Defense Attorney Runs Afoul of Judge in Glasgow Terrorism Trial

By Evan Kohlmann

Those who have been following the development of "homegrown" terrorism trials in the U.S. and U.K. will no doubt be familiar with the case of Scottish student Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was recently found guilty by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow of multiple criminal charges relating to terrorism--including distributing terrorist material through websites and claiming to be a member of Al-Qaida. On October 23, the sitting justice in the case, Lord Carloway, sentenced Siddique to eight years in prison--admonishing him that the evidence gathered in the case "is strongly suggestive of you having had close links, whether by the internet or otherwise, to people in the United Kingdom who promote Al Qaeda and associated terrorism... It is clear from the evidence that you did not have this material because of some innocent curiosity." [See the full sentencing memorandum from Lord Carloway, c/o the NEFA Foundation website]

Typically, this would be the end of the case against Siddique -- but now, there has been a further wrinkle. On September 17--when Siddique was first found guilty by the jury--one of his defense attorneys, Aamer Anwar, quickly organized an aggressive media campaign aimed at shedding public doubt on the verdict in the case. In addition to giving an address to journalists from the steps of the Glasgow High Court, Anwar also issued a press release, condemning the trial as "farcical" and "a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech." Anwar further accused prosecutors of mobilizing limitless "money & resources used to secure a conviction in this case, carried out in an atmosphere of hostility."

While Mr. Anwar's remarks were eagerly picked up on by highly-slanted publications like The Register, not everyone was so pleased with his comments--namely, the trial judge, Lord Carloway, who has issued an official memorandum remitting the matter to a panel of other Scottish judges to decide if Aamer Anwar is in contempt of court. According to Lord Carloway's latest memo, attorney Anwar's public remarks "appeared, at least in part, to be: (a) untrue; and (b) misleading":

"...The remarks appeared to be an unjustified attack on almost every area of the trial process, other than the defence... it appeared to amount to an attack on the integrity of the jury... The statement appears to be an attack on the independence of the Advocate Depute who prosecuted the case... Finally, the statement seems to be an attack on the fairness of the trial and thus presumably an attack on the Court itself... Of course, if there is any merit in any of the content of the criticisms of the Court, then the panel, through his legal advisors, has the opportunity to make such complaints at the appropriate time to the appropriate forum, namely the Court of Criminal Appeal or even the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. That was not what was done here. Rather, 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 specifically addressed the repeated ad hominem attacks made by Anwar and other defense attorneys on expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution in the Siddique case--namely, myself. In his memorandum, Carloway labeled Mr. Anwar's attempts to impugn my professional credibility as "an unwarranted attack on an expert witness... in suggesting in public that he ran a web site full of hatred. Mr. Kohlmann had been instructed to give evidence covering Islamic terrorism in general and the significance of some of the material in the panel's possession... Most of his evidence was itself not challenged. Such an attack within the trial process for a legitimate purpose is one thing, but to make accusations against him in public is another."

TrackBack