David Miranda: Court of Appeal to hear 'counter terrorism powers' case

The partner of a former Guardian journalist has appealed a court ruling that it was lawful to detain him under terrorism prevention powers when caught carrying sensitive documents in 2013.

David Miranda was assisting US lawyer, journalist, and author Glenn Greenwald in investigating Edward Snowden's US surveillance revelations when the material was seized while travelling through Heathrow airport.

After refusing to answer questions, Miranda was held and questioned for nine hours under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In November 2013 Miranda argued the decision interfered with his rights to freedom of expression, and that the government had avoided proper procedures to obtain materials that the court may have denied it.

The High Court concluded the detention was legal, proportionate, and did not breach his right to freedom of expression.

Miranda was granted permission to appeal in May 2014 over whether the use of counter-terrorism powers struck a 'fair balance' between the rights of an individual and the interest of the community.

Represented by Bindmans, Miranda argues the actions of the police and Home Office were improper, disproportionate, and incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Kate Goold, a partner at Bindmans, remarked: 'This case raises important questions regarding the freedom of the press to gather information and report on subjects of compelling public interest which may cause embarrassment to the government.

'If the High Court's interpretation of terrorism is correct, any political articles by journalists can be an act of terrorism if they inadvertently place the health and safety of the public at risk.'

'This has a potential chilling effect on freedom of expression and places public interest journalists in a vulnerable position whenever travelling through a port.'

David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, noted in his 2014 report that the Divisional Court's definition of terrorism appeared to cover 'any publication (or threatened publication) of words that were liable to endanger life or create a serious risk to health and safety'.

This interpretation 'leaves citizens in the dark and risks undermining the rule of law' to confer 'overbroad discretions to ministers, prosecutors, and police', he said.

In addition, 'to bring activities such as journalism and blogging within the ambit of "terrorism" encourages the "chilling effect" that can deter even legitimate enquiry and expression in related fields' he observed.

Reflecting on Anderson's report, John Halford of Bindmans said that the 'dragnet powers' deployed by the authorities was 'not helpful in combatting terrorism because they can so easily undermine the very things, such as a free press, that confident democratic societies are built upon'.

Matthew Rogers is an editorial assistant at Solicitors Journal matthew.rogers@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @sportslawmatt