The national security (state threats) bill is designed to allow the UK government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations. Photograph: Geza Kurka/Alamy View image in fullscreen The national security (state threats) bill is designed to allow the UK government to label state-backed groups as terrorist organisations. Photograph: Geza Kurka/Alamy UK security and counter-terrorism UK state threats bill could pull British journalists into terror prosecutions, experts say Two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation call for safeguards for NGOs and journalists before bill becomes law this week
Prefer the Guardian on Google 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, a former UK 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).
Read more 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.
Press freedom groups have expressed concern at the warnings and asked the government to ensure there are safeguards.
The Home Office denied the bill would undermine the work of journalists. The department’s guidance suggests 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 said. “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, the 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.
View image in fullscreen A member of a team clearing land mines in Angola for the Halo Trust. Experts said the legislation could potentially hamper the charity’s work in Iran. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer “F…