A UK journalist has won a victory against the Met Police after the force raided his home and seized phones and computer equipment following a complaint over posts on X (formerly Twitter).
Asa Winstanley writes for Palestine-focused website Electronic Intifada and also publishes a Substack called Palestine is Still the Issue.
In October around ten police officers raided his London home and seized his mobile phone and laptop.
This week a judge at the Old Bailey denied the Met’s retrospective request for a Production Order, a rarely used document that empowers police to seize journalistic material.
The force originally seized the material as part of an investigation into alleged offences under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006.
According to Winstanley’s own report on his Substack, the Counter Terrorism and Internal Referral Unit gathered 80 pages of screenshots of X posts.
A Met Police spokesperson told Press Gazette: “We can confirm that following a court ruling, which was made public on 27 May, we have returned a number of digital devices that were previously seized as part of a Counter Terrorism investigation.
“The court ruling determined that the devices were seized unlawfully due to an incorrect search warrant having been obtained – this was, in part, due to the devices in question belonging to a journalist. We are carefully reviewing this ruling to consider whether there may be any wider learning for our investigations teams in how they apply for search warrants should they encounter similar circumstances in the future.
“The investigation into the alleged offences remains ongoing.”
Officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command were investigating alleged offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (support of a proscribed organisation) and sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (dissemination of terrorist documents).
Press Gazette asked Winstanley to share details of the X posts in question and he is currently seeking legal advice as to whether he can pass them on.
He wrote on his Substack site: “I have spent the last 15 years reporting in detail on many pro-Israel organisations in the UK — including the Community Security Trust, which has close ties to both Israeli intelligence agencies and to the British police.”
Winstanley added: “My legal team successfully argued that the police should have instead asked to speak to me, rather than raiding my home and seizing the devices I use for my journalism…
“There was no need for them to access private devices and documents simply to confirm the author of a public Twitter account. Such access would have endangered my contacts and violated my duty to protect my journalistic sources.”
Winstanley’s solicitor Tayab Ali, from Bindmans, said: “This ruling is a resounding victory for press freedom and the rule of law. The actions of the police, raiding a journalist’s home under the guise of counter-terrorism, were not only unlawful but a grave threat to the democratic principle that journalists must be able to work without fear of state harassment.
“The court recognised that the warrants were unlawfully obtained, the police conduct was unjustified, and their attempt to retrospectively legitimise the raid failed. This case was not about national security, it was about silencing a journalist who had made comments on the situation in Gaza.
“The police acted improperly by applying for warrants at the Magistrates Court where there simply is no power to retain journalistic and privileged material and despite repeated warnings refused to concede they had acted unlawfully.
“The police should now urgently review why this happened and what policy decisions led to this unlawful violation on journalistic freedom.”
Winstanley was supported by the National Union of Journalists.
NUJ general secretary Laura Davison said: “This ruling resoundingly affirms journalists’ right to protect sources as enshrined in law. The seizure of our member’s property was a brazen attempt to intimidate journalists working in the public interest.”
Winstanley said: “Thank you to the NUJ for standing by me and protecting the important principle of journalists’ duty to protect their sources.
“The police must now drop their criminal investigation into my social media posts.”
The Met Police has yet to respond to a Press Gazette request for comment.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
