The Muslim News - Cleared lawyer hits out at ‘institutionally racist’ Scottish judiciary

Issue 231, Friday 25 July 2008 - 23 Rajab 1423

Cleared lawyer hits out at ‘institutionally racist’ Scottish judiciary

By Elham Asaad Buaras

The first solicitor to face charges of contempt of court for remarks made after a conviction blamed his ordeal on a north-south divide in the interpretation of the law and the “institutionally racist” and demographically unrepresentative Scottish judiciary.
His peers in England rallied with him and questioned the motives behind the charges brought against Scotland’s most prominent Muslim solicitor. Aamer Anwar, 43, a civil rights campaigner was cleared when three judges ruled that he was not in contempt of court because the “critical” and “misleading” nature of his comments did not threaten the court’s authority.
Anwar described the guilty verdict of Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was sentenced for eight years last year for possessing terrorism-related material as “a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech.” He also complained about the “farcical part of the evidence against Atif was that he grew a beard, [and] had documents in Arabic which he could not even read.”
Siddique was convicted of possessing CDs and videos that gave “a reasonable suspicion that they were connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism,” of collecting “information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism,” and of spreading “terrorist propaganda” on web sites.
But Anwar concluded, “The prosecution was driven by the State, with no limit to the money and resources used to secure a conviction in this case, carried out in an atmosphere of hostility after the Glasgow Airport attack and ending on the anniversary of 9/11.”
The presiding judge, Lord Colin Carloway, accused Anwar of making disparaging remarks about him, the jury and a witness, but referred the case to the High Court.
Anwar told The Muslim News he was pleased to be cleared but blamed the Scottish judiciary for “not having a history of lawyers voicing their concerns.” He also said he received very little support from his Scottish counter-parts in comparison with the support he received from lawyers from the South. If convicted Anwar would have faced the loss of his licence to practice law and a prison sentence.
Anwar’s case rested on an aspect of Scottish law which differs from the rest of the UK by permitting the prosecution of individuals and their legal representatives for contempt of court for statements made after the trial has ended and outside of court. This part of Scots law by precedent and convention is not applied to remarks made on behalf of convicts. The case against Anwar rested on the assertion that the statement he read did not represent the views of his client, but his own opinions, which fell foul of his “duties to the Court.”
Elder brother of Mohammed, Atif Siddique, told The Muslim News he was “angered and appalled” that Anwar faced the charges insisting, “The statement made outside Glasgow’s High Court last year was the view of [Mohammed] Atif and our family.”
“We got silence from the Scottish legal profession when 9 cases were highlighted, cases south of the border, where similar statements were made. There’s obviously a tradition there in which it is accepted practice that lawyers can say what can be deemed to be controversial remarks. It’s a healthy part of the Justice system,” said Anwar.
He also hit out against the “predominantly White Scottish judiciary” which has “very few Muslim and ethnic minority lawyers representing the communities. If you don’t have ethnic minority lawyers in its ranks then clearly they have a problem of institutional racism.”
Anwar insisted he has “always been responsible” but that his faith means his views are more likely to be seen as controversial. “I believe there is no difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. I think the war in Iraq is illegal, I have views on the 42 day pre-charge detention, many non-Muslims share those views, but because I am a Muslim voicing that concern I get labelled ‘controversial Muslim lawyer’.”
Prominent Human Rights lawyer Gareth Peirce told The Muslim News an analysis has to be made of why exactly Anwar faced the charges, “There’s no difference in the law in England and Scotland. What we had here was a difference in the way the judge reacted. What has to be analysed is why Anwar was subjected to this; is it because he is a Muslim or is it because he was a brave solicitor who addressed a very unpopular issue?”
Delivering the verdict, Lord Kenneth Hilton Osborne said that Anwar’s standards had fallen below that expected of a solicitor, saying, “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.”
Another human rights lawyer based in London, Louise Christian of Christian & Khan disagrees with that finding. She told The Muslim News, “The minute the Court itself tries to go down the route of deciding whether the criticism was misleading or ill founded as it appears has happened despite the acquittal then there is an attack on freedom of speech. There may well be a chilling effect which inhibits other lawyers from speaking out in future.”
Law Professor at the University of Glasgow, Lindsay Farmer said, “It is vital to the practice and success of democracy that lawyers and others are able to comment freely and critically on the conduct of court cases.”
Christian said Anwar “should never have been put through this ordeal. In a free society lawyers must be allowed freedom of expression to criticise courts’ decisions.”
After the judgment the Law Society of Scotland said it will “consider the Opinion of the Court in this case in detail and take any appropriate action.” Elaborating further, a spokeperson for the Society told The Muslim News it “looks into cases where a member has been criticised by the court. In this type of circumstance, a panel of one solicitor and one non-solicitor will examine the opinion or comment in detail. If they feel that a solicitor’s actions could amount to misconduct then the Society may raise a complaint against the solicitor concerned.”
Clarifying what the “appropriate action” was, the spokesperson said, “it would be appropriate to raise a complaint against Mr Anwar if the panel decides that his behaviour could amount to misconduct, but inappropriate to do so if not.”