This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35343852
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| Airport stop of Snowden reporter's partner David Miranda 'lawful' | Airport stop of Snowden reporter's partner David Miranda 'lawful' |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The police detention of the partner of a former Guardian journalist at Heathrow Airport in 2013 was lawful, the Court of Appeal has decided. | The police detention of the partner of a former Guardian journalist at Heathrow Airport in 2013 was lawful, the Court of Appeal has decided. |
| David Miranda was carrying material from whistleblower Edward Snowden about security services' surveillance. | David Miranda was carrying material from whistleblower Edward Snowden about security services' surveillance. |
| He argued the stop had been a disproportionate use of anti-terrorism powers and breached human rights law. | He argued the stop had been a disproportionate use of anti-terrorism powers and breached human rights law. |
| Judges did not agree with his claim, but said existing laws did not offer "adequate safeguards" for reporters. | |
| They said the stop power used by police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at ports and airports is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - freedom of expression - "in respect of journalistic information or material" and should be examined by Parliament. | They said the stop power used by police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at ports and airports is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - freedom of expression - "in respect of journalistic information or material" and should be examined by Parliament. |
| 'Supporting journalist' | 'Supporting journalist' |
| Brazilian Mr Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who had written a series of stories about spying by the US and UK. | Brazilian Mr Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who had written a series of stories about spying by the US and UK. |
| He said he had been "acting in support of Mr Greenwald's activities as a journalist" when stopped while in transit from Germany to Brazil on 18 August 2013. | He said he had been "acting in support of Mr Greenwald's activities as a journalist" when stopped while in transit from Germany to Brazil on 18 August 2013. |
| Mr Miranda was held by Metropolitan Police officers at Heathrow for nine hours. | Mr Miranda was held by Metropolitan Police officers at Heathrow for nine hours. |
| He was carrying encrypted material "derived from the data obtained by Mr Snowden", a former US National Security Agency contractor who has been granted temporary asylum in Russia. | He was carrying encrypted material "derived from the data obtained by Mr Snowden", a former US National Security Agency contractor who has been granted temporary asylum in Russia. |
| It included 58,000 highly-classified documents from the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). | It included 58,000 highly-classified documents from the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). |
| Mr Miranda brought a judicial review against the home secretary and the Metropolitan Police, and, in February 2014, the High Court said while the action amounted to "indirect interference" with press freedom, it had to be balanced against national security considerations. | Mr Miranda brought a judicial review against the home secretary and the Metropolitan Police, and, in February 2014, the High Court said while the action amounted to "indirect interference" with press freedom, it had to be balanced against national security considerations. |
| Code of practice | Code of practice |
| The Court of Appeal said the authorities had been justified in detaining Mr Miranda. | The Court of Appeal said the authorities had been justified in detaining Mr Miranda. |
| "The police exercised the power for a permitted purpose. They were entitled to consider that material in his possession might be released in circumstances falling within the definition of terrorism," it said. | "The police exercised the power for a permitted purpose. They were entitled to consider that material in his possession might be released in circumstances falling within the definition of terrorism," it said. |
| The Home Office maintains rules now in place give adequate protection to journalists, but lawyers for Mr Miranda say they do not go far enough and legislation is required. | The Home Office maintains rules now in place give adequate protection to journalists, but lawyers for Mr Miranda say they do not go far enough and legislation is required. |
| A Home Office spokesman said: "We have always been clear that David Miranda's examination by police under Schedule 7 was lawful and proportionate. The Court of Appeal's judgment in this case supports the action taken by police to protect national security. | A Home Office spokesman said: "We have always been clear that David Miranda's examination by police under Schedule 7 was lawful and proportionate. The Court of Appeal's judgment in this case supports the action taken by police to protect national security. |
| "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." | "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." |
| Rosie Brighouse, from human rights group Liberty, said the judgement relating to police stops involving journalist material was a "major victory for the free press". | Rosie Brighouse, from human rights group Liberty, said the judgement relating to police stops involving journalist material was a "major victory for the free press". |
| John Halford, from Bindmans, the law firm which represented Mr Miranda, said the court "decided that taking effective action against terrorism involves using instruments that are fit for purpose, rather than those that are so blunt that they inevitably damage the interests of democratic societies". | John Halford, from Bindmans, the law firm which represented Mr Miranda, said the court "decided that taking effective action against terrorism involves using instruments that are fit for purpose, rather than those that are so blunt that they inevitably damage the interests of democratic societies". |