UK state threats bill could pull British journalists into terror prosecutions – experts

Two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation call for safeguards for NGOs and journalists before bill becomes law this week

British foreign correspondents could be at risk of prosecution if they use sources within state-backed groups in countries such as Iran under national security legislation being rushed through parliament this week.

David Anderson, the UK’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that unless the bill is amended it could accidentally pull journalists working in danger-zone countries into prosecutions for terrorism.

The new anti-terror powers are designed to allow the UK government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations, enabling them to ban groups such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The legal change, which is expected to complete its final parliamentary stages this week, would also create new criminal offences for people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from groups formally listed as state-supported threats.

However, there are concerns that the national security (state threats) bill would in practice go beyond its main aim of targeting proxies, and could end up penalising foreign correspondents as well.

Home Office guidance suggests that journalists are protected, but Lord Anderson said those protections were not explicit in the bill.

“The bill seems to have been pulled together in a hurry, with mooted safeguards for NGOs and journalists largely absent from its text,” the peer told the Guardian. “That needs to be put right early this week, before the bill becomes law.”

Under the legislation, material benefits include not just financial benefits but also information. It would be an offence both to “obtain, accept and retain” this material benefit but also to “agree to accept” it – and there is no “reasonable excuse” defence for either.

Jonathan Hall, Anderson’s successor as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has also argued for the law to be amended, extending the “reasonable excuse” defence to cover information. The government has not accepted his recommendation.

“There are obvious concerns here for anyone whose legitimate business might cause them to have contact with a designated body or those in a position to give information on its behalf,” Anderson said in a briefing note.

“It would place in potential jeopardy a charity such as Halo Trust, which could not lawfully ask the IRGC or its agents where the landmines were laid, or a conflict resolution organisation that needs to engage with designated bodies as part of its work.

“Foreign correspondents could also be affected. Indeed on the face of it, they would be at risk of prosecution if they were to have contact of any kind with sources within designated bodies or their agents.”

Ministers have argued that information would only fall within the prohibition if it “possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient”, but Anderson points out the definition of material benefit includes information as a separate category, distinct from the financial benefit clause.

They have also offered the reassurance that those potentially caught by the new offence would only be prosecuted if the attorney general considered it was in the public interest. “[You] will have their own views on how robust such a reassurance is in practice, and in all possible political futures,” the cross-bench peer said.

The Home Office has been approached for comment.