|
Taken from www.sacc.org.uk  pic by Julie Davidson The Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled today that Mohammed Atif Siddique, jailed for eight years for "terrorism" offences, had suffered a "miscarriage of justice" and that it was "minded to quash" his conviction. The Crown now has an opportunity to decide whether to launch a fresh prosecution against Atif Siddique, who has already served 4 years of his sentence. There will be a further hearing on Tuesday 9 February. Atif Siddique was refused bail pending that hearing.
The ruling was given by Lord Osborne, sitting with Lords Reed and Clarke. Lord Osborne said that the directions given by Lord Carloway during Atif Siddique's trial in summer 2007 amounted to "material misdirection" in relation to the main charge that Siddique was facing - a charge 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. This charge accounted for 6 years of Atif Siddique's sentence and was central to the other charges for which he was convicted. The articles in Atif Siddique's possession that gave rise to the Section 57 charge were computer files, CDs and other media containing material openly available on the internet that Siddique had downloaded. After Siddique's conviction in September 2007, his solicitor Aamer Anwar said: "Mohammed Atif Siddique was found guilty of doing what millions of young people do every day, looking for answers on the internet. T his 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." Aamer Anwar was charged with contempt of court as a result of his remarks. He was cleared in July 2008. Speaking outside the court today, Aamer Anwar said: "In light of the appeal court’s decision today, and in order to allow the Crown until February 9 to consider their position, there can be no further statement until the conclusion of the proceedings.” With the possibility of a fresh prosecution still around the corner, it would be premature for Atif's friends, family and supporters to celebrate the end of his ordeal. But whatever decision the Crown and the court ultimately make, today's ruling that Lord Carloway misdirected the jury in 2007 represents a victory for justice and the rule of law. It builds on Appeal Court and Law Lords judgments south of the border that restrict the ways that the draconian Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be interpreted. A dangerous idea has grown up - especially within the police force - that it is a crime for people - especially Muslims - to access or possess information that might be thought sympathetic to terrorism. This idea has spawned further nonsense, such as suggestions that young Muslims should be "protected" from viewing such material on the internet by software filters installed on their computers. Today's appeal court ruling confirms what should always have been obvious. Reading or possessing political or propaganda material cannot, in ordinary circumstances, be a crime. Background - what was Mohammed Atif Siddique convicted of?Mohammed Atif Siddique was never charged with carrying out or planning any act of violence. He was convicted of 4 offences: 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. These articles comprised computer files, downloaded from the web, representing documents, videos and images that, in a variety of different ways, related to terrorism. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison on this charge. Committing a breach of the peace "on various occasions between 1 September 2003 and 30 September 2005" by showing students at Glasgow Metropolitan College "images of suicide bombers and images of the murder and beheading of persons by terrorists" and by making various remarks, including saying that he would become a "suicide bomber." For this he was sentenced to 6 months in prison to run concurrently with the sentence under 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Running a website "containing links to documents providing instructions on how to operate various weaponry and to make explosives and further, containing links to other web sites containing similar documents" contrary to Section 54(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. This section of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to provide weapons training, unless the person accused can prove that the training was "for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism." For this he was sentenced to 2 years in prison, to run consecutively with the sentence for the two charges above. Running a website containing links to publications that gave "direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or the provision of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts" or being "reckless" as to whether his conduct had that effect, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. This offence was committed for a single day (13 April 2006) immediately prior to his arrest. The highly controversial Section 2(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 came into effect on that day; the same behaviour prior to that day was perfectly legal. For this he was sentenced to 1 year in prison, to run concurrently with the charge relating circulating to documents that provided weapons training (and therefore consecutively with the sentence under Section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the sentence for breach of the peace).
More Information |
Events Calendar
