Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates the right to a Fair Trial. It is resolutely impossible to conceive of a trial being fair when the lawyer, let alone the client, is subject to sustained abuse and harassment at the hands of the establishment.

But that is the situation facing Muddassar Arani who has defended a handful of notorious Muslims among the hundreds of clients she represents.

As a result of this tiny minority, she has been singled out and targeted in a way never before witnessed in (mainland) Britain. I can't remember the lawyers of the Moors Murderers – Ian Brady and Myra Hindley – receiving such abuse. Nor can I ever recall the lawyers for the Yorkshire Ripper – Peter Sutcliffe –coming under the type of vicious scrutiny Ms Arani has endured in recent years.

Come on, test yourselves! Try and recall the name or names of any solicitors who have acted for some of the most notorious child murderers to come before a court.

Who represented Fred West, his wife Rosemary or the serial killer Harold Shipman?

Those of you paying close attention may wonder why I mentioned the mainland. Well certain members of the legal profession in Ireland were targeted during the height of the "The Troubles''.

How many of you recall the name of Pat Finucane? Let me refresh your memories. The Belfast solicitor was murdered by loyalist UDA/UFF paramilitaries who shot Mr Finucane 14 times as he sat eating a Sunday meal at home, wounding his wife in the process. The couple's three children witnessed the 1989 attack.

In a statement claiming the killing, the UFF said they had killed "Pat Finucane, the IRA Officer". Finucane had indeed represented IRA members in court. Yet what made the investigation into his murder so important to many in Northern Ireland was that it lay at the heart of allegations that members of the security forces collaborated with loyalist paramilitaries to the extent that they could have stopped the killing if they had so wished.

Pat Finucane first came to public prominence for representing paramilitary suspects facing anti-establishment charges at trial. And, like many lawyers in the city, both Protestant and Catholic, many of his clients were from paramilitary organisations facing terrorism-related charges.

In 1988, One of Mr Finucane's most controversial client's was Patrick McGeown, a suspected member of the IRA. He was accused of organising the murder of the two army corporals who had lost their way and got their car caught up in an IRA funeral cortege, an event that was captured on television and remains one of the most terrifying scenes of the Troubles.

I don't think there is a single Fleet Street journalist today who would not condemn the murder of Pat Finucane, and yet they seem to relish, encourage and feed off the Salem-like witch hunt of Muddassar Arani.

She is the only lawyer I know who has been the target of a vindictive, aggressive and downright cowardly campaign of vilification.

No other lawyer who represents clients in today's so-called terrorism trials has had to deal with such a ferocious campaign.

But then again no other lawyer is representing Muslim cleric Abu Hamza.

However, I really do not think that this lies at the centre of this vilification. I believe it is more concerned about the potential earning power of solicitors in terrorism trials and I believe that some of the hate campaigns against her are fuelled by misplaced jealousy and envy. Misplaced, because she never earned a penny from Abu Hamza’s case, which is rather less than the two hundred thousand pounds she purportedly gained from the case, as widely reported.  

I have watched as grown men (it's never the women) in the legal profession from the bewigged to the junior scribes have stood by and allowed Muddassar Arani to be vilified and harassed.

She mainly deals with criminal, family and civil cases both nationally and on an international level.  In particular, she specialises in anti-terrorism cases and has represented numerous high profile terrorist suspects. Her legal skills and dedication to her job have brought about changes in the law and produced landmark legal victories.

Instead of being pilloried she should be celebrated as a woman of substance in the ranks of the legal profession.

Sadly, she has been the subject of numerous slanderous articles and victimisation by the media, the police, other solicitors, and the judiciary for many years now, treatment which other solicitors representing high-profile terrorism suspects have never been subjected to.

For several years now various leading newspapers in the UK have lead a public campaign to smear her name and firm with comments which have been undoubtedly racist, sexist and Islamophobic in their content.

One of the worst offenders is The Sun newspaper which appears to have orchestrated a huge smear campaign to discredit Arani because she is a Muslim lawyer who wears a headscarf and represents Muslim suspects.

The Daily Mail has waded in with racist undertones, stating in an article that she originates from Uganda, thus insinuating that her race is an issue, when clearly it is not.

To be certain, no other lawyer has been subject to such barefaced racist and religiously discriminatory comments in the media, even those who represent suspects accused of far worse offences. This is in keeping with the legal principle, as found in both Islamic and secular law, that:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Other solicitors who represent Muslim clients facing terrorism charges are heralded as Human Rights lawyers, champions and defenders of the weak.

But it is not just the headlines that have caused distress for Arani and her family – the net result has been a barrage of death threats, hate mail and abusive telephone calls. It is no coincidence that the articles written in The Sun and other newspapers are attached to the hate mail she receives.

