CLOSE

Media Defence Intervenes in David Miranda High Court Challenge

Media Defence Intervenes in David Miranda High Court Challenge

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. EthiopiaTurkey 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.”

MLDI is extremely grateful for the pro bono assistance of barristers Can Yeginsu and Anthony Jones, both of 4 New Square, in drafting the submissions for the intervention.

The intervention can be downloaded below.

 

Attached files:
PDF icon R(Miranda) v SSHD Intervention.pdf

Recent News

El impacto de nuestras cirugías de litigio: Una conversación con el abogado Jorge Ruiz del Ángel 

El año pasado entrevistamos al abogado mexicano de derechos humanos Jorge Ruiz del Ángel sobre su experiencia participando en una de nuestras cirugías de litigio y su incorporación a nuestra red global de abogados/as. Nuestras cirugías de litigio  Las cirugías de litigio son un componente clave del trabajo global de Media Defence y se ofrecen […]

Read

Conoce al equipo: Marta Cabrera

Nos complace enormemente dar la bienvenida a Marta Cabrera, una destacada abogada especializada en derechos humanos, quien se une a nuestro equipo como consultora legal. Con años de experiencia en las Cortes Interamericana y Europea de Derechos Humanos, Marta aporta una perspectiva invaluable a nuestro trabajo. En esta entrevista de la serie Conoce al equipo, […]

Read

Meet the Team: Marta Cabrera

We’re thrilled to welcome Marta Cabrera, an accomplished human rights lawyer, to our team as a legal consultant. With years of experience at both the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights, Marta brings invaluable insight to our work. In this Meet the Team interview, she shares her journey, the cases that shaped her, and […]

Read