Landmark case: journalists DO have legal protection for their sources!!!

Just a quick note to the effect that on first sight (the judgement is here) the Recorder, Judge Burgess has set an interesting precedent in the Breen case. The BBC News reports “…he was satisfied that the concept of confidentiality for journalists protecting their sources is recognised in law, and specifically under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. Before it was assumed there was no legal protections for journalists, now, because the PSNI pushed this case to the limit, it appears they have. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing, this may have profound implications for UK jurisprudence… Effectively they drove the judge into a blind alley and gave him no other reasonable way out…

Adds: In the circumstances, it’s an appropriate response to some pointedly political private press briefings from the dFM… A classic case of unintended consequences… presumably…

Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories Uncategorised

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.