The Court of Appeal interpreted the definition of “terrorism” this week, when it held that powers contained in the Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 7 are flawed because they do not give journalists “effective protection”.
Sch 7 allows the police to detain terror suspects at ports for up to six hours without the rights to remain silent or seek independent legal advice. Kate Goold, partner at Bindmans, said the ruling, in R(on behalf of Miranda) v Home Secretary [2016] EWCA Civ 6, “emphasises the importance of interpreting terrorism with its ordinary natural meaning to ensure that legitimate public interest journalism is not stifled through the use of draconian powers because of the fear of remote consequences.
“The notion of a journalist becoming an ‘accidental terrorist’ has been whole-heartedly rejected. We welcome this court's principled and decisive ruling that Sch 7 needs to come in line with other legislation to ensure that the seizure of journalistic material is protected by judicial safeguards.”
Goold acted for David Miranda, partner of journalist Glen Greenwald who reported Edward Snowden’s whistleblower allegations about surveillance. Miranda was detained and questioned at Heathrow Airport in 2013.
The court found the police acted lawfully when they detained and questioned Miranda, but held that the Sch 7 powers are incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Delivering his judgment, Lord Dyson Master of the Rolls, said: “If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest.”
He rejected the secretary of state’s argument that the definition of terrorism included those involved in lawful political activity if they “accidentally or inadvertently” do something that puts people’s lives at risk. Lord Dyson said that if Parliament had intended that then they would have “spelt this out clearly”.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=6e6975ed_1)
