Aamer Wins His Hearing, July 1
Three judges sitting at Edinburgh High Court ruled on 1 July that human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar DID NOT commit contempt of court in statements he made following the conviction of his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, on “terrorism” charges last September.
Read Aamer’s statement after the decision here.
The three judges sitting for the hearing called him “angry” and “petulant,” however.
The Law Society of Scotland could still make a decision to punish or censure him in some way. It’s important to post your messages of support for Aamer here and keep up our defence of his free speech to the Law Society.
BBC News has a good video of the protesters supporting Aamer. Supporters including Tommy Sheridan, Osama Saeed, and Nicola Fisher speak in the video.
Defend Aamer Anwar 
July 4, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Thanks for posting the five links.
The one link to the decision itself might have been helpful as well:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC36.html
Anyone know exactly who Anwar won against?
Not the trial judge who referred the case to a quorum of the High Court (three judges) on the basis that the law was not clear if it could be contempt in the situation which emerged or not.
Hence the title in the Opinion “REMIT BY A TRIAL JUDGE OF AN ISSUE OF POSSIBLE CONTEMPT OF COURT ON THE PART OF AAMER ANWAR (RESPONDENT)”
Not the Lord Advocate who didn’t argue in court that the facts amounted to contempt and neither did anyone else.
So if Anwar is the winner who is the loser?
Apart from Anwar’s client, that is.
The forgotten one ill served by his solicitor.
Will be interesting to see what the Law Society of Scotland makes of all of this. He has been up before them before for “poaching” a client in breach of the rules.
Court has said that Anwar failed in his duties as an officer of the court and made statements unfounded in fact.
Supporters of Anwar seem to be happy in defending the right to lie – which is what I have said all along this case was about.
July 5, 2008 at 11:28 am
Here is how corrupt the Law Society is. In 2003, it ruled that solicitors are entitled to cause clients a large loss then change their advice on its recoverability, and hold the client responsible not to have believed the original advice when it was given.
Even though this makes it unconstitutional for any person to receive any demand from the state about anything, because they no longer have ethically reliable defence, the police and the Inland Revenue are continuing to operate as normal ignoring it, and the Justice Department claims separation of powers as a reason for saying nothing.
Whatever the Law Society do to Aamer, it will be invalid because they are a body that has undermined the country’s constitution without it being publicly known. Not a fitly constituted body to dare to claim entitlement to pass judgments upon him to save the system’s face, at all.