The High Court is hearing the judicial review application of David Miranda in relation to his detention earlier this year under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Media Legal Defence Initiative together with Article 19 and English PEN intervened in the case, arguing that Mr Miranda’s detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act was in violation of international human rights law.
David Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who first reported in the Guardian on the surveillance of internet and phone communications by US intelligence in light of information obtained by Edward Snowden. He was detained for nine hours at Heathrow on 18 August 2013 under the Terrorism Act 2000 and required to hand over encrypted computer disks and various other materials that he was carrying.
The case highlights the ongoing abuse of terrorism laws in violation of the right to freedom of expression around the world. In 2012, 132 of 232 journalists in prison were jailed under anti-terrorism or national security laws. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has criticised the unlawful targeting of journalists under such laws. Ethiopia, Turkey and Morocco are amongst the countries that have recently jailed journalists under anti-terrorism laws.
The intervention made by MLDI, English PEN and Article 19 argues that the detention of Mr Miranda under the Terrorism Act violates the right to freedom of expression. Mr Miranda was assisting in journalistic activity when he was detained – his flight had been paid for by the Guardian, and he was carrying journalistic materials that were deemed too sensitive to email. The intervention argues that Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, under which Mr Miranda was detained, violates human rights law by failing to require judicial authorisation before a person can be compelled to reveal journalistic information. Furthermore, the intervention argues that Mr Miranda should never have been detained under Schedule 7 as his journalistic activity did not amount to being concerned in terrorism. Reporting on terrorism and should never itself be considered as an act of terrorism. Nani Jansen, Senior Legal Counsel at MLDI commented that “the public interest in the information held by Mr Miranda means that the case is one where the most stringent protection of journalistic material should have been provided.”
The intervention can be downloaded below.
R(Miranda) v SSHD Intervention.pdf
As part of Media Defence’s project Empowering Women in Digital Rights Advocacy, we are building a strong legal defence network in sub-Saharan Africa. To achieve this goal, we are providing financial assistance to organisations to establish legal aid units or media defence centres. We are excited to announce that, as part of this project, we are extending […]
This year marks Media Defence’s 15th anniversary. To celebrate this milestone, we will be taking a look at the ways in which freedom of expression has been threatened around the world, and how we have sought to protect it. The internet has become an essential part of modern life. It has transformed the way we […]
Purpose of the consultancy contract The purpose of the consultancy contract is to draft nine modules on digital rights and freedom of expression in Europe. Background Media Defence’s vision is a world where journalists no longer face legal challenges that threaten their ability to report freely and independently on issues of public interest, allowing citizens […]