An independent statutory review of the UK’s flagship new counter-espionage law has warned that sweeping provisions designed to tackle hostile state activity could, if applied too broadly, criminalise legitimate public-interest work including journalism, political advocacy and protest.
The warning comes in a report published on Tuesday, 16 December, by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, examining key parts of the National Security Act 2023. Hall said the Act’s breadth meant it could capture people whose actions are later argued to have benefited a foreign power, even where there was no direct relationship with any overseas state.
Hall cautioned that the potential for misapplication was itself harmful. Even without frequent prosecutions, he said, the risk that lawful activity might be treated as criminal could discourage scrutiny, campaigning and research, creating a “chilling effect” across civil society.
At the centre of the review is the Act’s foreign interference offence, introduced as part of a wider overhaul that replaced large parts of the Official Secrets framework dating from 1911 to 1989. The 2023 legislation was intended to modernise the UK’s response to espionage, disinformation and covert influence, and it also created the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, alongside expanded offences and powers.
However, Hall said the foreign interference provisions could be read in ways that draw in conduct far removed from the sort of covert, state-directed sabotage the law was designed to prevent. In a key warning highlighted in the Guardian’s reporting, he said people could be classed as offenders “even without direct foreign contact” if their conduct is deemed to advance foreign interests.
The review sets out scenarios in which a wide interpretation of the law could touch activity commonly associated with democratic participation. Hall warned that journalism, lobbying, academic research, thinktank work, humanitarian advocacy and campaigning could be exposed if prosecutors contended there had been misrepresentation, or if the activity could be portrayed as indirectly benefiting a foreign state.
Hall said such an approach would place too much weight on restraint by investigators and prosecutors, rather than on clear legal safeguards. He warned that reliance on “prosecutorial restraint” was not, on its own, a sufficient protection for fundamental rights, because it leaves uncertainty about where the legal boundaries sit until a case is brought.
The reviewer also raised concerns about the expansion of police powers linked to the protection of sensitive sites. While the Act was designed to strengthen protections around areas connected to national security, he warned that the new framework could be used in ways that restrict lawful protest unless there are clearer rules governing how the powers should be deployed.
In the report, Hall called for clearer safeguards and practical guidance to reduce the risk of misuse. Among his recommendations are the introduction of more explicit statutory protections for journalism, advocacy and protest, alongside detailed codes of practice for police and prosecutors to support consistent decision-making and ensure civil liberties are properly weighed.
He also urged ministers to narrow definitions connected to foreign interference so the law better distinguishes between malign, state-backed operations and legitimate influence or engagement, and he called for improved transparency around how the new powers are exercised.
The National Security Act 2023 was introduced as a bill in June 2022 and later passed into law in 2023. Hall was appointed independent reviewer of state threats legislation on 6 February 2024, with the role intended to provide independent scrutiny as the new offences and powers bed in. Elements of the new regime, including registration requirements and new offences, began coming into force across 2024 and 2025.
The government has previously argued, in published explanatory material about the legislation, that the reforms are proportionate and targeted at malign activity directed by foreign states, rather than legitimate political debate. Hall’s review does not dispute the need to strengthen the UK’s response to hostile state threats, but warns that the way the law is drafted and implemented will determine whether it strikes the intended balance.
The report is likely to intensify pressure on the Home Office to set out how it will prevent overreach in practice, particularly in early enforcement decisions that may shape how journalists, campaigners and researchers assess legal risk.
Attention is now expected to focus on whether ministers accept Hall’s recommendations for tighter safeguards and codes of practice, and whether Parliament seeks amendments or additional oversight as the first test cases under the new offences emerge.