Richard Medhurst: a Case of Domestic Repression with Transnational Causes

At a conference I was interrupted when I asked a question that every journalist in Britain should be asking. Here I will share the confrontation between not just two voices, but two worlds.

It started with a poster about an event which was shared online: a conference at the House of Lords in London, titled "Tackling Transnational Repression against Journalists," which would be held on the afternoon of Thursday 15th May, 2025. I read the list of speakers: barristers, human rights activists and exiled journalists.

I registered to attend.

As the time to the event approached, feelings of apprehension began to gnaw over me. This was due to the unease of asking the question I knew I had to ask, in an environment which could turn hostile after hearing it.

When I emerged from the tube station in front of the Big Ben clock tower, the distracting architecture made me forget about my discomfort, for a while. Walking along the medieval hall of the Palace of Westminster, I found my way into the conference room. I saw angels carved in wood on the ceiling and thought of how symbols like these are used to prop up so-called divine rights of institutions, such as the monarchy.

How I wished they would protect other rights.

I took my seat, surrounded by people who were chatting about far-away regimes where despotic governments trample on personal freedoms. The increasing repression of journalists in Britain today, under the Labour Party of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, appeared distant to those sitting near me, despite our location.

My unease kicked in again.

I had expected to find as the chair of the conference — as advertised — Baroness Helena Kennedy of The Shaws, a Scottish barrister and the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), who is a strong advocate of media freedom and who opposes the genocide in Gaza.

Another voice entered the room and opened the session, “I am afraid I am not Baroness Kennedy,” he said.

Baroness Kennedy was replaced by Lord Simon Murray, Baron Murray of Blidworth, a barrister and Conservative member of the House of Lords who served as a minister for the Home Office between 2022 and 2023.

I felt more sorry about this than Lord Murray, as I had hoped to speak with the Baroness should an opportunity arise, to see if we could open up a dialogue on the draconian measures that violate free speech in Britain today.

Testimonies of Exile

The panel began with Ben Keith. Lord Murray proudly introduced him as a leading barrister of cross-border and extradition cases, to name a few of his specialties. He spoke about Red Notices — international alerts for prosecution — and their abuse by states such as Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, which he said target exiled journalists.

Kerim Balci spoke next. He is a Turkish journalist, editor and academic in exile since 2016, for criticising Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Balci shared his story and of government repression in the form of restricting or banning travel by, for example, the state reporting a passport stolen, or how freezing assets restricts basic living, preventing the ability to rent a home or open a bank account.

Then it was Lyndon Shixiang Li, a London-based journalist at the United States’ government-funded Voice of America, whose focus was on China. He described experiences of being spied on at university, and elsewhere in London.

Finally, Catherine Philp, a foreign correspondent at The Times, recounted how she was declared an enemy of Russia after embedding herself with the Ukrainian armed forces while covering events in Kursk.

The speakers at the event appeared to have got invites due to their critiques of states deemed to be threats, or enemies of the city we were sitting in.

Not a single speaker spoke against the repression of journalists in Britain, such as the targeting, harassment and arrests of independent journalist Richard Medhurst, who was arrested on a plane after it landed at Heathrow airport by “six police officers, who had handcuffed and transferred him to a police cell where he had all his journalistic equipment and electronic devices seized, where he was initially denied the right to make a telephone call or have legal representation.”

Medhurst was charged under the Terrorism Act for allegedly expressing support of a proscribed organisation and subsequently had his apartment raided in Austria, Vienna. All, ultimately, for his reporting on the genocide in Gaza.

I’ve written about Medhurst’s case before in an article titled "Terrorism Charges for Telling the Truth.".

My Question

The moment for audience questions arrived. My heart pounded. I reminded myself why I came to the event. I raised my hand and when they called on me, I stood.

"Good afternoon. Could I ask people to identify themselves?" Lord Murray asked.

"Of course," I began. "My name is Sara Chessa. I am part of the journalistic unit of Blueprint for Free Speech and just like all of you, I do worry about what authoritarian governments do to journalists. And I monitor them. At the same time, I think everyone genuinely interested in the protection of the entire pipeline of media freedom should also look at those cases in which European governments seem to model some measures that we criticize in authoritarian regimes. In particular, I'm referring to something that happened in the U.K. from August 2024 onwards and the use of the Terrorism Act to detain journalists. This happened to independent journalist Richard Medhurst who reports on Palestine and Israel. He was arrested at Heathrow Airport and accused of expressing an opinion in support of a proscribed organisation."

"This is using U.K. legislation," Lord Murray interjected with a firm tone.

