British foreign correspondents could face prosecution under new national security legislation if they use sources within state-backed groups, according to experts. The national security (state threats) bill, which is nearing its final parliamentary stages, aims to allow the UK government to designate state-backed organizations, such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), as terrorist entities.
David Anderson, the UK's former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has expressed concern that the bill, as written, could inadvertently ensnare journalists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in terror prosecutions. He noted that while Home Office guidance suggests journalists are protected, these protections are not explicitly stated in the bill's text. Anderson described the bill as having been "pulled together in a hurry, with mooted safeguards for NGOs and journalists largely absent from its text."
The legislation introduces new criminal offenses for individuals who "support, assist and obtain material benefits" from designated groups, with "material benefits" encompassing not only financial gains but also information. The bill includes provisions for obtaining, accepting, and retaining such benefits, and notably lacks a "reasonable excuse" defense for these actions.
Jonathan Hall, Anderson's successor in the role of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has also called for amendments to extend the "reasonable excuse" defense to cover information. However, the government has not accepted this recommendation. Anderson highlighted potential jeopardy for charities like the Halo Trust, which might need to engage with designated bodies to locate landmines, and for conflict resolution organizations working with such groups.
Ministers have argued that information would only be subject to prohibition if it "possesses an inherent value that enriches the recipient." However, Anderson pointed out that the definition of material benefit includes information as a distinct category. Reassurances have also been offered that prosecutions would only proceed if deemed in the public interest by the attorney general, a safeguard Anderson questioned regarding its robustness across different political futures.