Posted by The Absolvitor in *News, Criminal Law, Criminal law on February 2nd, 2010

Last Friday, 29 January 2010, the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that Mohammed Atif Siddique, jailed for terrorism offences, had suffered a “miscarriage of justice” and further indicated that it was “minded” to overturn his conviction.
The Court has afforded the Crown Office an opportunity to decide whether to launch a fresh prosecution against Mr. Siddique, who is currently serving an 8 year sentence (of which he has already served 4). A further hearing will be held on Tuesday 9 February 2010, pending the decision of the Crown Office.
Lord Osborne said that the directions given to the jury by Lord Carloway during Mr. Siddique’s trial were a “material misdirection” in relation to the main charge – that of possessing articles in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that their possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism contrary to Section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
His conviction on this charge led to a sentence of 6 years and was seen as a building block for the other charges on which he was also convicted.
The articles in question were computer files, CDs and other media containing information that Mr. Siddique had downloaded from the Internet.
Following his conviction, Mr. Siddique’s solicitor Aamer Anwar said his client was “found guilty of doing what millions of young people do every day, looking for answers on the internet. This verdict is a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech. It undermines the values that separate us from the terrorist, the very values we should be fighting to protect.”
This press statement became infamous when Aamer Anwar was charged with, and subsequently cleared of, contempt of court on the strength of these remarks.
The possibility of a fresh prosecution is still very real, but the decision of the Appeal court does provide some reassurance that simply reading or possessing political or propaganda material should not, in ordinary circumstances, be a criminal act.
Tags: courts, solicitors