Stop Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 incompatible with Article 10

21 January 2016 by

David MirandaDavid Miranda -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2016] EWCA Civ 6 – read judgment.

On Tuesday the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000 and, while upholding the lawfulness of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10.

by David Scott

See RightsInfo’s coverage here. For our coverage of the High Court’s previous decision see here, and on his original detention here and here.

The Case

Mr Miranda, the spouse of then-Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was stopped and detained by the Metropolitan Police at Heathrow Airport on 18 August 2013 under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was questioned and items in his possession were taken by police, including encrypted material provided by Edward Snowden. Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours, the maximum period permitted at the time (since reduced to six hours).

Mr Miranda argued that the acts of the police were unlawful because the stop power was exercised for a purpose not permitted by the statute; its use was in breach of article 10; and the use of the power is incompatible with article 10, at any rate in relation to journalistic material. His appeal in the immediate case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal
departed from the High Court’s literal interpretation of the definition of terrorism, finding that Parliament must have intended for there to be a mental element to the definition of terrorism – in other words, that there had to be an intent, or recklessness as to whether such an effect would be caused, to endanger a person’s life to constitute an act of terrorism (at paragraphs 53 and 54). Nevertheless, publication of material could still amount to an act of
terrorism, so long as the outcome of publication met the test of section 1(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000: namely, if the material was intended, or reckless as to whether its publication would, endanger a person’s life or create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public; if the person publishing the material intends it to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and is for the  purpose of advancing inter alia a political or ideological cause (at paragraph 55). In the present case the police were entitled to consider that material in his possession might be released in circumstances falling within the definition of terrorism, and this possibility was sufficient to justify detention (at paragraphs 57 and 58). This was, the court noted, “quite a low level” bar, but held that Mr Miranda’s case was within Parliament’s intentions for the Terrorism Act.

The court further rejected that the use of the stop power against Mr Miranda was an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression as a journalist, as the compelling national security interests outweighed Mr Miranda’s article 10 rights. While holding that the detaining authorities should have known Mr Miranda’s material “was or might have been journalistic material” (at paragraph 67), there was no reason to disagree with the claims of the government that the material seized contained information that posed a risk to national security. It was noted that challenging such an assessment was “very difficult…in a court of law” (paragraph 82), but the potential harm of the material far outweighed any journalistic rights.

The Certificate of Incompatibility

In the final section of the judgment, however, the court considered whether the stop power, if used in respect of journalistic information or material, failed to be “prescribed by law” as required by Article 10(2). Liberty, as interveners to the case, argued five principles could be derived from Strasbourg jurisprudence on this point (all with reference to the Grand Chamber decision of Sanoma Uitgevers v the NetherlandsThe court repeated these submissions at paragraph 100:

First, the protection of journalistic sources must be attended with legal procedural safeguards commensurate with the importance of the article 10 principle at stake…Secondly, first and foremost among these safeguards is the guarantee of review by a judge or other independent and impartial decision-making body of any requirement that a journalist hand over material concerning a confidential source…Thirdly, the judge or other independent and impartial body must be in a position to carry out the exercise of weighing the potential risks and respective interests prior to disclosure. The decision to be taken should be governed by clear criteria…Fourthly, the exercise of an independent review that takes place only after the handing over of material capable of revealing such sources would undermine the very essence of the right to confidentiality and cannot therefore constitute a legal procedural safeguard commensurate with the rights protected by article 10…Fifthly, however, in urgent cases, where it is impracticable for the authorities to provide elaborate reasons, an independent review carried out at the very least prior to the access and use of obtained materials should be sufficient to determine whether any issue of confidentiality arises, and if so, whether the public interest invoked by the investigating authorities outweighs the general public interest in source protection.

While the present case did not concern disclosure of a journalist’s source, the court could find “no reason in principle for drawing a distinction between disclosure of journalistic material simpliciter and disclosure of journalistic material which may identify a confidential source” (paragraph 107). As it would be impractical to assume an average journalist would be able to obtain an emergency interim injuction upon detention under Schedule 7, and judicial review after the fact could not restore the confidentiality of sources or material, there were inadequate legal safeguards to avoid the risk that it will be exercised arbitrarily. The stop powers under Schedule 7 were therefore incompatible with Article 10. The Court noted that, while Strasbourg has not developed an “absolute” rule of judicial scrutiny for such cases, some form of judicial or other independent and impartial scrutiny conducted in such a way as to protect the confidentiality in the material was considered the “natural and obvious safeguard against the unlawful exercise of…Schedule 7” (paragraph 114). The decision of how such safeguards would be implemented would be left to Parliament.


In the wake of the decision the Home Office commented that:

In 2015 we changed the code of practice for examining officers to instruct them not to examine journalistic material at all. This goes above and beyond the court’s recommendations in this case.

So perhaps legislative change won’t be needed after all. But journalists and activists will nonetheless celebrate this case as a victory over restrictions on critical free speech. The court noted the importance of the principles before it (at paragraph 113):

The central concern is that disclosure of journalistic material (whether or not it involves the identification of a journalist’s source) undermines the confidentiality that is inherent in such material and which is necessary to avoid the chilling effect of disclosure and to protect article 10 rights. If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest. That is why the confidentiality of such information is so important.

But how happy will the Government be over another legislative “win” for human rights? Considering some had already cited Mr Miranda’s case as justification for more anti-terror legislation, this decision may still have important implications for the future.

This blog post was amended on 21 January 2016 to correct an error in the original summary of the court’s judgment.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related Posts


  1. Captain Sensible says:

    This was not “journalistic material” as you suggest. This man was in possession of material which I believe was stolen by Snowden and has, as it has now been reported, put our national security at risk. Your article states ” including encrypted material provided by Edward Snowden”. Its also cannot surely be argued that this puts journalistic sources at risk from disclosure as everybody knows the material was from Snowden – see your own quotation.

    This is yet another misuse of the HR legislation and one which will yet again bring forth the ire of the government and sections of the press / media. When will the HR fraternity learn ?

  2. ObiterJ says:

    The Court of Appeal’s reasoning is somewhat puzzling. Held that the relevant legislation is incompatible. Having said that, there should be no need to consider proportionality. The domestic law effect of the incompatible legislation is preserved by HRA 1998 s6. I believe that Head of Legal blog was the first to comment on this matter.

  3. ObiterJ says:

    One struggles somewhat with this judgment. If the relevant power is incompatible then why consider proportionality at all? Anything done under an incompatible power must breach the convention. The power will remain valid in domestic law because of the HRA 1998 s.6. The approach of the court seems problematic. I believe that Carl Gardner (Head of Legal blog) was first to comment on this.

  4. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics.

  5. Who fears information released by Edward Snowden?
    Only a terrorist?
    Who is the terrorist who sprays c h e m t r a i l s from the skies?
    Only a terrorist?
    A Command – Let the people decide who is the terrorist.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: