A prominent human rights lawyer's criticism of the verdict in Scotland's first terror trial was condemned yesterday by a judge as an “angry and petulant” outburst.

Three senior judges cleared Aamer Anwar of contempt of court but delivered a stinging rebuke, saying that they expected better of the lawyer who represented Mohammed Atif Siddique, 21, a student found guilty of providing material on bomb-making and weapons training, and threatening to become a suicide bomber.

After Siddique's trial at the High Court in Glasgow last September, Mr Anwar condemned the verdict as “a tragedy for justice and freedom of speech”. He claimed the computing student's case was heard in an “atmosphere of hostility” after the attack on Glasgow airport and alleged that the prosecution was driven by the state”.

In a television interview he also described some of the evidence against Siddique as “farcial”.

Lord Carloway, who heard the 19-day trial, accused the solicitor of making “disparaging remarks” about him, the jury and the prosecution. He passed the decision on whether contempt of court had been committed to the High Court.

Yesterday at the High Court in Edinburgh Lord Osborne said Mr Aanwar's statements “embody angry and petulant criticism of the trial process and a range of political comments concerning the position of Muslims in our society”. He said that no contempt of court had been committed, but that Mr Aanwar had failed to meet the standards expected. “Regrettably, we do not think that those standards were met in this case and the court is entitled to expect better of those who practise before it.”

Mr Anwar was greeted outside the court by a crowd of supporters, including Tommy Sheridan, the former Solidarity MSP, whom he represents. Mr Anwar said: “I never set out to win a popularity contest, but I was taught it is a lawyer's duty to fearlessly represent his clients.”

Times Recommends

• Postman Pat moved to a high-tech sorting office
• Saatchi’s old favourites
• New teaching style gives pupils wake-up call