LONDON’S police have remained silent after their seizure of a pro-Palestine journalist’s property was ruled unlawful.
A reported 10 officers from the Metropolitan Police had raided Asa Winstanley’s home in October 2024 and confiscated items including his laptop and mobile phone, despite having no legal right to do so.
The police force then put in a retrospective request for a Production Order, which would have made their actions lawful. However, it was denied earlier this week.
Winstanley writes for the pro-Palestine website Electronic Intifada as well as running a Substack blog called Palestine is Still the Issue.
Writing on his blog after the court ruling, Winstanley said: “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.”
He went on: “Even the police themselves, in November correspondence with my lawyers, conceded that the warrants they used to search my home were unlawful.
“In any event, 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.
“To date, I have been neither arrested nor charged with any crime.
“I call on the police to drop their ongoing investigation into my tweets and to apologise for the unlawful raid on my home and seizure of my devices. They should provide compensation for the harm caused to me and my family, as well as for any detriment to my journalistic contacts and sources.”
“The seizure of our member’s property was a brazen attempt to intimidate journalists working in the public interest. Abusing counter-terror legislation to stifle press freedom undermines public trust in the police, journalists’ safety, and democracy.
“Just weeks ago the UK Prime Minister stood up in Parliament and spoke about the importance of a free press and independent journalism. We urge the government to make good on their words and prevent the targeting of journalists, like Asa Winstanley, through raids and detentions.
“We welcome the judge’s verdict and seek urgent clarity on police plans to prevent further unlawful investigations of journalists.”
Winstanley was represented by solicitor Tayab Ali, from Bindmans.
Ali 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.”
The Solicitors Journal reported that the "significant ruling has raised questions about the conduct of the police and their subsequent failure to issue an apology or discontinue the ongoing investigation into Winstanley’s journalistic work".
The Met Police had not responded to a request for a comment put in on May 28 when this story was published.
UPDATE:
Around two hours after this article was published, a spokesperson for the Met Police got in contact.
They said: “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.”