Some of the more lucid anti-Muslim vigilantes have stopped her in the street and called her a "Muslim Bitch''. She is constantly told to "go back home'' and one of the most recent anonymous letters sent, accused her of "robbing the taxpayer by representing foreign wogs.'' Charming, I'm sure.

The militant fascist wing of the National Front group, Combat 18, which has been banned in the UK, retains her personal details on their website, decrying her as a foreigner and terrorist lover who should be ‘shot between the eyes’. They published the details of her firm and a photograph lifted from one of the offensive media articles.

But it's not just green-eyed, cowardly members of the legal profession who have waded in along with the racist thugs, media and hate mail authors.

A number of MP's have queued up to join in, including John Spellar who tabled a Parliamentary Question for written answers on Monday 3 rd September 2007 asking the Secretary of State for Justice to disclose the amount paid from legal aid to her firm during each of the last 5 years.

I wonder if the intrepid Mr Spellar is acting on his own initiative.

No similar request - for parliamentary scrutiny on a similar law firm – has ever been made. Why single out Arani and Co?

Perhaps this MP would be better employed asking what exorbitant payments are being made to law firms handling a similar volume of cases. Why is Spellar obsessing over a single, Muslim, woman lawyer?

It is a fact that Arani was ‘exposed’ as making two hundred thousand pounds from Abu Hamza. It is also a fact that she didn’t make a single penny from his case but worked the case on a pro bono basis. Abu Hamza did not qualify for legal Aid at the time.

Nor has Spellar tabled any questions to the Ministry of Justice in relation to legal aid payments which are made to other Firms. Of all the lawyers in the UK, I would like to know; why is Spellar limited to criticising Arani?

The trouble is, Arani doesn't court favours and her relationship with the Old Bill leaves a lot to be desired, which doesn't help her case.

In August 2004 she filed a formal complaint against the officers at Paddington Green Police Station who, she says, treated her in a racist and Islamophobic manner.

Incidents of this nature have unfortunately become part and parcel of her work. I'm not really sure why she is surprised, as we all know the Metropolitan Police, from the top down, has been identified as institutionally racist. Such is a matter of record. She recently represented some of the defendants suspected of the 21st July 2005 copycat bombings.  During the course of the trial she made various complaints about HMP Belmarsh, the maximum security prison in which her clients were being held, which has been likened to Guantanamo Bay.  Following sentencing, Judge Mr Justice Fulford, accused Arani, in open court, of manipulating the legal system and deliberately delaying the trial.  He described the complaints as a smokescreen and said they were designed to justify the late service of the defence case statement. He considered her complaints to be wholly unjustifiable. 

Arani was not on trial and the judge’s malignant stance against her through levelling unsubstantiated allegations, leads to the perception of bias from the judge. This – let alone the actual presence of bias – gives legal cause for mistrial.

Judge Mr Justice Fulford, who is living proof the law is an ass, and whose behaviour throws doubt onto the fairness of the whole trial, has apparently not heard of the reputation of Hellmarsh … the prison which apologised after serving up pork chops on its halal menus.

HMP Belmarsh has been the subject of severe criticism and serious Islamophobic incidents, but we'll set that one aside for another day.

It is worth pointing out that the HMP Inspectorate of Prison criticised HMP Belmarsh on some of the same grounds which formed the basis of Arani’s complaints.

Belmarsh has been heavily criticised in recent reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Report of the Government of The United Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of torture and inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment from 14th to the 19th March 2004 and the 9th June 2005). 

For the Judge to have made such comments in public without hearing any evidence on the issues was unprofessional and potentially slanderous. (I think you need to go on a law course refresher, m'lud!)

It appears that the judge is making a finding of fact when there was no adjudication on these matters. He aired his views in the presence of the public and media, in order to glean maximum publicity.

During the trial of the 21st July terror suspects, Arani was accused by Steven Kamlish QC, Defence Counsel for one of the co-accused Kwaku Asidu, of attempting to bribe his client. His own client did not accept these allegations.  

Of course this is not the first time such allegations have been made against Arani. Previously the Solicitors Regulation Authority investigated complaints against her by other lawyers, of attempting to poach clients, but these were never upheld.

I would have thought that such false accusations, made during the trial by Kamlish QC would have been retracted. These assertions were not substantiated by his client when he took the witness box. I only thought Mr Kamlish might have proceeded with more caution because I believe this is the same QC who once alleged similar conduct against others and the Bar Council suspended him for 6 months, reduced to 4 months on appeal.

So there you have it. Muddassar Arani has been subject to such vilification as never before witnessed in mainland Britain.

Thanks to the constant witch-hunt, she has become a target for the legal profession, media, police, courts, the general tabloid-reading public and right-wing fascist organisations like the National Front and Combat 18.

I think the time has come when we all need to examine our consciences very closely and ask what we can do to stop these cowardly, unmanly and inhumane attacks on a dedicated, professional sister.

Or do we have to wait until someone silences Muddassar … for good?