UK Using Terrorism Law To Silence Journalists, Protesters Who Commit 'Speech Crimes'

The following article was funded by paid subscribers of The Dissenter. Become a subscriber with this special offer and support independent journalism on press freedom.

British police and prosecutors are relying on a recently adopted "speech crime" provision in terrorism legislation to target journalists, commentators, activists, and protesters.

The crackdown accelerated after Israel launched its genocidal campaign against Palestinians following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Among the most well-known examples of this crackdown is the case of British-Syrian journalist and commentator Richard Medhurst. 

Medhurst, the son of two United Nations peacekeepers, was arrested on August 15 by counter-terrorism police after his plane landed at London’s Heathrow airport. He was due to participate in a panel at the Beautiful Days Festival in Devon.

“Something in my gut told me something was up,” Medhurst told The Dissenter, because there was an “unusually long gap” after the plane stopped and the doors opened. 

The pilot said that they were waiting for a plane to move out of their spot, but this turned out to be false. “One of the flight attendants said, ‘can Richard Medhurst please come to the front of the plane?’ I was literally in the front row.”

Officers, who were not in uniform, initially refused to answer any questions as to who they were and what they wanted and declined to identify themselves. Police demanded to know where Medhurst's bags were and then took him and his property away. After he was taken to a small room, he was searched, placed in double-lock handcuffs in a painful manner, and transferred to a police station.

Medhurst, who is a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) as well as the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), is well-known for his coverage of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition case as well as his reporting on geopolitics as it relates to West Asia.

This is the first known example of British authorities invoking section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 to justify arresting and interrogating a journalist, which was passed in 2019 as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act.

[Editor's note: There are other speech crime offenses in United Kingdom terrorism law, but throughout this report, we'll refer to section 12(1A) as the speech crime provision.] 

The speech crime provision states:

A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)  expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and

(b) in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.

Someone accused of this crime faces up to six months in prison if convicted at a Magistrates’ Court and up to 14 years in prison if convicted by a jury.

Prosecutors do not have to prove that an individual expressed their opinions or beliefs with the intention of encouraging others to support a banned group. Nor do they have to prove that anyone actually supported a banned group as a result of the accused's opinions or beliefs.

All that British authorities need to prove is that the person was "reckless" when it comes to whether their expressed opinions or beliefs would encourage others to "support" a banned group.

Arrested And Interrogated For Engaging In Journalism

It took Medhurst several hours and multiple requests before the police eventually granted him access to his lawyer. Despite being arrested at 6.30pm, Medhurst wasn’t formally interviewed in the presence of counsel until 2pm the following day.  

The police questioned him about his journalistic reporting and commentary, his social media activity and the social media activity of other people, his political and religious beliefs, and his personal life. They also seized microphones, two mobile phones, his faraday bag, and his wireless earphones, none of which have been returned.“I have accepted and knew the moment that I was arrested that these devices are gone,” Medhurst lamented.

Police refused to permit Medhurst to use his phone to contact anyone, even though he didn’t yet know where he would be staying in Devon.

On September 3, the NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet and IFJ general secretary Anthony Bellanger published a joint statement condemning the arrest. They called Medhurst’s arrest and detention under terrorism legislation “deeply concerning,” saying that it “will likely have a chilling effect on journalists in the U.K. and worldwide,” who will now fear “arrest by U.K. authorities simply for carrying out their work.”

“Both the NUJ and IFJ are shocked at the increased use of terrorism legislation by the British police in this manner,” Stanistreet and Bellanger declared, “Journalism is not a crime. Powers contained in anti-terror legislation must be deployed proportionately—not wielded against journalists in ways that inevitably stifle press freedom.”

'There Were No Clocks, There Were No Windows, There Was Nothing'

According to Medhurst, he was held in a “freezing cold” and “damp” police cell “with no toilet paper” for nearly 24 hours. 

“The conditions in the jail were so bad. I was shocked,” Medhurst said. “Why would you put anyone, anyone in here? You’re literally in a toilet. It’s not a room with a toilet. It’s a toilet.”

“There were no clocks. There were no windows. There was nothing." As such, Medhurst found it difficult to gauge how much time had passed.

“Every 30 minutes, 45 minutes someone would come and open the window, the slit, and look at you and say, are you alright? I said this to maybe three or four different people, can you just tell me if they called the solicitor?" Medhurst recalled. "They wouldn’t answer me. They would say, your calls are withheld."

"They were mixing the fact that I was forbidden from calling my family with the fact that they could call the lawyer on my behalf."

After several hours, he was finally able to speak to his lawyer. He later found out, however, that on at least two occasions his lawyer called. The police never picked up.

Medhurst was not informed that his lawyer called. He believes that this behavior on the part of the police was part of a deliberate tactic of intimidation. “It’s either specific to me, or they do this as a matter of course. Either way, it is unacceptable,” he added.

