|
Journalist Wins
Fight to Protect Source in the United Kingdom
A freelance journalist's marathon legal battle to protect a confidential
source has finally ended in victory, reports the International
Federation of Journalists (IFJ).
The United Kingdom House of Lords refused to grant Mersey Care National
Health Service (NHS) Trust leave to appeal the five-year case it had
pursued against freelancer Robin Ackroyd, in its effort to reveal who
leaked confidential medical treatment of murderer Ian Brady to the
reporter.
According to the U.K.'s "Press Gazette", the case pitted the NHS Trust's
interest in maintaining the privacy of patient records with journalists'
need to protect confidential sources.
"We all owe (Ackroyd) an immense debt of gratitude," says Jeremy Dear,
general secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). "The
fundamental point of principle - that there is a vital public interest
in upholding journalists' right not to reveal their sources - has been
maintained."
The case began after the "Daily Mirror" published a story in 1999 on the
medical treatment of the infamous "Moors murderer" Brady. The NHS Trust
took the Mirror Group all the way to the House of Lords to find out how
the medical records on which the story was based were obtained. In 2002
Ackroyd identified himself as the author of the story and then became
the target of court action himself.
In February 2006, a High Court judge ruled in favour of Ackroyd, saying
he was "a responsible journalist whose purpose was to act in the public
interest."
This year [2007], the Court of Appeal confirmed that Ackroyd did not
have to reveal the identity of his source. But the NHS Trust filed for
permission to take the case to the House of Lords, which, on 27 July,
refused its petition. The House of Lords granted Ackroyd permission to
apply for his costs, which have been met by NUJ.
In a statement, the NHS Trust admitted its disappointment with the
decision, saying it pursued the action against Ackroyd "to protect one
of the key principles of the NHS - the right of every patient to be
treated on a confidential basis."
The protection of journalists’ sources is now internationally recognised
as one of the basic conditions for press freedom.
This view was endorsed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in
its decision in Goodwin v The United Kingdom (16/1994/463/544) delivered
on March 27, 1996. in the decision, it observed that without such
protection, journalists’ sources may be deterred from giving the press
information to performs its role of informing the public on matters of
public interest.
This, the Court noted, could undermine the vital social functions of the
press as public watchdog and have adverse consequences on its ability to
provide accurate and reliable information.
The London-based organization, ARTICLE 19, (the Global Campaign for Free
Expression) in its publication: Press Law and Practice: a Comparative
Study of Press Freedom in European and Other Democracies [March
1993], 282], contends that in Austria, France, Germany and Sweden, which
have strong legal protection for the confidentiality of sources and
other information communicated to journalists in confidence, such
protection derives from the “assessment that society is better served by
encouraging people to disclose matters of public interest to the press,
even when the information may include evidence of their own wrongdoing,
than by identifying and possibly convicting a particular wrongdoer.”
British journalists have statutory protection of their sources under
Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1981 which provides that no
court may require an author or journalist to disclose the source of
published information “unless it is established to the satisfaction of
the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national
security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”
In Nigeria, there is no protection for journalists who refuse to
disclose confidential sources.
The Appeal Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Philip Nnaemeka-Agu,
in the case of Senate of National Assembly v Tony Momoh [1983] 4 NCLR,
269) asserted that: “The right to freedom of expression under Section 36
is one which belongs to all who have to hold opinion, receive and impart
ideas, or disseminate information and contemplates no separate treatment
to the mass media. On the claim of the respondent – and the opinion of
the learned judge – that the right to freedom to hold opinion and impart
ideas and information without interference under Section 36, carries
with it the right not to disclose the source of information of the
pressman, l must confess that l do not see that such a right is.”
This judgment has neither been challenged nor vacated and it is the
subsisting highest court ruling on the matter of journalists disclosing
confidential sources today in Nigeria.
|
