for what was Scotland's first Islamist terrorism conviction.
In a statement read out on the steps of the High Court in Glasgow moments after the jury's verdict, Mr Anwar denounced the decision as a "tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech".
He claimed the computing student did not receive a fair trial and that the trial was heard in an "atmosphere of hostility".
The solicitor also said that the prosecution was "driven by the State" and that Siddique was found guilty of "doing what millions of young people do every day - looking for answers on the internet".
In his note today Lord Carloway said: "Considerable tolerance is afforded to litigants to express, sometimes in trenchant tones, their views on the result of a case.
"These may be highly critical of the Court.
"However, in this case the criticism was not just of the particular judge or prosecutor, it was of at least one civilian witness (the police were targets as well) and the jury.
"It must be important to afford them some protection from unwarranted attacks by members of the legal profession."
He added: "In all these circumstances, since the statements made by the agent may appear to be a criticism not only of the jury, the prosecutor and a witness, but of my own conduct of the trial, I will remit this matter for determination of the High Court in Edinburgh, any procedure and hearings to be presided over by a judge other than myself.
"It may be that, in the light of the issues of principle involved, a panel of three judges might be deemed appropriate for the final substantive hearing."
A date has yet to be fixed for any further hearing in the matter, Lord Carloway said.
During a hearing two weeks ago in front of Lord Carloway, Mr Anwar's counsel argued that the contents of the press release were meant to be the words of Siddique.
If any disrespect had been shown to the court, then he apologised, Stephen Woolman QC added.
Siddique's brother, Mohammed Asif Siddique, also spoke in support of Mr Anwar outside the court, saying the statement had been released on behalf of his brother.
But Lord Carloway said today: "It was clear from the nature of the statements that they were not being made on behalf of the panel but were the personal views of the agent himself.
"This can be seen from the terms of the press release where, for example, the panel is referred to in the third person and where the remarks are those of the panel, they appear in quotation marks."
The judge also 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.
"Finally it seemed to be an attack on the terrorist laws themselves," he said.
"Again, a private citizen may choose to make such criticisms or attacks on the Courts and the Law, but it is another thing for a law agent in a particular case to use his position in that case to do so."
