Jump to content

Mohammed Atif Siddique in 'miscarriage of justice'


Recommended Posts

This chap is on Radio5Live now, what an absolute idiot.


He made a website which linked to an Israeli bomb-making site, then claims that he didn't understand 90%+ of the text as it was in a foreign language. Told his classmates that he was "going to be a suicide bomber" before showing them videos of beheadings and laughing.


Is now comparing himself to the BBC?  :doh:


The student branded Scotland’s “first homegrown terrorist” was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, according to senior judges who say that they are now “minded” to overturn his most serious conviction.


Mohammed Atif Siddique must wait until next month to learn if he will be retried for the offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. Judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh ruled that he must remain in custody until then.


A trial in October 2007 — soon after the Glasgow Airport attack — heard that the 24-year-old sympathised with al-Qaeda and wanted to be a suicide bomber. He also shocked classmates at the city’s Metropolitan College with pictures of terrorist beheadings.


Siddique, from Alva, Clackmannanshire, was found guilty of three breaches of the Terrorism Act and a breach of the peace. The offences were said to have been committed between March 2003 and the day that police raided his home in April 2006. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.


The most serious charge, which accounted for six years of that sentence, alleged that he possessed 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 crime is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, but the law also recognises a defence of possession without intention to commit an act of terrorism.


Throughout, Siddique protested his innocence, claiming that when he downloaded material from the internet he was motivated only by curiosity. He denied that he was planning any terrorist attack.


His legal team appealed his conviction on that charge and, today, the Appeal Court returned its judgement. The ruling by Lord Osborne, sitting with Lords Reed and Clarke, criticises the way in which trial judge Lord Carloway explained the main Terrorist Act charge to the jury.


During the appeal hearing last July, Donald Findlay, QC, for the defence, said that supposedly damning material produced at the trial was “mere propaganda” and did not mean that Siddique was about to commit a terrorist act. The shopkeeper’s son was arrested at Glasgow Airport as he waited to board a plane to Lahore with his uncle. He was planning to spend some time on his uncle’s farm in Pakistan.


Material found on his laptop computer and in a later search of his home was later shown to the jury. It included religious texts from the Koran, messages from al-Qaeda 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.”


The lawyer admitted that Siddique “had an intention, an aspiration, to be a suicide bomber”. But, he claimed, the Terrorism Act demanded the commission, preparation or instigation of a definite, particular act before a conviction was possible.


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


Giving the Appeal Court’s decision today, Lord Osborne said: “We have concluded that the direction given to the jury in this case in relation to the offence created by Section 57(1) and the operation of the statutory defence available under Section 57(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, amounted to material misdirection.


“In these circumstances the appellant’s conviction on charge one, which was brought under Section 57(1), in our judgement, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. We are therefore minded to quash that conviction.”


The case will call again on February 9 to give the parties time to consider the judgement. On that date the Crown can agree to drop the case, which will mean the conviction is quashed, or can argue for a retrial.


Siddique’s father, also Mohammed Siddique, and mother, Parveen Siddique, left the court building after today’s hearing with their son’s solicitor, Aamer Anwar. Outside the court Mr Anwar said that in light of the judgement, and to give the Crown time to consider its position, he could not comment on proceedings


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest lankybellwipe



As I was scrolling down to quote something, I muttered the exact same single word.  Spooky that like isn't it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...