UK
Judge wrong to allow Met to seize journalist’s material, high court rules

Dan Sabbagh

THE GUARDIAN
Sat, 11 November 2023 

Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/PA

A freelance journalist has defeated an attempt by the Metropolitan police to seize protected source material, after the high court quashed an order obtained by the force as part of an Official Secrets Act investigation into alleged defence and intelligence leaks.

The high court ruled on Friday that Judge Mark Lucraft, the recorder of London, was wrong to have allowed police to obtain source material last year on the premise that information may have been stolen from the government.

Lady Justice Macur said the lower judge had made “a bold finding” that “flies in the face of binding authorities” that aim to strike a balance between the police’s right to investigate and public interest protections for sources and leakers.


Police were investigating LXP, the freelance journalist, and two crown servants, known only as X and Y. X and Y are accused of passing on sensitive national security information to LXP, who in turn sold the stories based on the material to newspapers.

Certain ministers and officials are believed to have been irritated by a stream of leaks about the government’s failure to prosecute individuals allegedly spying for China and defence procurement, although there is no proof they came from the individuals concerned. None of the three have been arrested or charged.

Dozens of officers from the police’s SO15 counter-terror unit raided the freelance journalist’s property in July 2022, seizing electronic devices and documents, and asserting that none of it enjoyed the normal legal protection for media materials.

The Met now has to decide whether to appeal against the ruling or to proceed as directed by the high court and conduct key word searches of LXP’s phone, laptop and other electronic devices in a complex process supervised by an independent counsel.

Home Office insiders said they hoped the Met would carefully consider how to proceed, suggesting they would rather see the inquiry dropped. “Press freedom should always be at the front and centre of our considerations. This looks like a concerning case and careful thought should be given to any next steps,” a government source said.

Journalist’s correspondence, notes and related material are protected in England and Wales from automatic police seizure under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Officers have to apply to a judge to determine whether the material should be disclosed to investigators, according to the National Union of Journalists.

The idea is to balance the right of police to investigate with journalistic confidentiality, preventing officers from obtaining material unrelated to a criminal inquiry that could lead to other sources or leakers being identified.

Lawyers acting for LXP said “fundamental protections” applicable to journalists would have been lost if the Met won the case, partly because it is easy to assert that material leaked was stolen from the government or elsewhere.

Katie Wheatley, the head of crime, fraud and regulatory at Bindmans, said that “if the order had been upheld, vitally important legal safeguards that protect journalistic material would have been watered down”, and police could have obtained information from and about sources “no matter the public interest value”.

Met Police rebuked for raid on reporter’s home over national security stories

Robert Mendick
Fri, 10 November 2023 

The Metropolitan Police has been rebuked by a senior judge for raiding the home of a journalist as part of an investigation into a suspected breach of the Official Secrets Act.

In a significant victory for press freedom, the High Court quashed an order obtained by the police in a secret hearing that had allowed them to examine “journalistic material”.

Lawyers for the journalist, who cannot be named, said the original court order issued to police “would have ridden roughshod” over the “essential protections for journalistic material and the public interest in effective criminal investigations”.


The home and office of the freelance journalist – identified only as LXP – were raided at dawn on July 12 last year, four days after police had been granted a warrant.

The homes of two suspected sources – both of them public officials – were raided on the same day. They are accused of handing “stolen material” to the journalist.

The operation involved dozens of plainclothes Counter Terror Command Officers.

Police seized from LXP a large quantity of computer equipment and notebooks. LXP protested during the raid that, as a journalist, the materials were protected and should not be searched.
‘Journalistic protection’

Senior government sources questioned the decision by the Met to raid the journalist’s home.

The source said: “Press freedom should always be at the front and centre of our considerations. This looks like a concerning case and careful thought should be given to any next steps.”

In a long-running dispute that has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, a judge at an earlier hearing said documents suspected of being stolen did not enjoy legal protection from police examination.

But Lady Justice Macur, sitting in the High Court, quashed that decision following a judicial review brought by LXP. Lady Justice Macur said: “With respect to the learned judge, it is a bold finding” that “flies in the face of a line of binding authorities.”

She said the original warrant had failed to consider whether material being seized enjoyed “journalistic protection”, adding: “If the stable door is opened by the police conducting the search, the horse named ‘journalistic protection’ has already bolted, before the judge has considered where the balance of public interest lies.”

Lawyers for LXP said the High Court ruling on Friday was of “real public importance and particularly significant for the press because, had the order been upheld, fundamental protections applicable to journalistic material in English law would have been undermined”.

The Crown servants - known only as X and Y - were suspected of breaching Section 1 and Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act (1989), respectively. LXP was under investigation for a suspected breach of Section 5 of the same Act.

The initial police warrants were granted over the allegation that X and Y had passed information to LXP, the freelance journalist.
‘Safeguards would have been watered down’

Metropolitan Police denies being aware that LXP was a journalist, prior to the raid on their home and office. For some months police continued to dispute LXP’s status as a journalist but have now accepted that was the case.

Lawyers for LXP said police have not specified which stories appeared in national newspapers they believe were the result of information given to the freelance journalist.

As part of Friday’s judgment, the Met police must now hand over the devices to an independent barrister and LXP is entitled to tell the barrister which material was used for journalistic purposes.

Police will then have to argue why there is an overriding public interest which would justify them being permitted to access any journalistic materials which they wish to inspect.

Katie Wheatley, of Bindmans law firm and LXP’s solicitor, said: “Parliament has established a delicate balance between essential protections for journalistic material and the public interest in effective criminal investigations. The order obtained by the Metropolitan Police would have ridden roughshod over that balance.

“If the order had been upheld, vitally important legal safeguards that protect journalistic material would have been watered down, making it easier for police to seize or obtain journalistic material, including confidential source material, no matter the public interest value of the story.”

She said LXP had asked her to thank publicly a number of organisations that had provided support, including Telegraph Media Group.