just had a quick read of the actual statute, and to my relief there are "intent" clauses.
I am also NOT a lawyer, but having spent a while in the hobby lockpicking community I've done a bit of research on posession of locksmith tools etc. These laws vary greatly depending on where you go, but in a majority of places, posession and distribution of lockpicks is only illegal if the intent to use to commit an offence is there. i.e. if you are caught carrying picks, the court would take into account surrounding evidence - if you are a known hobby picker or have a locksmith licence it is considered not-illegal, however if you are caught at 2am at someone elses backdoor, then intent becomes an issue. the same goes for non-specific tools - carry a screwdriver? not a problem. carry a screwdriver at 2am behind someone else's house? intent rules in these cases.
the Police and Justice act says the following:
Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if he supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article with a view to its being supplied for use to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3.
Note the necessity of intent. I know it is still a potentially serious issue for legitimate ethical hackers like us, but pardon a bit of cynicism on my behalf if I say "the media sensationalises these things because going into the legal details doesn't make a good story. it also gets a rise out of the people who read the article and take it at face value: 'oh noes every tool I use is going to be illegal the bad guys have won'. which is certainly not the case.
The other thing to note is that (generally) laws are made but only tested in court where the first few cases define a precident - if the first few convictions under this law distinguish (which they should) between deliberate malicious intent and research/hoby or even miss-guided accident, then we'll know that the law isn't quite as dumn as the media portrays. (at least in this case).