During one phone call with his lawyer, a voice could be heard stating that the call was being monitored. After his lawyer chastised the officer and explained the fundamental nature of attorney-client privilege, the connection was disconnected—possibly by the police.

Medhurst was released without bail conditions, but he is required to return to the police station three months after the date of his arrest. Upon his return, police will inform him whether he will face charges.

It is unclear why the authorities require three months to determine whether Medhurst violated the speech crime provision of the Terrorism Act 2000. Nor is it clear why his electronic devices had to be seized.

Police Ransack Journalist's Home

Sarah Wilkinson, another accredited journalist, had her home raided on August 29 by at least a dozen police, including officers from the counter-terrorism division. Several were wearing balaclavas. 

She is a well-known critic of Israel's apartheid regime. Police arrested her under the speech crime provision for “content” that she had “posted online” about the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Like Medhurst, Wilkinson was not immediately charged with a commiting a crime. But she experienced far greater levels of harassment and was subjected to shocking bail conditions.

Wilkinson shared in an interview for “The Crispin Flintoff Show” that police stormed into her house and allegedly pushed her son against the wall. They refused to provide her with a warrant and took items which were not listed on the warrant. 

Police ransacked Wilkinson's house, confiscated her passport, seized all of her electronic devices, took cash (which they denied doing), and arrested her for “content she had posted online.” 

The most distressing aspect of the raid for Wilkinson was the discovery that the police had knocked over the urn containing her mother's ashes and spilled them all over the attic floor. Missing about a quarter of her mother’s remains, Wilkinson found herself with “one of the most horrific things” she had ever had to do—sweeping up the ashes of her mother with a broom and dustpan.

Wilkinson said that she had to search the house to find belongings, which had clearly been moved and hidden, such as her bank cards which she located in the attic.

The handcuffs on Wilkinson’s wrists were so tight that they were cut and bloody by the time that she arrived at the police station. When police released her from custody they imposed bail conditions which she and her lawyers would later describe as "inhuman." 

Wilkinson was prohibited from accessing the internet; required to provide the details of any mobile device purchased, including phone number, model and IMEI; prohibited from using “any social media applications, including but not limited to Instagram, Twitter, Tick Tok, Facebook, Snapchat”; and prohibited from possessing or using  any “internet-enabled mobile or any electronic device (including laptop, desktop, tablet, etc) under any circumstances.” 

At first, the police denied having her passport, which was a problem because the bail conditions barred her from applying for any travel documents and required her to hand over her passport to authorities.

Wilkinson was threatened with an automatic five years in prison if she did not hand over her passport within seven days. Eventually, the police admitted that they had her passport but not until the day before she had to deliver it or face incarceration.

Following numerous interviews, widespread support online, and court submissions made by her lawyers, all but one of her bail conditions were dropped. But Wilkinson said that she will have to replace all of her electronic devices because the police will not return them. 

The Weaponization Of U.K. Terrorism Laws

Since October 7, British authorities have increasingly weaponized sections of the country’s terrorism laws. In addition to increased use of section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, there has also been an uptick in arrests and charges against individuals for allegedly violating section 13 of the same law, and section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Section 13 criminalizes the wearing of “an item of clothing” or carrying or displaying an article, “in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

This dystopian provision was further expanded in 2019. The publication of “an image” of “an item of clothing, or any other article,” which could “arouse reasonable suspicion” that they are a member of a banned group, is now also a crime.

Four suicide bombers killed 55 people (and injured 700) on a London transport during rush hour on July 7, 2005. The attacks occurred two years and four months after the illegal invasion of Iraq (led by the U.K. and the U.S. governments).

In response, the Terrorism Act 2006 was passed. The law had a significant impact on the freedom of expression and the dissemination of views, beliefs, and ideas. As Prime Minister Tony Blair declared shortly after the attacks, “The rules of the game have changed."

The Terrorism Act 2006 expanded the concept of direct as well as indirect encouragement of terrorism, including the criminalization of speech that “glorifies” terrorist acts or individuals.

Hundreds of arrests have also been made for alleged violations of various “public order” legislation. 

Richard Barnard, co-founder of the direct action network Palestine Action, faces three charges in relation to two speeches he gave last October. One charge is under the speech crime provision and two other charges fall under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act, namely for encouraging "criminal damage." Barnard was arrested on the same day as Wilkinson.

Palestine Action has engaged in direct action against weapons firms based in the U.K. which manufacture armaments and other equipment for the apartheid state. Their primary focus has been on Elbit Systems,Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer . 

On December 20 at 7 a.m., Tony Greenstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist activist and founding member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was woken up by two police officers ringing his doorbell. He, too, was arrested on suspicion of committing an offense under the speech crime provision.