"Sorry?" I asked, distracted by this interruption.

"This is the U.K. government arresting people," he continued. "Do you think this is a measure of transnational repression in some way?"

I felt he was attempting to deflect from what I asked and told myself I must resist. I began to focus, first answering his question, “Yes”.

I continued. "So my question is for Mr Ben Keith. Do you think we should worry when European governments use counter-terrorism legislation against journalists, like the U.K. is doing? And do you think we should modify this piece of legislation in order for it not to open the way to the prosecution of journalists? Because I think it's important not to model what we criticise."

I had rehearsed every word in my mind, earlier, as I walked along the corridors. And I would not let a Lord’s sharp glance or impatient tone distract from the question I came to ask.

Keith replied, first speaking of amendments in legislation, which he said in his experience brought about little success. He then addressed my question:

I think there's a contrast between what you're saying, where the U.K. government is using terrorism legislation where somebody has made a statement in support of a terrorist organisation. Many years ago I represented some individuals who were in the Youth Tamil Movement and they had set up a protest in Hyde Park, and they had arranged it with the police officers and they had a licence. And then some Tamil Tigers, who are a proscribed organisation, did get on the stage and started to talk. And as a result a lot of people were then arrested under the Terrorism Act and detained without access to their lawyer; detained between ten to seven days without anybody knowing. Many of them were acquitted and some weren’t, but those were people expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Contrast that with the use by Turkey…their terrorist act is very different. There was just a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, Yasin v. Turkey, and terrifyingly, the court decided that Turkey could proscribe retroactively. So they could say, at this point in 2016 or 2017, you are now a terrorist for what you did then. And the court said that's not a problem.

Keith went on:

So, a long-winded answer to your question, I think if it is illegal to express support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, there’s a difference between that being investigated and an acquittal or a conviction, and doing it in an arbitrary way where you retrospectively impose laws on people. I don’t know enough about [Medhurst’s] case to comment on whether it is right or wrong, but that's not transnational repression in the state of England, not that it matters, but that’s about rule of law and whether you have…it’s really just a criminal case that requires investigation and normal processes where you can arrest somebody or you can take somebody and interview them and then you make a decision about whether there is any evidence against them to charge them, and I’m not sure I can comment anymore than that.

And here was where our understanding diverged.

When a government applies domestic anti-terror laws upon journalists in response to international pressure, I believe it becomes “domestic repression with transnational causes.”

Furthermore, Keith’s statement on the Yasin v. Turkey case is incorrect. ECtHR found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression), ruling against Turkey’s terrorism legislation.

Medhurst Speaks

After the event, I spoke with Richard Medhurst, sharing what took place at the House of Lords and asking if he agreed with Keith.

Medhurst said:

Well, three things certainly make the repression against me transnational. I don't even live in England, and yet they want to prosecute me for saying or writing things outside England. All of this is to protect a foreign entity, Israel. We have that email now that shows the Attorney General's office (which has the final say on charging me) gave the contact info of the Crown Prosecution Service (the body that would prosecute me) and the Counter Terrorism Police (the force that arrested and investigated me) 2-3 weeks after arresting me. This raises massive questions about foreign influence. They then raided me in Austria and now I’m being investigated here as well.

So what do we call it when foreign influence sparks domestic laws into action against journalists who do not even live in the country?

The Elephant in the Room

In the ornate conference room in the House of Lords, people were easily, and perhaps rightly, concerned about repression in far-away countries. But no one was ready to face the same in Britain, or look at the web of repression aimed at those who speak out against the genocide in Palestine.

On 5th July 2025, the direct action organisation Palestine Action was proscribed. Now, journalists must be very careful about how they report about this and other proscribed organisations, lest they too face charges under the Terrorism Act.

First They Came For Assange

I think back to how multiple states tried to destroy the journalist and WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. How for years, few dared speak his name. But slowly, the tide changed. Activists, journalists, and ordinary people fought back against his persecution in London, which was directed by the United States. Truth found a voice again. And one year ago, Assange finally walked free.

We must channel that same force against that same stubborn apathy or disbelief in justice, toward freeing Britain from domestic repression, directed by foreign states, such as Israel or the U.S.

We are not only fighting for Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, David Miller, Craig Murray, Asa Winstanley, Kit Klarenberg and many activists targeted by the state, who it seeks to silence amidst an ongoing genocide.

We are fighting for the right for all to speak, to report and to know.

History will not absolve us if we remain silent.

We are fighting for humanity. And we will not be interrupted.