UK National Security Bill Risks Prosecuting Foreign Correspondents

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).

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.

“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 said the definition of material benefit included 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. “[People] 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.

Dawn Alford, the 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. Clear legal protection is preferable to relying on assurances about how the law may be applied.”

Nik Williams, the policy and campaigns officer at Index on Censorship, said it was concerning there appeared to be significant difference of opinion between two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation and the Home Office about the application of the law.

“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,” he said. “We need scrutiny not speed when considering such significant provisions.”

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.”