Can a British journalist encourage illegal activity to report on it?
Executive summary
A British journalist who actively encourages or assists crime to generate reporting crosses a legal and ethical minefield: the criminal law can reach acts of encouragement or secondary participation (including sections 44–46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007), and there is no automatic statutory “public interest” defence to immunise such conduct [1] [2]. Editorial policies and broadcast guidelines are explicit that depiction or recording of criminality must not provide imitable detail or glamorise wrongdoing, and approvals are required before engaging with active criminals [3] [4].
1. What the law actually says — criminal liability for encouragement and assistance
English law treats encouragement and assistance as potentially criminal: the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates offences for intentionally encouraging or assisting offending and for believing one or more offences will be committed, while common-law doctrines govern secondary participation and can be invoked in prosecutions of journalists [1]. Other statutes commonly used against reporters include the Computer Misuse Act and the Official Secrets Act for unauthorised access or disclosure, and misconduct in public office can apply where journalists solicit or incite public officials to breach duty [2].
2. Public interest is persuasive, not protective
There is professional and academic recognition that journalism sometimes requires risky techniques to expose serious wrongdoing, but English law does not provide an overarching statutory public-interest defence that automatically shields reporters who encourage illegal acts in the course of investigations [2]. Prosecutorial discretion and judges’ judgments have in practice tempered enforcement at times, but that discretion is not the same as a legal right and cannot be relied on as a guaranteed shield [2].
3. Editorial rules and broadcaster red lines
Mainstream editorial guidance — the BBC’s editorial policies among the most detailed — makes clear that recording and broadcasting criminal activity will not normally amount to encouragement unless it supplies imitable detail, and that detailed descriptions or demonstrations of criminal technique should not be included unless editorially justified and in the public interest; proposals involving active criminals must be escalated and approved [3] [4]. Those internal rules reflect both ethical obligations and pragmatic risk management to avoid criminal exposure and reputational harm.
4. Practical protections and changing regulatory contexts
There are incremental protections for journalistic activity in narrow contexts — for example, statutory safeguards were introduced to protect journalists from arrest while observing certain protests, and the Online Safety Act contains amendments intended to protect recognised journalistic content online — but these developments do not convert encouragement of crime into a lawful tactic [5] [6] [7]. International advocacy on media freedom and safety (e.g., the Media Freedom Coalition) strengthens arguments for safer space to investigate, but these are policy levers rather than pardons under criminal statutes [8].
5. The balance editors and lawyers must strike
Editors must weigh public interest against legal exposure: exposing wrongdoing may require pushing boundaries, yet soliciting active participation in crimes, demonstrating how to commit offenses, or inciting misconduct by public officials risks substantive criminal charges and even severe penalties [2] [1]. Legal advice and judicial precedent play a decisive role; journalists and outlets cannot assume special status under criminal law and must plan investigations with clear legal and editorial safeguards [1].
6. Political and commercial pressures that shape decisions
Broader pressures — from libel litigation risks in London courts to new online regulation and threats of platform censorship — shape how aggressively outlets pursue undercover or boundary-pushing methods; critics argue UK law has become “antipathetic to serious journalism,” while regulators and government seek to protect audiences and national security, creating competing agendas that influence newsroom choices [9] [10] [7]. These dynamics mean that the decision to encourage illegal acts to report on them is rarely purely journalistic: it is legal, ethical, editorial and political.