British authorities have dropped a terrorism investigation against journalist Richard Medhurst after more than a year, declining to bring any charges under the Terrorism Act. However, the case has not ended. Instead, the UK has transferred its investigative files to Austrian authorities, where Medhurst now faces a separate prosecution relating to the same body of journalistic work.
Medhurst was arrested last year under Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act, becoming the first journalist in Britain to be detained under that provision for reporting-related activity. He was held under investigation for more than a year and released on bail. UK authorities have now confirmed that no charges will be filed and that the investigation has been formally closed.
According to Medhurst, the decision to drop the case was accompanied by a claim from UK authorities that Austria has “primacy” in pursuing the matter. As part of that decision, British investigators handed over their files and intelligence material to Austrian prosecutors.
Medhurst disputes the validity of that justification. He argues that Austria cannot plausibly claim primacy because British authorities arrested him approximately five months before Austrian proceedings began. He also notes that the allegations in the two jurisdictions differ in substance: British authorities framed the case as one in which journalism itself constituted terrorism, while Austrian authorities allege that Medhurst’s journalism amounts to membership in a terrorist organisation.
Medhurst further argues that the UK’s own legal position undermines its decision to abandon the case. Section 12 of the Terrorism Act is claimed by British authorities to carry universal jurisdiction, meaning that speech could theoretically be prosecuted regardless of where it takes place. In Medhurst’s view, the UK’s decision not to proceed reflects the absence of any criminal offence, rather than deference to another jurisdiction.
During his detention and questioning, Medhurst says he refused to answer questions and declined to unlock any electronic devices. He also declined offers of journalistic privilege, stating that he did so to protect confidential sources, despite being aware that refusal could expose him to criminal penalties.
According to Medhurst, British authorities were unable to access encrypted communications on his devices, including a GrapheneOS phone. He believes this failure contributed to the collapse of the UK investigation and that the subsequent Austrian raid — in which devices were seized — amounted to an attempt to obtain material British authorities could not access themselves.
Although the UK case has now been dropped, the Austrian investigation remains active. Medhurst says the case there has dragged on for nearly eighteen months, a period he describes as punitive in itself despite the absence of any conviction.
Medhurst has also raised concerns about political interference. He points to a meeting that took place two weeks after his arrest — and two weeks after the indictment of another dissident journalist, Richard Barard — between representatives of the Israeli embassy and the UK Attorney General’s office. Medhurst argues that the involvement of a foreign embassy in cases involving domestic counter-terrorism prosecutions against journalists represents a clear conflict of interest.
He believes pressure from Israel may have played a role in the UK investigation and that the UK, in turn, leaned on Austria to pursue the case once British authorities were unable to proceed. Regardless of the precise chain of influence, Medhurst maintains that the prosecutions are political in nature.
Both the British and Austrian cases, he argues, rest on the same underlying premise: that journalism and political speech can be reclassified as terrorism. Medhurst warns that if such a doctrine is accepted, press freedom in Europe would be fundamentally undermined.
He has described journalism as the “fourth estate,” arguing that its role is to scrutinise state power rather than be policed by it. In his view, the use of terrorism legislation against journalists represents a profound departure from democratic norms.
While welcoming the UK’s decision to drop the case as a partial victory, Medhurst emphasises that the broader struggle continues as long as the Austrian investigation remains open. He argues that the outcome in Britain nonetheless represents a win not only for him personally, but for freedom of expression, press freedom, and civil liberties more broadly.
The case, he says, raises a stark question for European democracies: whether independent journalism will continue to be protected as a cornerstone of democratic society, or treated as a criminal act when it challenges entrenched power.
