UK court: Police who held journalist’s partner not at fault

A British court says police acted lawfully when they used anti-terrorism powers to detain the partner of a journalist who worked with National Security Agency secret-spiller Edward Snowden.

Mr Miranda had no right to a lawyer, to remain silence or resist the seizures under Schedule 7 of the Terrorist Act, which give police the power to stop anyone at a United Kingdom port or border to investigate whether they are involved in the “commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Miranda was carrying encrypted files, including an external hard drive containing 58,000 highly classified United Kingdom intelligence documents, “in order to assist the journalistic activity of Greenwald”.

“Today’s ruling emphasizes 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”, Goold added.

While the judges rejected Miranda’s case that his detention was illegal, they said the U.K. Terrorism Act was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and was needed review to safeguard information obtained by reporters.

The Court of Appeal said the authorities had been justified in detaining Mr Miranda under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

However, the court did say that the clause of the Terrorism Act under which Miranda was detained was incompatible with the convention, which protects freedom of speech in relation to journalistic materials.

That aspect of the court’s ruling was hailed as a victory for press freedom.

“The central concern is that disclosure of journalistic material (whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s source) undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect [freedom of expression] rights”, said the Court of Appeal’s most senior judge Lord Dyson MR. Dyson said the powers contained in schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were flawed. “That is why the confidentiality of such information is so important”. Its repeal is long overdue. He said. “Once again it has come to the rescue of press freedom in the face of arbitrary abuse of power by the State”.

Legal officer for Liberty, Rosie Brighouse, said the ruling is a reminder of how crucial the Human Rights Act for protecting journalists’ rights.

“It will be for Parliament to provide such protection. But the only safeguard against the powers not being so exercised is the possibility of judicial review proceedings”.

Miranda protested, by appeal, that his detention under anti-terrorism laws was wrong and that he was a non-threat carrying out journalistic work and that the material he was carrying was no threat to life.

The judgment was announced by master of rolls, Lord Dyson, in a hearing in a United Kingdom court of appeal.

The security services told the police terrorism powers could be used because the information Miranda was covering was to be disclosed so as to “to influence a government, and is made for the objective of promoting a political or ideological cause”.

“In 2015 we changed the code of practice for examining officers to instruct them not to examine journalistic material at all. This goes above and past the court’s recommendations in this case”.