The UK's national security (state threats) bill, which is expected to become law this week, could inadvertently pull British foreign correspondents into terrorism prosecutions if they use sources within state-backed groups such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), according to two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation.
Warnings from independent reviewers
David Anderson, a former UK independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that unless the bill is amended, it could criminalise journalists working in danger-zone countries. The bill is designed to allow the UK government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations, enabling bans on groups like the IRGC. It creates new criminal offences for people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from such groups.
Jonathan Hall, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has also called for amendments, specifically extending a “reasonable excuse” defence to cover information. The government has not accepted his recommendation.
Concerns over material benefits definition
Under the legislation, “material benefits” include not just financial benefits but also information. It would be an offence to “obtain, accept and retain” this material benefit or to “agree to accept” it, with no “reasonable excuse” defence for either. Anderson said in a briefing note: “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.”
He cited examples such as the Halo Trust, a charity that clears landmines, which could not lawfully ask the IRGC where landmines were laid, or conflict resolution organisations needing to engage with designated bodies. “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,” Anderson added.
Government assurances questioned
Ministers have argued that information would only fall within the prohibition if it “possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient”. However, Anderson noted that the definition of material benefit includes information as a separate category, distinct from financial benefit. The government has also offered reassurance that prosecutions would require the attorney general to consider public interest. Anderson said: “[People] will have their own views on how robust such a reassurance is in practice, and in all possible political futures.”
Press freedom groups call for safeguards
Dawn Alford, chief executive of the Society of Editors, said: “Foreign correspondents and investigative journalists often need to engage with dangerous organisations and individuals in order to expose wrongdoing and inform the public. They should not be left relying on prosecutorial discretion to determine whether legitimate newsgathering is lawful. If there is any ambiguity, parliament should take the opportunity to make explicit on the face of the bill that bona fide journalistic activity carried out in the public interest is not criminalised.”
Nik Williams, policy and campaigns officer at Index on Censorship, said: “Any well-intentioned but hastily drafted law that could chill or criminalise public interest journalism, from reporters working at great risk to themselves, threatens the very foundations of British democracy, the very thing this bill is intended to protect. We need scrutiny not speed when considering such significant provisions.”
Home Office response
A Home Office spokesperson said: “This bill does nothing to undermine the vital work journalists do, and any suggestion otherwise is absolutely false. Legitimate activity including journalistic freedoms are protected under the bill, as well as diplomatic and humanitarian engagement. We have a proud tradition in this country of upholding the freedom of the press. Indeed, it is our obligation to ensure journalists are empowered to carry out their work.”
