A landmark review warns UK’s National Security Act defines espionage too broadly, risking wrongful investigations and serious harm to innocent individuals.
The 2023 law needs to be watched for "misuse and overreach," according to Jonathan Hall KC, an independent reviewer chosen by the home secretary, since it may affect politics, media, protests, and other daily activities.
“It is unavoidable that national security legislation hoists a flag for police involvement in broad reaches of human endeavour, with the risk of damaging mistakes by investigators and unjustified suspicion being cast on lawful activity,”
Hall wrote in a report laid before parliament.
“Unless exceptionally well exercised, the UK’s novel and wide-ranging powers will result in cases of real harm where an individual is wrongly arrested or investigated, however well-intentioned,”
he added.
In order to update Britain's antiquated official secrets laws, the first of which was passed in 1911, the National Security Act was enacted.
Certain spy cases, such as those involving Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who were charged with spying for China, had become impossible to prosecute due to outdated language and stringent requirements.
After Sheffield Hallam University cooperated with Beijing's demands to stop Professor Laura Murphy's research on human rights violations in China, counterterrorism police are currently conducting an inquiry under the National Security Act.
Hall cited a number of instances when lawful action would be labeled as espionage under the new legislation, cautioning that it could go far in the opposite direction.
In situations like the possible effects of the new crime of foreign interference, which might have an impact on "foreign policy work by think tanks and journalists," police and prosecutors would have to use judgment, according to Hall.
According to Hall, "lobbying, electioneering, journalism, marketing campaigns, humanitarian aid, social media activity" could all be considered "foreign interference" if they were carried out with "the intention of benefiting a foreign power," provided that there was some deception or illegal activity involved.
In theory, it might have an impact on those who advocate for "arms to Ukraine/Israel; foreign aid to Pakistan; rapprochement with Russia; more access to domestic markets for Chinese cotton" in think tanks, the media, or "foreign-funded NGOs or journalists who use deception (prohibited conduct') to expose corrupt individuals."
Hall stated that there was still a chance that "editors and trustees of newspapers and thinktanks... will be stalked by fear of national security offending, and trim their conduct accordingly," even if he was "reasonably confident" that prosecutors would not wish to put borderline cases before the courts.
The attorney also concentrated on one aspect of the act's foreign power criterion, which states that an offense may conceivably be committed without the accused having any interaction with another nation.
"Journalists, politicians, and private individuals [who] may argue passionately in favor of arming Ukraine in its war against Russia or returning the Elgin marbles" or anybody who voluntarily "advances the interests of other states within the international pecking order" could be included.
Additionally, new police powers that "require individuals to leave areas adjacent to prohibited places" such as military bases, weapons sites, intelligence facilities, and other crown land may disproportionately impact protesters.
Hall stated that
"there are insufficient safeguards built into the legislation to prevent unjustified incursions into public protest"
and suggested the creation of a police code of practice as an extra safeguard.
How would the consent requirement of the Attorney General affect prosecutions?
Jonathan Hall KC's review recommends obligatory Attorney General concurrence for National Security Act 2023 spying executions to check overreach from broad delineations. This independent Law Officer sludge applies the law for Crown Prosecutors' evidential and public interest tests before charges do.
Prosecutors (CPS/ MI5) submit cases to the Attorney General's Office with draft complaints and substantiation summaries; concurrence opinions generally take weeks, delaying examinations. Declinations halt cases outright, as seen in terrorism precedents where public interest or weak links to harm block charges.
Concurrence protects intelligence academics participating" defended information" without prejudice intent, reducing unlawful examinations Hall advised of. Critics sweat politicization, but precedents show high blessing rates( 90) with safeguards like prayers. The Home Office plans perpetration via secondary legislation in 2026.