David Miranda: Court of Appeal finds 'counter terrorism powers' incompatible with human rights

The Court of Appeal has found that the use of controversial police powers to stop, detain, question, and search individuals are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judgment relates to the case of David Miranda who was detained at Heathrow Airport in August 2013 while assisting his partner and former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who was writing about Edward Snowden's mass surveillance revelations.

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 that 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.

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

The Court of Appeal agreed that the detention was lawful but held that schedule 7 was flawed and breached fundamental rights as they 'do not afford effective protection' for the basic rights of journalists and those working with them.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said: 'If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest.'

The court found that parliament should introduce judicial oversight when such powers are used in the future.

Appeal judges also rejected the broad definition of 'terrorism' put forward by lawyers for the police and government.

In overruling the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal said terrorism required some intention to cause a serious threat to public safety, such as endangering life.

'If parliament had intended to provide that a person commits an act of terrorism where he unwittingly or accidentally does something which in fact endangers another person's life, I would have expected that, in view of the serious consequences of classifying a person as a terrorist, it would have spelt this out clearly,' said Lord Dyson.

The court did not, however, accept Miranda's argument that the police had acted for a purpose that fell outside schedule 7.

Kate Goold, a partner at Bindmans who acted for Miranda, said: 'Today's ruling emphasises the importance of interpreting terrorism with its ordinary natural meaning to ensure that legitimate public interest journalism is not stifled through the use of draconian powers because of the fear of remote consequences.

'The notion of a journalist becoming an "accidental terrorist" has been whole-heartedly rejected. We welcome this court's principled and decisive ruling that schedule 7 needs to come in line with other legislation to ensure that the seizure of journalistic material is protected by judicial safeguards.'