Media Law 20: Protecting sources and source material Flashcards
(45 cards)
basic media law principle on protecting sources
[1]
- if sources didn’t come forward because they though journalists couldn’t protect their identities then there would be huge amounts of info the public should know that would never be revealed
main legal provisions (acts) under which journalists can be forced to reveal sources
[4]
- Contempt of Court Act 1981
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
- Official Secrets Acts
- Terrorism Act 2000
how does a journalist being question in court differ from other people?
[1]
- if they refuse to answer a question (because they are protecting sources) it’s NOT instantly contempt of court like anyone else who doesn’t answer a question
in what circumstances can a journalist not answering a question become contempt of court?
[3]
- national security
- interest of justice
- preventing crime / disorder
how is European Court affecting decisions?
[2]
- protecting sources is part of Art 10 (“freedom of expression”)
- ruled recent attempts to force disclosure of sources unlawful
how much of a grey area is the national security argument?
[2]
- NOT AT ALL
- X Ltd v Grampian (1991): ‘almost automatic’
Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers (1985)
[5]
- Guardian published arrival of cruise missiles based on leaked memo
- Gov’t wanted document back, but that meant revealing source
- Guardian argued the info they’d published did NOT compromise national security
- Gov’t argued having civil servants willing to leak military info WAS compromising national security
- Lords agreed, source disclosed, Sarah Tisdall got 6 months
how much of a grey area is the interests of justice argument?
[3]
- fairly grey, but less lenient than media would hope
- originally assumed this affected active/planned cases
- X Ltd v Grampian (1991): disclosure necessary to enable someone to ‘exercise important legal rights and to protect themselves from serious legal wrongs’
factors considered before forced disclosure of sources ‘in the interests of justice’
[2]
- nature of information (i.e. bigger the public interest, less likely to forced disclosure)
- method of obtaining info (legitimate methods less likely to force disclosure)
example of where illegally obtaining info could still NOT force disclosure
[1]
- uncovering a wrongdoing
X Ltd v Grampian (1991)
[4]
- trainee reporter (on The Engineer) Bill Goodwin told that Tetra was in financial difficulties
- put it to Tetra, who realised his source had a confidential document
- Tetra argued source should be disclosed in ‘interests of justice’ so they could bring proceedings to get document returned
- Lords agreed
what happened after X Ltd v Grampian (1991)?
[3]
- Goodwin refused to disclose source, fined 5,000 for contempt of court
- took case to ECtHR: Goodwin v UK (1996)
- ruled UK in breach of Art 10, and public interest of not disclosing sources outweighed Tetra’s case
other examples of source disclosure cases based on the ‘interests of justice’
[5]
- Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Ltd (1999)
- Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd (2002)
- Merseyside NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2006)
- John v Express Newspapers (2000)
- Financial Times Ltd & Ors v UK (2009)
Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Ltd (1999)
- Camelot employee leaked draft accounts (putting directors in bad light) to Marketing Week
- court ruled disclosing source (disloyal employee) outweighed public interest argument
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd (2002)
[4]
- Mirror paid journalist for story on Ian Brady being force fed at Ashworth
- Mirror refused to reveal identity of journalist because this would lead to source being disclosed
- case went to Lords who ordered journalist disclosed
- freelancer Robin Ackroyd then came forward voluntarily
Mersey NHS Trust v Ackroyd
[4]
- hospital took Ackroyd to court
- High Court refused to make him disclose sources
- he was a responsible journalist, source had not acted on money, security had been tightened making new leak unlikely
- public interest + ‘no pressing social need’ for disclosure
Financial Times and Ors v UK (2009)
[2]
- previously: disgruntled Interbrew employee had leaked presentation, Lords ordered media should disclose them because they were ‘maleficent’ and ‘calculated to do harm’
- ECtHR held appeal, saying Interbrew’s needs were outweighed by public interest of protecting sources
what more trivial reason might courts give to NOT force disclosure in interests of justice
[1]
- claimant hadn’t looked into alternative ways to identify source, so going too court not ‘necessary’ yet
example of an overly hasty claimant trying to get courts to force disclosure of sources
[2]
- Elton John: John v Express Newspapers (2000)
- details of his accounts leaked, he went straight to court
obvious (general) example of order of source disclosure to ‘prevent crime’
[1]
- identifying the source would stop a planned crime from happening
wider view on disclosure to ‘prevent crime’ by courts
[1]
- like national security, ‘almost automatic’
problems with PACE laws covering info required by the police
[3]
- police can demand access to any journalist info that might help with investigation
- puts reporters/photographers at risk in violent situations where participants might be ID’d later
- sources dubious about confidentiality in situations where police can demand info
do journalists have to answer police’s questions?
[3]
- NO, no one does
- many believe this counts as obstructing the police, NOT SO!
- you must be ‘wilfully’ obstructing (i.e. obstructing without legal reason to do so)
what aren’t you allowed to tell police
[1]
- false / misleading info