Published: Wednesday, 3rd February, 2010 1:10pm

Alva student wins appeal against terror conviction

Print | Email

Mohammed Atif Siddique

AN ALVA student branded Scotland's first Islamist terrorist is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

But Mohammed Atif Siddique (24) continues to be held in custody after an attempt to secure his release at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was refused.

Siddique has always protested his innocence of the terrorist charges brought against him following a dawn raid on the family's Myretoungate home in April 2006.

Many in the local community were also unconvinced about his guilt, and now appeal judges have ruled his conviction on the most serious charge was unsafe as the jury had been misdirected by the trial judge.

However, Siddique must now wait to hear whether he will face a new trial on the terror charge which earned him a six-year jail sentence.

At a trial in September 2007 - just weeks after the Glasgow Airport attack - the court heard claims that Siddique sympathised with al-Quaida and wanted to be a suicide bomber.

He also shocked classmates at Glasgow's Metropolitan College with horror pictures of terrorist beheadings.

Siddique was found guilty of three breaches of the Terrorism Acts and a breach of the peace. The offences were said to have been committed between March 2003 and the day police raided his home in April 2006.

In October 2007, at the High Court in Edinburgh, Siddique was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison.

But the most serious charge which accounted for six years of that sentence alleged possession of computer equipment and other material "in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that your possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act or terrorism",

Throughout Siddique has protested his innocence, claiming that when he downloaded material from the internet he was motivated only by curiosity.

He denied he was planning any terrorist attack.

Friday's ruling by Lord Osborne, sitting with Lords Reed and Clarke, criticised the way trial judge Lord Carloway explained the main Terrorist Act charge to the jury.

Giving the Appeal Court's decision, Lord Osborne said they "amount to a material misdirection".

"In our opinion (this) amounts to a miscarriage of justice," Lord Osborne added.

Siddique's father, Mohammed Siddique Snr, and mother, Parveen Siddique, left after Friday's hearing, together with solicitor Aamer Anwar, who said in the light of the decision to give the Crown until 9 February to decide whether they wanted a re-trial there could be no further statement.

The Crown Office will indicate at the next hearing if it wants to seek a fresh prosecution.

A spokesperson said, "We note the decision of the appeal court and will be considering the judgement."

The Crown Office's decision could be influenced by the fact that Siddique will be eligble for parole in April this year, having already spent almost four years in prison.

During the appeal hearing last July, defence QC Donald Findlay said supposedly damning material produced at the trial was "mere propaganda" and did not mean Siddique was about to commit a terrorist act.

In early April 2006, Siddique was stopped at Glasgow Airport as he waited to board a plane to Lahore with his uncle, intending to spend some time on his uncle's farm in Pakistan.

After questioning, Siddique was released, although his laptop, camcorder and passport were kept for investigation. However, his family said they were told they could pick up the items from the police HQ in a few days and assumed this was merely procedure.

However, on 13 April 2006, around 7am, dozens of police officers stormed into the Siddique family home in Alva. Family members were dragged from their beds and handcuffed, before being taken to a police station for questioning.

The property was cordoned off and a search of the premises was carried out by a forensic team.

Material found on Siddique's laptop computer, and from the later search of his home, was later shown to the jury. It included religious texts from the Koran, messages from al-Quaida and praise for "martyrs" in Iraq.

Mr Findlay told the appeal court, "It is a hotch-potch, a melange of a whole variety of matters which is, in my submission, of no practical purpose whatsoever to any terrorist."

Propaganda, even for causes which most people would find distasteful, was not an offence under the Terrorism Acts, said Mr Findlay.

The lawyer also admitted that Siddique "had an intention, an aspiration to be a suicide bomber. I am not running away from that."

But, he insisted, the Terrorism Act demanded the commission, preparation or instigation of a definite, particular act before a conviction was possible.

The court heard that some of the material was more sinister - including a "training manual" from al-Quaida's military experts which contained tips on fitness, shooting, hiding explosives, tactics and advice on resisting interrogation.

But Mr Findlay maintained that it was all readily available, no passwords were needed to access the websites involved and there was no need to "knock three times to see who is there". Much of it came from an anti-terrorist website.

"It is nothing new, it is nothing novel," said the lawyer. "The irony, of course, is that while it is the manual of al-Quaida's military committee, it is being made available to all and sundry by a former Israeli secret service agent."

Siddique was entitled to take an interest in such affairs, said Mr Findlay, but that didn't make him a terrorist.

Computer whizz-kid Siddique also set up websites urging others to commit terror acts and showing how to make and use explosives. Much of the chilling propaganda was aimed at English speakers.

Mr Findlay criticised Lord Carloway for inviting jurors to speculate about the extent to which a young Scottish Muslim would be interested in Middle Eastern affairs.

The lawyer also argued that Lord Carloway did not fairly explain to the jury that the 2000 Terrorism Act gives an accused a chance to put forward a "reasonable excuse" for possessing material allegedly linked to terrorism.