Law should be able to tell terrorists from the naive

THE case of Mohammed Atif Siddique, the student once described as a "wannabe suicide bomber", who walked free from court yesterday after his conviction on a terrorism charge was overturned, raises issues of great magnitude.

Although Siddique's conviction on three other charges – two of which related to terrorism – stand, the charge of possessing articles giving rise to suspicion they were for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism has been quashed.

The reason for this is the appeal court ruling that Lord Carloway, the judge at Siddique's trial in Glasgow in 2007, misdirected the jury on the details which needed to be proved by the prosecution for a conviction on a charge under section 57of the 2000 Terrorism Act.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

For Siddique, this ruling is a vindication of his claim that he was guilty only of a curiosity about websites linked to extremists and that he is innocent of the most serious charge. Justice has, therefore, been done.

However, there are wider implications for the way this country's laws apply to the prosecution of alleged terrorists, who continue to pose a threat to the very fabric of our democratic society, as the London bombings prove.

As a first step the complexity of anti-terrorism legislation should be reviewed to ensure that those who commit heinous crimes are brought to justice using rigorous and fair law, but under which the naive or the foolish do not end up as convicted terrorists.

Related topics: