What prosecutions or prosecutions considered have involved journalists for encouraging or assisting crimes in the UK since 2000?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Since 2000 UK law has given prosecutors tools to pursue journalists who allegedly assist or encourage crime, but the record shows few clear convictions for “encouraging or assisting” offences and many more high‑profile arrests, charges for related offences (such as payments to public officials, phone hacking or contempt), dropped cases and guidance designed to protect journalistic freedoms [1] [2] [3] [4]. The legal landscape sits between robust statutory offences — notably sections 44–46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 — and repeated prosecutorial caution prompted by public‑interest protections and a string of acquittals or discontinuances [1] [2] [5].
1. Statutory framework and prosecutorial guidance: tools and limits
The Crown Prosecution Service reminds prosecutors that the common law of secondary participation and statutory offences — particularly sections 44–46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 which create offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence — can apply to journalists or those who interact with them, but also stresses Article 10 protections for sources and the need to assess public interest carefully [1] [4]. The CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions have issued guidance and interim DPP guidance to help decision‑makers balance prosecuting wrongdoing against the necessity of protecting journalistic source confidentiality and public‑interest reporting [5] [4].
2. What prosecutors actually pursued: payments, hacking, misconduct and contempt
In practice the big criminal actions against journalists since 2000 have not typically been framed in headline terms as “encouraging or assisting” under the Serious Crime Act but as offences connected to payments to public officials (the Elveden prosecutions), phone hacking and misconduct in public office, and as contempt or prejudicial reporting in criminal trials [2] [3] [6]. The Elveden series of prosecutions saw a large number of journalists investigated and charged over alleged payments to officials; after trials and appeals many cases were dropped or resulted in acquittals, prompting the CPS to abandon numerous planned prosecutions [2] [3]. Historic contempt prosecutions for prejudicing trials also demonstrate that media conduct can lead to criminal sanction where reporting poses a real risk to justice [6].
3. Arrests under terrorism and public order laws: arrests ≠ prosecutions
Recent years have seen several arrests of reporters under counter‑terrorism and public order provisions — notably arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 of independent reporters such as Richard Medhurst and others reporting on Gaza‑related protests — but reporting and legal summaries show many such arrests did not immediately result in criminal charges, and in some cases the police action has been characterised as part of a broader clampdown on protest reporting rather than straightforward prosecutorial success against encouraging crime [7] [8] [9] [10]. Analyses note that while the police can and do arrest journalists under new public‑order offences introduced in 2022, the independent CPS decides on charges and has often exercised restraint [10].
4. Outcomes, patterns and the practical threshold for encouraging/assisting offences
Despite the statutory reach of encouragement/assistance offences, the empirical record in the sources indicates more arrests, investigations and charged cases in adjacent areas (hacking, payments, misconduct, contempt) than clear, sustained prosecutions of journalists for intentionally encouraging or assisting ordinary criminality under the Serious Crime Act; several dozen journalists have been arrested or charged in high‑profile investigations since 2011, but many prosecutions were dropped or resulted in acquittals, leading to calls for reform of archaic offences and clearer public‑interest defences [11] [2] [3]. The CPS guidance explicitly recognises that the public interest can outweigh the seriousness of alleged misconduct by journalists, reinforcing why prosecutors often tread carefully [4] [1].
5. Competing narratives: public order, national security and press freedom
Prosecutors and police argue that existing laws are necessary to prevent journalists from crossing into criminal complicity, especially where reporting could facilitate wrongdoing or involve terrorism‑related expression, while media organisations and press freedom advocates stress source protection and public interest as shields against over‑criminalisation; the legislative and prosecutorial guidance reflects an attempt to balance those aims but leaves unresolved tensions that surface repeatedly in high‑profile arrests and discontinued prosecutions [1] [4] [5].