UK state threats bill could pull British journalists into terror prosecutions – experts
David Anderson, the UK’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that the rushed state threats bill could inadvertently drag foreign correspondents into terrorism cases if they use sources within state-backed groups such as Iran's IRGC.
A new national security bill rushing through the UK parliament this week could put British foreign correspondents at risk of prosecution for using sources from state-backed groups in countries like Iran, experts have warned.
The National Security (State Threats) Bill is designed to allow the UK government to designate state-backed groups as terrorist organisations, enabling bans on entities such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). It creates new criminal offences for those who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from formally listed state-supported threats.
However, former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord David Anderson said the bill could go beyond its main purpose of targeting proxies and inadvertently penalise foreign correspondents. While Home Office guidance suggests journalists are protected, Anderson noted that these protections are 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,” Anderson told the Guardian. “That needs to be put right early this week, before the bill becomes law.”
Under the legislation, “material benefits” include not only financial gains but also information. It would be an offence to “obtain, accept and retain” this material benefit, as well as to “agree to accept” it, with no “reasonable excuse” defence available.
Jonathan Hall, Anderson's successor as independent reviewer, has also called for an amendment to extend the reasonable excuse defence to cover information. The government rejected his recommendation.
Anderson highlighted that legitimate organisations such as the Halo Trust, which might need to ask the IRGC about landmine locations, or conflict resolution bodies that engage with designated groups could also face jeopardy. “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,” he said in a briefing note.
Ministers have argued that information would only fall under the prohibition if it “possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient”. But Anderson pointed out that the definition of material benefit lists information as a separate category, distinct from financial benefit. They have also offered reassurance that prosecution would only occur if the attorney general considered it in the public interest. Anderson questioned how robust such a reassurance would be “in practice, and in all possible political futures”.
The Home Office was approached for comment but did not respond.