When Greenstein answered the door, he was told that he was arrested in relation to a single tweet that he posted in November. His tweet stated, “I support the Palestinians that is enough and I support Hamas against the Israeli army.”

“These renewed efforts to criminalise pro-Palestinian activism and speech have not in any way been subtle,” Greenstein wrote in an op-ed for Al Jazeera English. 

The police imposed strict bail conditions against Greenstein, although not as onerous as the conditions that they imposed on Wilkinson.

Greenstein was required to “live and sleep” at his home address and seek permission from the officer in charge if he wished to sleep elsewhere; required to notify police of "any new telephone number and any “device details include IMEI and SIM number within 24 hours” of purchase; and prohibited from posting anything on the platform formerly known as Twitter that had to with the "ongoing conflict in Gaza or the prescribed [sic] organisation Hamas.”

After he challenged these police bail conditions at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, they were substantially modified. He now must continue to live at his home address, but he is no longer required to sleep there every evening.

The second condition was quashed altogether, and the third was “watered down.” Instead of being completely barred from posting about the war in Gaza, Greenstein told The Dissenter that he is now simply prohibited from mentioning Hamas by name.

Greenstein further declared, “[What we are seeing in the U.K.] is a complete abuse of anti-terror laws, which are meant to deal with genuinely terrorist organizations and not crack down on the right to protest and freedom of speech."

Although Greenstein was supposed to be informed about whether he would be charged in March, he has since been told that he may not know whether he will be charged until December 21—a year and a day since his arrest.

In July, a 55-year-old man was charged with four counts of violating the same speech crime provision and three counts of violating the Public Order Act, all in relation to social media posts.   

A 38-year-old was also charged in March with two counts of violating the speech crime provision. The charges against him came after a member of the public referred his social media posts to the police, in October of last year. His trial is scheduled for December.

Repressing Dissent Is A Feature

As The Dissenter reported in 2023, hundreds of thousands of people have been interrogated under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

People subjected to schedule 7 stops do not have a right to a lawyer, the right to refuse to answer questions or the right to refuse to handover their electronic devices, PINs and passwords. British authorities do not need to charge someone or present reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in any crime in order to make use of the powers. 

Former U.K. ambassador turned journalist and blogger Craig Murray was stopped and interrogated under schedule 7 last year, as was British journalist Matt Broomfield. French journalist Ernesto Moret was arrested after he refused to give up his “phone and passcodes” during a schedule 7 stop. 

Jonathan Hall, the U.K.’s government-appointed independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, concluded in a special report that the Metropolitan Police abused its powers when it targeted Moret. “I have reached the clear conclusion that this examination should not have happened, and that additional safeguards are needed to ensure it is not repeated,” Hall wrote in his report on the incident. 

The police have since said that they have closed their case against Moret and referred themselves to the Independent Office of Police Conduct, a body that oversees complaints against officers in England and Wales.

Research has shown that a disproportionate amount of the individuals stopped are Muslim. As more and more journalists find themselves subjected to schedule 7 stops—or their newly created equivalent under schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, these laws are getting more media scrutiny. 

“The Terrorism Act 2000 kicked off two decades of counter-terrorism legislation,” the UK-based Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC) noted in its 2021 report, “20 Years of Terrorism Acts: 20 Years of Injustice.” “It made permanent anti-terrorism powers which had been temporary since 1974 through the Northern Ireland conflict. It was a landmark primary legislation which underpinned all the successive anti-terrorism laws. It also served as a model for other countries to adopt in succeeding years.”

Counter-terrorism laws and programs have “deep historical roots in the [United Kingdom’s] colonial history,” CAMPACC explained. “The methods and principles used to govern the British Empire over a century have produced a body of knowledge and expertise of repression, dissent-management and suppression of the aspirations for freedom and self-determination around the world.” 

"[When] South Asian soldiers were fighting Britain’s wars around the world, the British colonial government introduced the Defence of India Ordinance 1914 which first formalised many features of antiterrorism laws and suppression of dissent and struggles for self-determination that we see today,” the CAMPACC report further asserted.

According to CAMPACC the repression of dissent is a feature of the U.K.’s counter-terrorism regime rather than a bug. “Britain’s violence abroad and at home cannot be understood without the role of modern counter-terrorism, as well as anti-immigration powers."

“Together these powers have had a central role in expanding, militarising and legitimising mass policing and surveillance. Special anti-terror powers label resistance abroad as ‘terrorism’ and likewise stigmatise mere verbal support at home as threats to national security.” 

CAMPACC concluded, “The counter-terror framework serves to legitimise oppressive regimes allied with the UK and its own global military interventions, in pursuit of global plunder and domination. By blurring any distinction between liberation movements and terrorism, and likewise between civil resistance and violence, the UK impedes a political route to conflict resolution abroad, while persecuting those who oppose oppressive regimes.”