law MARTIN SHIPTON


Data seized in dawn raid


Police are using a law to impound devices and data. Martin Shipton reports


A


dawn police raid on my home, which resulted in the seizure of my iPhone, my current and past laptops and my


passport, has grave implications for all journalists. Eight members of the Metropolitan


Police’s counter-terrorism squad travelled to Cardiff with a search warrant signed by an Old Bailey judge. I have unwittingly been caught up in


an investigation into alleged spying for China because three years ago I went with a friend, David Taylor, a political consultant, on an expenses-paid trip to Hong Kong to meet a representative of a Shanghai-based think tank. He had had previous dealings with the think tank and had been invited to bring another ‘expert’ along with him. As far I was concerned, it was an interesting ‘jolly’. The trip turned out to be largely


tourism focused, with me as the ad-hoc tour guide as the others had not visited the former British colony before. The think tank rep – who, like many Chinese, had a Western nickname, in his case Michael – didn’t raise any searching questions. He asked about how people in the UK perceived China. Nothing that could remotely be described as secret was raised or discussed. When the police officers smashed


their way into my home, I had no idea what the raid was about. Coming out of sleep, my first thought was the banging and shouting noises were being made by someone seeking to wreak vengeance for a story I had written. The leading officer served me with the search warrant, but refused to tell me what it was all about.


06 | theJournalist It was only several hours later,


when my editor told me via a neighbour’s phone that Taylor and two others had been arrested for suspected espionage relating to China, that it occurred to me that the police interest in me related to the trip to Hong Kong in 2023. Unlike the other three – all of


whom had worked for Labour politicians – I had not been arrested. I had nothing to hide and gave a voluntary statement to the police about the Hong Kong trip. The police left my home 13 hours after their early arrival. To say that I was dumbfounded by


what had happened seems inadequate. I’ve had an adventurous career in journalism that has lasted nearly 50 years so far, but I never expected to be raided by counter-terrorism police. I can certainly add the raid to my list of good reasons for being a member of the NUJ. General secretary Laura Davison, who


I’ve known since she was an organiser for newspapers and I was the group father of chapel for Reach, was in touch very quickly and got me represented by law firm Bindmans. I got my passport back after it was argued my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. The other issue of vital importance


relates to the police’s use of an untested piece of recent legislation to bypass normal protections for journalistic material. The National Security Act 2023 has superseded the Official Secrets Act, which for more than a century was used to prosecute individuals


“


Martin Shipton and his damaged, boarded-up door after the police raid


charged with espionage offences. Late last year, a case against


two defendants charged with spying for China was discontinued because China is not regarded by the UK government as an ‘enemy power’, as required under the Official Secrets Act. Taylor and the two other suspects had not been arrested under the Official Secrets Act but under the National Security Act. Equally, the warrant authorising the search of my home was issued under this new act. Over the years, the protection of confidential journalistic material has been recognised by the judicial system, and police officers have had to convince judges there are good grounds for overriding this. The bar is set high and court orders should not be made lightly. The NUJ, of course, argues that the ability of journalists to undertake their enquiries in confidence and with sources being protected is essential in a free and open society. The National Security Act contains


When the police officers smashed their way into my home, I had no idea what the raid was about


nominal safeguards for journalists, with police obliged to apply for and justify the issuing of a “production order” if they want access to confidential journalistic material - something I wasn’t informed about in advance or given an opportunity to make representations about. Because it was passed so recently, there is no case law. For the sake of all journalists, it’s important to ensure that our vital protections remain intact and can’t be bypassed.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28