Judge rules October raid on my home was unlawful

I have won back my computers and phones.

A court has ruled that the raid and resulting seizure of my devices that British “counter-terror” police carried out on my home in October were unlawful.

The most senior judge at London’s Central Criminal Court ruled on 13 May that the search warrants used in the raid were unlawfully issued and said the police must hand back all the computers, phones and other devices that they took that day.

The police have today handed back all seven seized items.

The dawn raid happened in the early hours of 17 October 2024.

As my colleague at The Electronic Intifada Ali Abunimah reported at the time: “Approximately 10 officers arrived at [Asa] Winstanley’s North London home before 6 am and served the journalist with warrants and other papers authorising them to search his house and vehicle for devices and documents.”

Police have now admitted these warrants were improperly obtained and therefore illegal.

In his ruling the Recorder of London, Mark Lucraft KC (the Old Bailey’s highest circuit judge) wrote that he was “very troubled by the way in which the search warrant was drafted, approved and granted where items were to be seized from a journalist”.

The judge denied the Metropolitan Police’s request for a Production Order — a legal power that can be invoked in British courts which could require journalists to disclose documents in certain — extremely limited — cases of suspected wrongdoing.

In essence, the police were asking the court to retrospectively legitimise their unlawful raid. This request was denied. As Judge Lucraft put it: “Any warrant seeking material in the hands of a journalist requires extremely careful handling.”

In his ruling Judge Lucraft recounted that my barrister Jude Bunting KC submitted that “the Court would be hard-pressed to find a more obviously unlawful order than the one made in this case.”

Instead of the unlawful warrants they used, the police could have applied for a Production Order. However, the standard required to do so means that they would have needed to show some grounds to suspect criminality and justify that before a judge.

Something they were clearly unable to do.

My lawyers successfully argued that my seized devices “would include items subject to legal professional privilege by virtue of his involvement in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, or excluded material, or special procedure material by virtue of his profession as a journalist.”

My legal team — led by my solicitor Tayab Ali (a Bindmans partner) and backed by the National Union of Journalists — successfully blocked the police from searching my devices and gaining access to my contacts, files and other protected journalistic material.

The day after the raid Tayab wrote to the police demanding they halt any search of the devices. Police agreed to this on the 19th of October. As a result, police say the contents of my devices have not been accessed by them.

The only reason given by the police in their case at the Old Bailey as to why they should be granted access to the journalistic devices they illegally seized was “attribution” of my Twitter/X account.

In other words, they claimed to have needed the devices to make sure it really was my Twitter account! They could have just asked me.

In a letter accompanying the unlawful warrants that the police served on me during the raid, police stated that they were investigating “possible offences” under Sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The unlawful warrants had authorised seizure of my devices plus any material that “demonstrates a mindset conducive with the support of [the] proscribed group Hamas.”

A senior officer on the morning of the raid would only tell me that it related to “social media posts” I had made. He refused to specify which ones.

The police later disclosed to my lawyers two detailed reports (from October 2023 and February 2024) by their “Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit”, containing no less than 80 pages of screenshots of tweets alongside commentary from the police.

The first report states that it was compiled after “a complaint” by an unspecified person or persons. As the judge summarised in his ruling: “The written supplication sets out that on 12th October 2023, a public complaint was received by the Applicant [the police] in relation to a number of posts” alleged to have been made by me.

The second report states it was produced after the unit was “contacted by a UK-based counter extremism think tank who expressed concern about a number of posts by Twitter User @AsaWinstanley.”

This “think tank” is not named in the report, but it’s highly likely that the police only consulted groups with a pro-Israel bias.

I have spent the last 15 years reporting in detail on many pro-Israel organisations in the UK — including the Community Security Trust, which has close ties to both Israeli intelligence agencies and to the British police.

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.

After Tayab wrote to them to halt any search of my devices, the police applied to the court to allow them to search my devices — despite the fact that such a search would have accessed journalistic and legally privileged material.

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.

I want to thank everyone who has supported me through this legal action. Those who have enabled me to successfully challenge this ongoing repression by the British state against journalists who dare to report fairly and accurately on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Thanks to my solicitor Tayab Ali and the entire team at Bindmans. Thanks to my barrister Jude Bunting KC, who took the police to task in the courtroom. Thanks to the National Union of Journalists, who funded my legal team. Thanks to all my colleagues at The Electronic Intifada whose unquestioned solidarity has been second to none. And thanks to my family for all their love and support, especially my wife.

And thanks to you: my readers, viewers and backers. Your support has meant the world to me and I have felt it flowing in from all over the world.

Stop the genocide. Free Palestine. Journalism is not a crime.

Asa Winstanley, 27th May 2025

Tayab Ali, solicitor for Asa Winstanley and partner at Bindmans LLP said:

This ruling is a resounding victory for press freedom and the rule of law. The police’s actions, raiding a journalist’s home under the guise of counter-terrorism, were not only unlawful, they were an egregious abuse of power aimed at intimidating a journalist whose work challenged the political status quo.

The court has now made clear that these warrants should never have been issued. The attempt to retrospectively legitimise the raid was rightly rejected. This case highlights a deeply concerning trend: counter-terrorism powers being weaponised against critics of government policy and defenders of Palestinian rights.

The Metropolitan Police must now undertake an urgent and transparent review of how they use terrorism legislation, especially against journalists. They must also scrutinise the external organisations they consult for advice, particularly those who appear to promote political agendas under the guise of “counter-extremism”.

These groups are not neutral, and their influence is clearly leading the police to make deeply flawed and dangerous decisions about who they choose to target.

Updates after publication

• My EI colleague Omar Karmi has written this excellent report on the legal victory.

• The NUJ has welcomed the victory and put out their own statement. Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, said:

  

  “This ruling resoundingly affirms journalists' right to protect sources as enshrined in law. 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.”

• The NUJ Freelance branch welcomed the news in a tweet. I imagine they will cover it in the next edition of the NUJ Freelance newsletter.

  

• Bindmans have now issued their own statement also welcoming the ruling, including Tayab’s statement above.

• The Press Gazette and The National have both done reports on the verdict. Initially, police did not initially respond to their requests for comment. But on Friday, both publications received a statement from the police and updated their stories: