Skip to main content

Straight To The Source: Can Journalists Be Compelled To Name Their Sources?


Straight to the source

The Sunday Times released an explosive takedown of the government’s response to the Coronavirus crisis in a detailed report by its investigative team Insight. In its account of the run-up to the crisis, the government was accused of having “sleepwalked into disaster” and costing thousands of lives. In its investigation, the Sunday Times spoke to scientists, academics, doctors, emergency planners, public officials and politicians surrounding the crisis, as well as various sources from within the government, including an adviser to Downing Streetspeaking “off the record”.

Undoubtedly, many of these sources only spoke to the Sunday Times under guarantees of anonymity.  The tradition of source protection, or reporter’s privilege, is a key right accorded to journalists across the world, including under international law. However, are there any repercussions to speaking to the press? Are there any circumstances in which a court can compel a journalist to name their sources?

Privacy lawyers are often asked to answer such questions by their clients whose private information has been leaked to a journalist. What if the leak to the press caused their company severe damage or if the matters published were highly confidential, containing medical or legally privileged information?

In the case of Ashworth v MGN the court was asked to address this question. Here, a newspaper published details of the medical records of the Moors murderer Ian Brady, apatient of the high-security psychiatricfacility Ashworth Hospital. Privacy violation lawyers on behalf of the hospital argued that the journalist’s source be named, to deter future leaks and to protect the safety of its staff and patients. The court found in favour of the hospital and ordered that the journalist’s intermediary source be named by the newspaper.

In general, the courts are very reluctant to order that a journalist name their source and only do so in exceptional circumstances. A journalist’s right to freedom of expression is a key right enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and the protection of their sources under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is vital and necessary in any democratic society. In the case of Ackroyd v Mersey Care (No. 2), privacy law attorneys on behalf of the hospital again tried to compel the journalist to name the original source that leaked Ian Brady’s medical information. This time, the court found in favour of the journalist, holding that circumstances had sufficiently changed since the original case (including that it was no longer contended that the source had been paid).

It is also possible for a privacy lawyer to apply for what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order to compel a journalist to name their source. Another method open to privacy violation lawyers is to advise their clients to identify the source by way of an internal investigation, following the guidance from the case of John v Express.

For further information regarding the protection of journalistic sources, and what to do if your private information has been leaked, please contact one of the experienced privacy lawyers at Taylor Hampton Solicitors. The dedicated team at Taylor Hampton have a wealth of experience in media and privacy law and will provide you with specialist legal advice to assist you with your problem.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Qualifies As Defamation of Character?

The tort of defamation provides redress for unjustified attacks to reputation. It is available to both individuals and corporations, although different criteria apply. Defamation can take two forms, namely libel and slander.  The classic definition in the UK comes from a 1930’s case when Lord Atkin proposed that the test should be whether the words “tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.” An example of a successful defamation of character lawsuit brought by Taylor Hampton is that of Dr Jose Antonio Garcia against the Daily Mail in respect of an article headlined “A whole year of hell, thanks to a foreign doctor”, which falsely accused the Claimant of misdiagnosing a patient as being alcohol dependent causing him to lose his driving licence so denying him his livelihood for a year. The Daily Mail unsuccessfully attempted to justify its attack on Spanish born Dr Serrano for being a “foreign doctor” by falsely claiming his comm...