A High Court judge has been accused of "over-reaction" for suggesting a statement made by a solicitor may have been in contempt of court.
Judges are deciding whether human rights solicitor Aamer Anwar committed contempt of court, following a hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Aamer Anwar made the statement shortly after his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, from Alva, had been convicted of terrorism offences.
It follows comments made by Mr Anwar at the end of the trial of a man from Clackmannanshire who had been found guilty of terrorism offences.
Lord Carloway referred the case to three senior judges.
The trial judge considered it to be contempt of court and referred it to three senior colleagues.
But Paul McBride QC, representing Mr Anwar, said the statement was authorised by Siddique, 21.
The judges said they wanted to have time to think about their decision.
He also told the High Court in Edinburgh Mr Anwar had toned it down and made it more eloquent.
'Disparaging remarks'
Mr Anwar made his comments following the trial of Siddique, outside the High Court in Glasgow in September.
Mr Anwar made his comments following the trial of Mohammed Atif Siddique outside the High Court in Glasgow in September.
It's a fundamental principle that court hearings which are held in public can be fully and freely commented upon, whether to compliment and praise, or whether to criticise Paul McBride QCDefending
Moments after the jury delivered its verdict, he said it was "a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech".
Moments after the jury delivered its verdict, he said it was "a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech".
He also claimed the student's case was heard in an "atmosphere of hostility" and alleged the prosecution was "driven by the state".
He claimed the computing student's case was heard in an "atmosphere ofhostility" in the aftermath of the attack on Glasgow Airport, and alleged theprosecution was "driven by the State".
Lord Carloway said the statement criticised the prosecutor, the jury and his conduct of the trial.
Lord Carloway, who heard the 19-day trial, accused the solicitor of making"disparaging remarks" about him, the jury, and the prosecution.
Mr McBride said it was acceptable for a lawyer - in a case of intense media interest - to make his client's position clear.
He passed the decision on whether contempt of court had been committed to the High Court.
"A solicitor, in my respectful submission, may take reasonable steps to deal with his client's reputation following a decision taken by a court," Mr McBride said.
It's a fundamental principle that court hearings which are held in public can be fully and freely commented upon Paul McBride QC
"It's a fundamental principle that court hearings which are held in public can be fully and freely commented upon, whether to compliment and praise, or whether to criticise."
At a packed hearing before three senior judges in Edinburgh, defence lawyer Paul McBride QC argued this was an"over-reaction" by the trial judge.
He said a solicitor expressing his own views, or those of a convicted person, outside a court, "does not wilfully challenge the authority of that court or the supremacy of the law itself".
"A solicitor, in my respectful submission, may take reasonable steps to deal with his client's reputation following a decision taken by a court," said Mr McBride. "It's a fundamental principle that court hearings which are held in public can be fully and freely commented upon, whether to compliment and praise, or whether to criticise."
Recording played
He said an accused person's protestations of innocence, delivered through a solicitor, could not amount to a contempt of court.
Arguing that his client should not be held in contempt, Mr McBride said: "An accused's protestations of innocence, delivered via a solicitor, cannot be a contempt of court."
Judge Lord Osborne, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Wheatley, said they wanted to have time to think about what has been said and would give their decision in due course.
He added that a solicitor could not be in contempt for criticising the court's decision publicly and that it was a lawyer's duty to criticise laws that they reasonably perceived to be unjust.
"It is to be hoped that we will be able to do that in the near future becausewe realise that it is no doubt painful for Mr Anwar to have this matterundetermined," said Lord Osborne.
The court was played a television recording of the statement, as well as an interview Mr Anwar gave to the BBC's Newsnight Scotland.
'Difficult time'
It is understood to be the first time in the UK that a solicitor has faced a contempt of court allegation, following the conviction of a client and in relation to comments made outside court.
Speaking outside court, Mr Anwar said he could not comment much because proceedings were still live. But he said: "I would just like to thank all the people who provided supportattending court today.
If he is held in contempt, the Glasgow-based solicitor could be jailed or fined.
"It's been a very difficult time."
The case has attracted criticism as an attack on freedom of speech and campaign group Liberty has sent its lawyers to the court with a view to advising the court on human rights issues.
Siddique, from Alva, in Clackmannanshire, was found guilty after trial ofproviding material on bomb-making and weapons training, and threatening to become a suicide bomber.
This is believed to the first time such an intervention has been made in Scotland.
He was jailed for eight years in October.
Liberty has been briefed by the leading human rights lawyers Michael Mansfield QC and Lady Helena Kennedy.
'Civil liberties threat'
About 60 demonstrators from various campaign groups gathered outside the High Court in Edinburgh to give Mr Anwar their support.
Speaking outside the court, Hugh Kerr, of the Solidarity party, said: "We're all here today because what Aamer is being tried for is a threat to the whole of the civil liberties of Scotland.
"Many solicitors have said much more radical things than Aamer did.
"He is defending the right to comment on the political background to trials in Scotland and we are here to defend his right to do so."
More than 100 high-profile figures backed the lawyer at the weekend, signing a letter declaring their support for him.
Among them were author Iain Banks, anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle, and Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham Six.
Siddique was found guilty of providing material on bomb-making and weapons training, and threatening to become a suicide bomber.
