On 17 October 2024, the Metropolitan Police seized his "electronic devices" as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences - report at Middle East Eye 18 October 2024.
As reported by Law Firm Bindmans, the Recorder of London (HHJ Mark Lucraft KC) found that search warrants, applied for by the police under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, were “unlawfully issued.”
Winstanley’s legal team argued successfully that the seized devices contained legally privileged material from his work on the Undercover Policing Inquiry and sensitive journalistic data.
See Bindmans website - Journalist Asa Winstanley wins Old Bailey ruling against unlawful police raid.
The Law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 8 empowers a "justice of the peace" to issue search warrants in specified cases. The section expressly states that the material sought must not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material.
Section 9 of the 1984 Act states - "A constable may obtain access to excluded material or special procedure material for the purposes of a criminal investigation by making an application under Schedule 1 below and in accordance with that Schedule."
The United Nations
In December 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee wrote to the UK government stating that it has received information concerning the potentially inappropriate use of provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006, and the Anti-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
The committee continued - 'These provisions appear to have been employed to investigate, detain, collect data, and prosecute political activists and journalists, raising concerns about potential infringements of their fundamental rights.'
'According to the information received: Powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border. It is alleged that journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers.'
See the UNHCR letter (pdf).
According to the Craig Murray website (HERE), the UK replied that it was inappropriate to comment on specific cases due to the right of individuals to receive a fair trial.
Murray's article alleges that individual criminal cases have been discussed with the Israeli government. Murray states - 'Although all released correspondence has been heavily redacted, it is plain that individual cases have been discussed with the Israelis, including those of Palestine Action.'
A number of media outlets have also commented about alleged attempts by Israel to influence UK criminal prosecutions. For example, see Arab News 20 April 2025, The Guardian 29 April 2025, The Gray Zone 27 May 2025 (Docs expose Israeli influence on UK anti-genocide protests), Juristnews 21 August 2023.
The Guardian article (29 April) ends by stating - 'A government source said: “It has been routine under successive governments for AGO to help embassies get in contact with the relevant authorities purely for purposes of sharing information that could be relevant to a case.
Decisions to prosecute, convict and sentence are, rightly, made independently of government by the Crown Prosecution Service, juries and judges respectively.'
See also March 2022 - UK Government - The UK's international human rights obligations
ICC Warrants
The International Criminal Court has issued warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant - ICC Press release November 2024
ICJ
The International Court of Justice is considering an application brought by South Africa against Israel.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment