Freedom for Alva student

Published 10 Feb 2010 12:26

MOHAMMED Atif Siddique - the Alva student branded as being Scotland's first Islamist terrorist - has walked free from court.

On Tuesday the Crown Office confirmed it would not be seeking a retrial following a successful appeal which ruled he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Siddique's delighted relatives hugged him after judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh confirmed they would quash his conviction and six year sentence for a major charge under the Terrorism Act.

Following the decision, Siddique emerged from the cells after about an hour's wait to be reunited with his family before being driven off.

He stood beside his solicitor Aamer Anwar who read a statement from Siddique that said, "Our laws should bring to account those who plan acts of terror and not criminalise young Muslims for thought crime and possession of propaganda.

"I have always maintained my innocence but they took my liberty, destroyed my family's reputation and labelled me a terrorist but I never had any bombs or plans to hurt anyone. In court it was said I was a wannabe suicide bomber, but I have always said I was simply looking for answers on the internet." The statement added, "I am grateful to those who supported me. I just want to go home now and live my life in peace."

Siddique, of Myretoungate, has always protested his innocence of the charges brought against him following a dawn raid at the family home in April 2006.

In 2007 Siddique was found guilty of three breaches of the Terrorism Acts and a breach of the peace.

The most serious charge, which accounted for six of Siddique's eight year sentence, has been quashed.

He had been found guilty of 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".

The articles included computers, files, CDs and mobile phones depicting terrorist propaganda, bomb making instructions, guerilla tactics and terror training camps.

Throughout the trial, and ever since, Siddique has claimed he was only motivated by curiosity. He denied planning any terrorist attack.

Lord Carloway, who directed the jury in the trial, was criticised by an appeal judge for the way he explained the main Terrorist Act charge to jurors.

Appeal judges Lord Osborne, sitting with Lord Reed and Lord Clarke, had earlier indicated they would overturn the conviction and on Tuesday formally said they would quash it and the associated sentence for the offence. They agreed to make it clear that Siddique was free to leave the court.

Mr Anwar said, "At the end of Atif's trial I stated on his behalf 'the verdict was a tragedy for justice and freedom of speech'. After nearly four years of struggle the highest court in the land has ruled a miscarriage of justice took place and given a young man his freedom back."

Advocate depute Derek Ogg QC told the appeal judges that the Crown had decided not to seek authority for a fresh prosecution on the main charge.

Mr Ogg said, "He has served the majority of the sentence imposed on that charge and has de facto completed his sentence in full for the other terrorist charges and related breach of the peace, for which he remains convicted."

Mr Ogg said that combined with impact of developments in the law over terrorism legislation and the passage of time since the offences began "would mean that any retrial would have little practical effect".

Following his conviction Siddique launched an appeal and his counsel Donald Findlay QC said that supposedly damning material produced during the trial was "mere propaganda" and did not mean that he was about to commit a terrorist act.

Material recovered from computers included texts from the Koran, Al Qaeda propaganda and recruitment video and files glorifying Iraqi suicide bombers. Mr Findlay argued that it was "a hotch potch" which was of no practical use to a terrorist.

He said that on the main charge the Terrorism Act provisions were draconian, but specific provisions had been built into them to provide a defence and they had to be carefully explained to a jury.

Under the legislation it is a defence for the accused to prove that his possession of an article was not for a purpose connected with terrorism.

Mr Findlay said Siddique's defence was not put to jurors as the statute contemplated by the trial judge and that was wrong and resulted in an unfair trial. The appeal judges said the most authoritative guidance on the provisions of the legislation came from recent House of Lords cases, but they were not available to Lord Carloway at the time when he addressed the jury at Siddique's trial.

Lord Osborne said, "We have reached the conclusion that, upon the basis of the directions given to the jury, there was a serious likelihood of confusion in their minds regarding the nature of the offence and the operation of the statutory defence."

He said they considered it was not only a misdirection but also a miscarriage of justice and added, "In that connection, we have been particularly influenced by the fact that, in this case, there was a defence of what has been referred to as 'curiosity', as an innocent explanation for the appellant's possession of the articles in question."

Siddique remains convicted of committing a breach of the peace at Glasgow Metropolitan College by showing to students images of suicide bombers and murder and beheading by terrorists and threatening to become a suicide bomber and carry out of terrorism in Glasgow.

He is also convicted of Terrorism Act offences of providing instruction or training in firearms and explosives through internet websites and of distributing or circulating terrorist publications through websites.

Tweet

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Follow @alloatiser