The State Threats Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, has sparked intense debate among lawmakers and experts over concerns it could put British foreign correspondents at risk of prosecution. At the centre of this controversy is the bill's far-reaching definition of "material benefits," which critics argue is so broad it could inadvertently ensnare legitimate professional activities.
The legislation aims to empower the government to designate and ban state-backed groups as terrorist organisations, specifically targeting entities like Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). However, critics contend that the bill's wording is too vague, potentially stretching its remit beyond designated proxy groups and into areas such as journalistic inquiry.
Lord David Anderson, former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has expressed serious reservations about the lack of explicit protections for journalists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the bill. He points out that while Home Office guidance suggests reporters are safeguarded, these assurances are not written into the law itself. Lord Anderson believes the legislation was hastily developed, leaving crucial safeguards for NGOs and journalists largely absent.
A key area of concern revolves around the definition of "material benefits," which encompasses not only financial gains but also information. The bill would make it an offence to "obtain, accept and retain" such benefits or even agree to accept them without a "reasonable excuse" defence. This has prompted Jonathan Hall, Lord Anderson's successor, to advocate for amendments to include a 'reasonable excuse' defence for obtaining information – a recommendation the government has yet to accept.
Lord Anderson warns that the bill could put organisations like the Halo Trust and conflict resolution bodies at risk if they need to gather information from designated sources. He specifically notes that foreign correspondents would be vulnerable to prosecution if they engage with sources within state-backed entities or their agents, despite any potential "inherent value" that such information may hold.
Ministers have attempted to assuage concerns by stating that prosecutions would only proceed in cases deemed to be in the public interest by the Attorney General. However, Lord Anderson has questioned the long-term robustness of this safeguard.