UK state threats bill could pull British journalists into terror prosecutions – experts | UK security and counter-terrorism

British foreign correspondents could face prosecution if they use sources from state-backed groups in countries such as Iran under national security legislation rushed through parliament this week.

David Anderson, the UK’s former independent watchdog on terrorism legislation, warned that if the bill is not changed, journalists working in danger zone countries could be subject to investigations for accidental terrorism.

The new counter-terrorism powers are designed to allow the UK government to label state-sponsored groups as terrorist organizations and ban groups such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The legal change, which is expected to complete its final stages in parliament this week, will also create new crimes for people who “support, assist and derive financial benefit from” groups officially listed as state-sponsored threats.

However, there are concerns that the national security (state threats) bill could, in practice, go beyond its main purpose of targeting proxies and could also penalize foreign correspondents.

Home Office guidance suggests journalists are protected, but Lord Anderson said those protections were not explicitly included in the bill.

The same person told the Guardian: “The bill appears to have been hastily drafted, with safeguards for NGOs and journalists discussed being largely absent from the text.” “This needs to be done early this week, before the bill becomes law.”

According to the legislation, material benefits include not only financial benefits but also information. It would be a crime to “obtain, accept and retain” this material benefit, as well as “agree to accept” it, and neither has a “reasonable excuse” defence.

Anderson’s successor, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Jonathan Hall, also advocated changing the law and expanding the “reasonable excuse” defense to include information. The government did not accept his proposal.

“There are obvious concerns here for individuals whose legitimate business may bring them into contact with a designated entity or individuals who are in a position to provide information on its behalf,” Anderson said in a briefing note.

“This would potentially jeopardize a charity such as the Halo Trust, which cannot legally ask the Revolutionary Guard or its representatives where landmines have been laid, or a conflict resolution organization that must engage with designated bodies as part of its work.

“Foreign correspondents may also be affected. In fact, they will be at risk of prosecution if they have any contact with sources within designated institutions or their representatives.”

Ministers argued that information would only fall within the scope of the ban if it “has an inherent value that enriches the recipient”, but Anderson pointed out that the definition of material benefit includes information as a separate category, distinct from the financial benefit provision.

They also gave assurances that people potentially caught in new crimes could only be prosecuted if the attorney general felt it was in the public interest. “[You] “They will have their own views on how solid such assurance is in practice and in all possible political futures,” he said.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs was contacted for opinion.