‘The message is: keep your mouth shut’

AT THE September branch meeting members heard from freelance foreign affairs reporter Richard Medhurst, who on 15 August was arrested from the steps of an aeroplane under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was held for nearly 24 hours at Heathrow Airport and his equipment was confiscated. When he spoke with us he was yet to learn whether he will be charged. Section 12 gives law enforcement bodies powers to seize journalistic material. It makes it an offence to express support for a “proscribed organisation. The NUJ and the International Federation of Journalists jointly expressed concern over Richard’s arrest.

Richard Medhurst

Image © Pennie Quinton

Richard joined us on Zoom and after some technical hiccups apologetically introduced himself, saying: “The police took all my gear So I'm kind of getting used to new stuff.”

He began: “I'd like to talk to you today because I feel that our ability to report freely to report independently, as British journalists is being seriously imperilled. I recently became the first [journalist] in the UK to be arrested under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act.”

Richard described his ordeal to the meeting. “On 15 August at about half past six in the evening, as I landed in London Heathrow there were about six police officers waiting for me at the door of the aircraft. Most of them were in civilian clothes, with no shoulder numbers, no ID, just in suits.

“And one of them was actually [dressed in] tactical [gear].

“They handcuffed me, arrested me, took all my journalistic equipment. So, just to be very clear: I'm not just talking about my phones, but also my wired and wireless microphones, my headphones. And a Faraday bag [to cut devices off from radio communication]. So I felt it was very targeted at my profession.

“It directly impedes me from doing my job as a reporter; not to mention the fact that we have a responsibility to protect sources. So, when they're taking phones, it puts your sources, your confidential informaton, at risk - and it's a violation of privacy.

“I was placed in solitary confinement. You could call it a dungeon if you will, and you wouldn't be exaggerating too much. A cold, dark cell [smelling] of urine, no toilet paper.

“I was recorded 24/7 with audio and video even when going to the toilet.

“I feel that these conditions are very dehumanising and oppressive. I also repeatedly asked for water when I was arrested, but I had to wait several hours just to be given a cup. I was allowed to see the nurse once, but when I asked on 3 other occasions my requests were essentially ignored.

“The police contradicted themselves regarding two fundamental rights: the right to inform someone you've been arrested and the right to know why you've been arrested.

“They say my calls were withheld, due to the nature of the offence, or of the alleged offence.

“And when I asked why, what was the point of this. They then retorted that rights are not absolute and can be waived.

“You know, regarding the latter, when I asked what Section 12 was, if they could just give me a copy of the law to read it, as I was genuinely unfamiliar with it; or if they could simply explain in more detail why I had been arrested - this, too, was met with deflection - with non-answers.

“So, what was the point of imprisoning me for fifteen hours before questioning me?

“I mean, the police could have simply sent me a letter, and I would have come down to the station.

“I felt that this was meant to intimidate and to frighten and, to the best of my recollection, I cannot remember to this day the police telling me that I could have a lawyer when I was arrested.

“Apparently, they're supposed to tell you as soon as you enter the station. They didn't do that either. I was the one who brought up the question because I had assumed I was being held under Schedule 7 of the Act - which is what would usually happen to journalists who enter the UK. That's another draconian part of the Terrorism Act, where they force you to answer questions on the spot. You're not allowed to have a lawyer, that's another main characteristic of it [Schedule 7].

“For a couple of hours I literally didn't grasp that I had been arrested. I thought they were going to question me immediately, and just get it over with. So, you know, it was quite shocking.

“At present I'm not at liberty to detail the questions put to me by the police or the allegations put forward. If you look at the legislation itself... [it deals with] encouragement of so-called prescribed organisations.

“It's preposterous and outrageous, and I more than anyone condemn terrorism and the killing of civilians. I'm a victim of terrorism myself, when we were posted in Islamabad, when my parents worked for the UN. I can, of course, draw on the background of my parents, they’re former diplomats and Nobel Peace Prize laureates as UN peacekeepers.

“But the police already knew all this. So I again wonder why they sent six police officers to drag me off a plane.

“One of them, as I said, was a big, muscular guy in tactical gear. The point is not that I was a threat to anyone. The point is that it was designed to intimidate.

“There is no substance to the allegation, so that that is a very frightening prospect, not just for me personally, but [for] journalists and our profession.

