Cleared of acting in contempt of court and no longer facing a possible jail sentence, human rights specialist Aamer Anwar secured a crucial judgement supporting a solicitor’s right to speak out. Steven Raeburn catches up with Anwar to find out the wider implications of the judgement.

Sixty three painful days passed between Aamer Anwar’s one day hearing before a panel of three judges, and their delivery of the verdict that he had not acted in contempt of court when he said –among other things- that the guilty verdict against his client Atif Siddique under new terror laws was a travesty for justice, conducted in an atmosphere of hostility.

The Firm has already bemoaned the extraordinary length of time their Lordships took to deliberate over a decision that effects every practitioner, particularly those working in the criminal law field, as well as every citizen or person who holds an opinion on the administration of justice. Lawyers, Human rights Groups and campaigners spoke out and supported Anwar’s rights to speak freely, largely in England. Home support was spare, with the notable exceptions of the Stop the War Coalition and MSP Margo MacDonald. Solidarity flowed ebulliently from south of the border, yet ran dry from the north. It has, as Anwar says, been a lonely nine months, unexpectedly so for the solicitor who is referred to by one community group as Glasgow’s Malcolm X.

In the procurement of the no contempt finding, Anwar has secured a key ruling in support of freedom of speech and human rights, something he has done often - quietly and invisibly, but occasionally extremely memorably- both in his private life and in the practice of the law. On his record, he should be feted, yet he polarises. One almost dare not say it, but the question must be asked; if he was white, privately educated and protestant, would he today be universally hailed a hero?

“Lawyers who represent unpopular clients are rarely popular themselves,” Anwar observes, back at his desk and cleared of the burden of uncertainty –and a possible jail sentence- that had hung over him since Lord Carloway referred him to the High Court.

“By the nature of me being a campaigner before becoming a lawyer, and a handful of certain high profile cases coming along which rocked the establishment, such as the Chokhar case, I expected to get flak from sections of the media, but I was taught that the purpose of being a defence lawyer was to serve the interests of justice. When this happened to me, I went straight to the Law Society rules, which state that we have a duty not only to act as guardians of national liberties, but to seek improvements in the law and in the legal system. That is clearly set out. So for some people, that might be by public appointment, or sitting on committees. For others, it is to speak out against injustice, and that is especially important when the whole world is against you.”

Trying times reveal who your friends really are, and Anwar found few in Scotland, which hasn’t embittered him, but did force him to draw on the bedrock of his resilience.

“I welcomed the finding of no contempt, but overall I would say I am shattered and exhausted from the experience. It has been nine lonely months within the legal profession, fighting my own corner. I believe in the independence of a defence that is able to speak out fearlessly on behalf of its clients, without fear of recrimination by the state. Their Lordships made quite clear in the first ten pages of their judgement that it is an inalienable right. Some say that lawyers like myself can’t hide behind the banner of free speech. What they fail to see is the history of this, the background of the case, haven’t looked at the individuals and organisations who offered support, from Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, Helena Kennedy; some of the most celebrated names in British legal history.

“Today, if somebody is classed as a terrorist, what lawyers, the newspapers and the media say is, ‘woe betide any lawyer who dares to go on the steps of the court, speak on behalf of his client, and make a statement claiming his client is innocent, he wishes to appeal, and stating that the verdict is a tragedy for justice and freedom of speech.’ That is the job of a defence lawyer, and I think some people seem confused about that. It has been exposed in Scotland that there isn’t a tradition of lawyers speaking out, or sticking their heads above the parapet. We need people to speak out, and that can sometimes bring you into conflict. Who is my duty to: the state?”

Most practising solicitors’ work does not force them to address the extent of their responsibility. Routine client work rarely brings the agent into conflict with anything as internationally divisive as new terror laws and the rationale behind them. Interest in human rights, geopolitics, the uses and abuses of power and the extent of freedom is not fleeting, and Anwar has found himself specialising in a field that draws him closer and closer towards conflict with the legislative and executive arms of the constitutional framework by its very nature. As the political climate changes, Anwar’s workload spirals. Whilst he hopes not to repeat his recent experience, his prerogatives and agenda remain.

“I believe in justice. In terms of saying my client didn’t receive a fair trial, yes I would do that again. Speaking out against the terror laws; yes, I would do that again, if it would be justified in terms of the judgement. The problem is that the general public and the legal profession have not read through the essential parts of this judgement. They have said that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and even criticism of the administration of justice is one of our guaranteed liberties,” Anwar says.

“That is why we have trials in public. It would be ironic if everybody in the country at the end of a trial, from the judge, to the Home Secretary, to the Prime Minister, First Minister and every national newspaper editor can comment - wrongly- on the case, even leaking parts of the case that never actually existed, such as plots to go and behead the Canadian Prime Minister, which was absolute nonsense. If all of them can comment, surely a lawyer has a right to protect the reputation of his client, even if he has been found guilty. That is a fundamental principle,”

“Are we saying that everyone who is found guilty by a court in this country is necessarily guilty? No. They have been found guilty by the courts, but if your client pleads innocence, then you lodge an appeal. Miscarriages of justice happen sometimes. I know what I was taught in law school, and what it says in the Law Society guidelines, unless they wish to erase that, is that we should be the guardians of our national liberties.”

“It is even more important for lawyers; you often have clients who do not have the resources of the state. At this point in time the defence is continually being demolished. Their rights to legal access and legal aid are being destroyed. It is a battle to get the resources and facilities to adequately represent your client.”

The case which led to Anwar’s post-trial remarks and his referral to the High Court was brought under new terrorism statutes, and it was argued during the one day hearing that a finding of contempt would have a chilling effect in future cases. The result is in one sense a vindication of Anwar’s position, but in another, the fact that he was referred to the Court at all is a barometer of the state of the public consciousness regarding terror, freedom of speech, and fundamental rights.

“The best way to protect national security is to have a transparent justice system, where the rights of those people we despise even more so than anybody, whose religion we might hate, whose beliefs we might hate, who we think is completely and utterly demonised, even if that man is Osama Bin laden, the best way to expose people like that, the terror recruiters, the men full of hatred, is to defend their right to justice; to apply the rights to them more so than anybody else.

“It is left to lawyers to defend our rights, because we are the ones who read the small print.”