Following the events last August, when David Miranda,
partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained under the 2000 Terrorism
Act at Heathrow Airport while en route from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro, a case
was heard at the High Court: Miranda sought
to establish that his detention of nine hours was unlawful – and breached
his right to freedom of expression.
Although the case was heard in November, it was not until
this morning that the judgment of Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr
Justice Openshaw was published. To very little surprise, as
Liberty has told, “Today the High
Court found that David Miranda’s detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism
Act 2000 was lawful”. And the detail of the judgment (see HERE)
is most interesting.
Liberty again: “The
Court found that the purpose of the stop – to determine what information
Miranda was carrying and ascertain whether its release or dissemination would
be severely damaging to UK national security interests – did fall properly
within Schedule 7 of the 2000 Act ... The Judge accepted that the stop constituted an
indirect interference with press freedom but held that the interference was
justified”.
So Lord Justice Laws and his colleagues have said that, in
the Miranda case, it is OK to interfere with the freedom of the press. Have a
think about that for a moment. The same supposedly free press that has been
using the Miranda case to put the boot in on the Guardian has now seen judgment passed down which says that they
have been championing actions which curtail their freedom.
What should also concern journalists is the way the stop was
excused by the spooks: “What is bizarre
is that the Security Services twice declined to tell the police David Miranda
was involved in terrorism, and then changed their mind after being told by the
police that they could not use Schedule 7 if he was not. This looks like making
the facts up to fit the law” said
Nick Pickles at Big Brother Watch.
On top of that, the ruling has exposed how the security
services were clearly monitoring the communications of Miranda and his
colleagues. How this was justified, and whether anyone even bothered to ask for
permission to snoop, is not explained. Yet three High Court judges are happy
about this behaviour. Small wonder that the UK has this year slipped
three places in the Press Freedom Index.
In case anyone is having trouble understanding why that has
happened, Reporters without Borders has
spelt it out: “By identifying
journalism with terrorism with such disturbing ease, the UK authorities are
following one of the most widespread practices of authoritarian regimes”.
That’s the kind of thing that you
won’t be reading in the Times, Telegraph or Mail today.
Journalism is not terrorism. We should be concerned by anyone saying otherwise.
There is another angle on this case that has MUCH wider (if less serious) implications.
ReplyDeleteMiranda claimed the action was illegal, the court decided it was legal. Black and white, yes - no.
If it had been possible for him to make a claim of "cynical abuse of statutory powers" what would the result have been?
This may have been an extreme case but messing people about whilst staying just inside the law goes on all over the place every day. Maybe it's time we had a simple law (so simple that it can't be messed with) that allows a ruling on not just whether an action was legal but also on whether it was genuine in intent. Not just for the police - many Civil Servants and Local Government officials would be nervous wrecks as well.