“Not only is there no substance to the allegation itself, but Article 12 is so loosely worded and ambiguous that it’s just a massive widely-cast net on free speech. It essentially criminalises reporting on the reality on the ground as it unfolds. I mean: if any reference is made to these actors, to Hamas or to Hezbollah, the police can skew the reporting on the actions of these groups, even if they're in line with international and English law as amounting to so-called criminal support.

“One example that a solicitor gave me was that if, for example, there are peace talks or ceasefire talks, as is often the case, and one were to hypothetically say that ‘Well, it's a good thing that there are peace talks', that, they could interpret this as support for one of the groups.

“It's so illogical and nonsensical that I still can't wrap my mind around it.

“The problem with this law is that it is so ambiguous it can be twisted in any manner.

“You need only be a target of the government, or be someone they dislike. If I presented any sort of terrorist threat to anyone do you really think the police would have given me back my passport and let me out on unconditional bail? Of course not they would have never let me out if I was a threat to anyone.

“So that shows you also that sending six officers to yank me off a plane [and] jailing me was intimidation, and is designed to have a chilling effect not just on my work, but the work of other journalists.

“Some people asked me: did you consider not telling anyone about it? I’ve had people tell me that they were held under Schedule 7, and they just didn't want to tell anyone, because they thought it might do what the government had intended, it would dissuade others.

“I just I don't know how I couldn't have said anything, because this is unprecedented, they have never arrested a journalist under Section 12 and something else that's been on my mind is, if the police were alleging that I had committed a crime in public - why did they take my phones?

“This seems more like a fishing expedition than anything else. In other words, an abuse of power. They simply took [my thiings] because they could take them.

“I'm out on unconditional bail. I don't know if it's unconditional, because again, some solicitors have argued that ‘Yes, of course it's a good thing, but, on the other hand, we have a phrase in English, you know, about handing someone the rope to hang themselves with.’ So, perhaps it's designed to make me feel a bit comfortable and then oh, suddenly, you've said something that we don't like, and you're charged with terrorism,

“Either way, it's a lose for journalism, because the message is: keep your mouth shut, or feel the crushing power of the State again.”

Where does that leave us as journalists?

Richard continued: “I cannot simply forego talking about politics, so I feel that I'm stuck in limbo. I genuinely do not know what I can and cannot say, because of the ambiguity of this law and this case hanging over my head, and impeding my reporting so officially, I'm still under investigation until November. They could decide [to take] no further action. They could extend it again another three months. They could extend it forever for three months, indefinitely, or they could charge me - and that's why I believe public pressure during the next weeks is so crucial as to whether I will be charged or not.

“If convicted, I could be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison. I don't think any journalist anywhere should be faced with such a draconian prospect, to say nothing of the enormous affronts against our right as private citizens to freedom of speech.

“I shouldn't have to say this, but Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights isn't some optional law that we apply whenever we feel like it. It is English law.

“It is integrated through the Human Rights Act, so the British government is bound by law to respect our right to freedom of expression... and if you had any doubt that the government was weaponising Section 12 in a political crackdown, a few days after my arrest they decided to try it on a couple of activists, so they barged through Sarah Wilkinson's home, raided it and turned it upside down. Several members of Palestine Action were also arrested and charged, using the same provision.

“I think it is important also to add to that context an additional piece, which is that the [UK] government of its own admission has been supplying weapons to Israel that are being used in contravention of international law.

“During the last ten months we've seen our colleagues in Palestine being killed. It is the deadliest war for journalists on record. Any journalist, in Britain or otherwise, should be heartbroken that people in press vests are being killed in such numbers. The British government has been complicit in that.

“My point here isn't isn't to say, oh, the country is irredeemable. On the contrary, I believe we can do better, and know we can do better, and if I didn't think so I wouldn't be addressing you here today, and I wouldn't be doing my job as a journalist.

“If we don't push back, I do fear it might be too late. In that case, you know, now really is the time to oppose the government's actions and this weaponisation, and misuse of counter-terrorism legislation, particularly the use of Section 12 in this unprecedented manner in the context of arresting journalists whose job it is to speak out, to report and inform the public.

“I just want to thank the NUJ and the IFJ, who not only condemned my arrest and the seizure of my equipment [and] the misuse of counterterrorism laws against journalists, but did so at the highest levels in a written statement from the General Secretaries - so thank you to Michelle Stanistreet and to Anthony Bellanger. I want to express my gratitude to David Aryton, to Tim Gopsill for your support and I want to thank you for all for the opportunity to address you today.”