The UK Court of Appeal has ruled a key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was found that while the police followed the law under the controversial section of the Terrorism Act, Schedule 7, it found that the statute itself was incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that Schedule 7 did not contain sufficient legal safeguards to avoid the risk that it would be exercised arbitrarily.
The appellant Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours at Heathrow Airport in August 2013 while he was assisting Mr Greewald’s reporting on documents about government mass surveillance leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The High Court had dismissed a legal challenge brought by Mr Miranda that his detention had been unlawful. While the High Court accepted that Mr Miranda’s detention and the seizure of the documents was in ‘an indirect interference with press freedom’ it was justified by legitimate and ‘very pressing’ interests of national security.
The Court of Appeal while finding that Mr Miranda’s detention had been lawful, found the clause under which he had been held was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The powers contained in schedule 7 of the Act; which allow travellers to be questioned to find out whether they appear to be terrorists, were flawed. Particularly, the Court considered that such persons have no right to remain silent or receive legal advice and may be detained for up to six hours.
The Court specifically noted the incompatibility of the power to stop, if used in respect of journalistic information or material, with article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted the central concern was that ‘disclosure of journalistic material and (whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s sources) undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect article 10 (freedom of expression) rights.’
Click here to read a copy of the judgement.
Click here to read a copy of the summary.
Click here to read further commentary about the decision.