By James Dean


Leading human rights lawyers this week warned of a 'chilling effect' on the right of solicitors to speak outside the courtroom on behalf of clients, as they came to the defence of a Scottish solicitor prosecuted for contempt of court after criticising his client's trial process.



The case is understood to be the first time a solicitor in the UK has been prosecuted for contempt after speaking about a trial.



Aamer Anwar appeared in court last week charged with contempt after he read out a press release criticising his client's conviction for terrorist offences last September. His remarks led trial judge Lord Carloway to suggest that Anwar should be investigated for possible contempt.



Louise Christian, solicitor at human rights firm Christian Khan, said: 'If [Anwar] suffers a professional penalty, it's going to have a chilling effect on lawyers throughout the UK and a chilling effect on democracy.'



A number of prominent lawyers practising in England provided written submissions to the court in support of Anwar. Michael Mansfield QC, Baroness Kennedy QC, Ian Macdonald QC, Imran Khan and Tayab Ali put forward five reasons why action against Anwar should be dropped, citing among other things, breach of open justice and breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.



Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, which also provided submissions to the court on behalf of Anwar, said: 'The ability of a lawyer to protest on behalf of his client is crucial to both free speech and justice in a democracy.'



In September last year, Anwar's client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, was convicted of various terrorism offences and sentenced to eight years in prison. After the return of the jury's verdict, but prior to the sentencing process, Anwar read out a press release on the steps of Glasgow's High Court, and later appeared on BBC Two's 'Newsnight'.



He described his client's conviction as 'a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech', and said his client 'did not receive a fair trial'.



Lord Carloway later wrote in a note on the case: 'It would seem highly unlikely that he [Siddique] would have concocted the multi-faceted tirade contained in the press release... Before even the process of sentencing had been completed, the remarks were deliberately made in public and expressed as the views of a solicitor; a person in whom members of the public are entitled to place their trust as a person of some integrity.'



Lord Carloway also suggested the statement read out by Anwar was, at least in part, untrue and misleading, and Anwar's attacks on the trial's process and fairness were unjustified. In an earlier hearing the court was told that Anwar believed he was espousing the word of his client.



In their joint submission in support of Anwar, Mansfield,Kennedy, Khan and other leading lawyers said Anwar's comments were 'defence gloss'. They said: '[Anwar's client] Siddique was charged and convicted of an exceptionally serious crime. The stigma attached to those convicted of terrorism offences [means] it is important for lawyers to strive to create a sympathetic narrative for their client, even after the trial is over, to assist in future rehabilitation.'



Judgment is expected this week.