Last month high profile human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar was charged with being in contempt of court after comments he made at the end of the terror trial of his client Mohammad atif Aiddique. Since Lord Carloway’s ruling many have come out in favour of Anwar, which has thrown into question exactly what the role of a solicitor is in today’s society. The Firm presents the evidence and asks you to decide.

What is the purpose of a lawyer? The Firm would like to ask every reader to consider that question carefully, and to examine your own view of a solicitor’s role, not just in the legal profession, but in society. Law is not simply about the mechanics of day to day practice. If solicitors and advocates lose sight of the greater principles and purpose of the profession by keeping their heads down and thinking about the money, they shame and disgrace themselves, the public and the law itself.
The Firm does not wish to express a view on the remarks made by Aamer Anwar which have led to his referral to the High Court in Edinburgh for contempt of court. However, we believe that it is the duty and obligation of every solicitor and advocate to make their voice heard on this crucial issue.
Anwar spoke out on behalf of his client in respect of an evolution of the criminal law. The conviction of Atif Siddique illustrated an extension of the reach of the law, and if this is something which concerns a client’s solicitor, all lawyers should feel free to articulate those concerns.
The Law Society may ultimately have to arbitrate in Anwar’s case, and at this time has not expressed a view on behalf of members of the profession. We therefore call on you to declare your position in this matter, and write directly to Richard Henderson, the President of the Law Society, informing him of your views on Anwar’s referral, whether you support this action, or oppose it.
If a defence solicitor cannot express concerns about new laws because it is seen as an attack on the judge and the trial, then that is a cause of great concern. A defence solicitor’s duty is to speak out about injustice, if he or she believes it is warranted. A solicitor is the only one who can put across the position of his client, and they do so outside the court, as they do not have right of audience within.
The Stop the War Coalition, and the many MSPs who have endorsed Margo MacDonald’s Parliamentary motion, are supporting the solicitor’s right to freedom of speech in these circumstances. Despite their support, the vast majority of the legal profession remains silent on this. Scottish lawyers should be united to defend the right of the profession to challenge the application of our laws where this is necessary. Neither the law nor the courts are infallible, and there is a risk that Anwar’s referral for contempt could restrict the rights which a solicitor should have, to act in defence of their client. The issue is bigger and more important than this single case. Solicitors should be able to speak out in public for their clients without fear of criminal consequence. The Firm believes solicitors owe a duty to the profession by making their voices heard on this matter.

Exhibit 1
Aamer Anwar’s statement made on the steps of Glasgow High Court after the Siddique Verdict:
“This verdict is a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech and undermines the values that separate us from the terrorist, the very values we should be fighting to protect.
“The prosecution was driven by the State, with no limit to the money & 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. In the end Atif Siddique did not receive a fair trial and we will be considering an appeal.”

Exhibit 2
NOTE by THE HONOURABLE LORD CARLOWAY concerning M. AAMER ANWAR, solicitor.
The statement seems to be an attack on the fairness of the trial and thus presumably an attack on the Court itself.
The essence of the problem here is that the remarks do not emanate from a former litigant or accused person or even a third party commentator. Rather they come from the agent instructed in the case.
It also seemed to be a criticism of the Court as not being an independent and objective forum for the determination of criminal charges but part of a system of unfairness and repression. Finally it seemed to be an attack on the terrorist laws themselves.
Since the statements made by the agent may appear to be a criticism not only of the jury, the prosecutor and a witness, but of my own conduct of the trial, I will remit this matter for determination of the High Court in Edinburgh; any procedure and hearings to be presided over by a judge other than myself.

Exhibit 3
Definition of Contempt of Court – HM Advocate v Airs 1975 JC 64, Lord Justice-General (Emslie) at 69).
Contempt of Court: \"conduct which challenges or affronts the authority of the Court or the supremacy of the law itself\"

Exhibit 4
The Law Society of Scotland’s Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors.
I. The function of the lawyer in society
In a society founded on respect for the rule of law lawyers fulfil a special role. Their duties do not begin and end with the faithful performance of what they are instructed to do so far as the law permits. Lawyers must serve the interests of justice as well as those whose rights and liberties they are trusted to assert and defend and it is their duty not only to plead their clients’ cause but also to be their adviser.
The function of lawyers therefore imposes on them a variety of legal and moral obligations towards the public for whom the existence of a free and independent profession, bound together by respect for rules made by the profession itself, is an essential means of safeguarding human rights in face of the power of the state and other interests in society.
Solicitors have a duty not only to act as guardians of national liberties, but also to seek improvements in the law and the legal system. It is the striving by solicitors for improvement both in general terms and in relation to the individual needs of a particular client that prevents the law and legal services ‘‘from degenerating into a trade or mere mechanical act’’
This duty extends beyond the issues of freedom and liberty, through the entire system of law, to the day-to-day legal services provided by solicitors.


Exhibit 5
Statistics taken from The Firm’s website poll.
Question: Should Aamer Anwar face contempt of court charges over his comments?
Yes – 58 votes 8.39%
No – 633 votes 91.61%

Exhibit 6
Stop the War Coalition Statement in Defence of Aamer Anwar, published in The Herald, 8th Nov.
“The possibility that Aamer Anwar may have to face contempt charges is deeply worrying and is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech.
Following the collapse of the Worlds End Trial, the Lord Advocate stressed the importance of the independence of the Judiciary and Prosecution. Equally as important is an independent defence, which is often all that stands between the accused and the state. We might not always agree with Aamer Anwar, but he is part of a rich and important tradition of campaigning lawyers that speak without \'fear or favour.\'
All those who campaign against injustice and for a better world, know that one day they may have to face the state in a courtroom. They need lawyers who are willing to advocate and speak out on their behalf. We should all be very worried if the effect of this case is to make lawyers reluctant to carry out this work for fear of the repercussions. We believe that the current attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients.
Tony Benn, Iain Banks, George Galloway Lindsey German, Imran Khan, Professor David Miller, Tommy Sheridan and others.

Exhibit 7
Parliamentary Motion lodged on 9th November 2007 by Margo MacDonald MSP:
Aamer Anwar—That the Parliament believes that the Scottish judicial system is robust enough to absorb criticism and that solicitors should not be constrained from speaking out against injustice, and recalls cases where the system has been faulty to the point of innocent persons being found guilty.

Now, you decide, based on the above evidence, whether Aamer Anwar should be found guilty of Contempt of Court. We are keen to hear your views on this important issue. Please e-mail The Firm’s editor with your thoughts and opinions at richard.draycott@carnyx.com.