Informed 09


In March, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab announced a package of proposed measures that could include a cap on costs for lawsuits and a requirement that claimants prove”actual malice”. A stronger public-interest defence has also been mooted, or for courts to be able to dismiss cases at a far earlier stage. But he needs to match words with action. Arguably more pressing is the fallout


from the Bloomberg v ZXC case. In February, by unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that a person who is under criminal investigation has, before being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy, upending decades of reporting practice. Bloomberg News editor-in-chief, John Micklethwait said: “Tis was reporting on ZXC’s business activities — and an investigation by the authorities into possible malfeasance at a huge company that could have an effect on many people who invested in it. Te courts have now presented the powerful with a path to keep their names out of print for years.” Te ruling was a giſt to future Robert Maxwells, he suggested. A simple fix to this would be a short bill establishing a far-reaching public-interest defence for journalists. Recent distaste for Russian oligarchs aside, however, litle in our current government’s trajectory suggests that this will happen spontaneously.


Te Home Office has recently completed consultation on proposed reforms to the Official Secrets Act (OSA). Draſt legislation has yet to appear, but Home Secretary Priti Patel has set out her initiative’s guiding principles. Breaches of the OSA are to atract significantly longer jail sentences, and not just for those who leak information, but also for the recipients of classified documents. Te most troubling sentence in the government’s policy paper is this: “We do not consider that there is necessarily a distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures.” Put another way, a journalist with a leaked document is as bad, or


worse, than a hostile foreign spy. Te proposals also suggest watering


down the protection of journalistic material contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In England and Wales, if the police want access to a journalist’s records, photos or video, they must obtain a court order. Te government would like the police themselves to be able issue such an order in certain circumstances. Patel’s proposals were preceded by


a Law Commission report sketching out possibilities for a reformed OSA. Within this was a striking proposal. A public interest defence should be enshrined in law and a statutory commission established to adjudicate in the event of a journalist being accused of breaching the OSA. Patel gives this short shriſt, alas. Te Law Commission’s recommendations “do not strike the right balance”, says her document. OSA reform is not the only point at which Patel’s commitment to the free press will be tested. In all likelihood, before the summer, the draſt order to


Human rights


Justice secretary Dominic Raab told the Daily Mail that his plans to ‘update’ the 1998’s Human Rights Act (HRA) would be a triumph for freedom of speech, ending “cancel culture”, and stopping democratic debate being “whitled away by wokery”. Was the deputy prime minister jumping to the defence of JK Rowling, who has been atacked for her views in the transgender debate? Or is it that this and the European Convention on Human Rights have been long-time bugbears of his? To this end he has published a “consultation” rich in vague and unexplained plans to replace the existing HRA with a British Bill of Rights. He has said he is concerned


extradite Julian Assange will drop on her desk. It would still be in her giſt to refuse, but few think she will. Once her ink dries on the order and Assange is bundled into a plane, almost certainly for the last time in his life, the shadow of judicial snatch squads from America will hang over journalists anywhere. Handle a classified document from Washington and you too could see out your days in a supermax prison in sunny Colorado. Te Online Safety Bill, currently before


Parliament, defines “journalism” too tightly to protect all professional editorial content. Automated facial recognition by police cameras remains unregulated, creating a threat to sources. Te lack of clarity about journalistic exemptions from data protection laws continue to devour the time of newspaper lawyers. Tere are crumbs of hope beside


Mullin’s victory and the possibility of Slapps, presently being investigated by a commitee of peers, being curtailed. If you think that we are beter served by a legal framework that enables responsible journalism, then add your voice to chorus .


about judge-made privacy laws, illustrated by Naomi Campbell’s successful 2004 case against the Daily Mirror’s revelations of her drug addition, brought under her right to privacy and a breach of the HRA. He says journalists’ sources could be protected by legislation creating a fresh defence for publication in the public interest and enhanced protections for journalistic material. Human rights activists are suspicious of his real motives. Te Act has forced inquiries into the Hillsborough disaster, the government’s handling of Covid and challenged the police ban on the Sarah Everard vigil. Laura Trevelyan, of Amnesty, said: “Te HRA is the most important weapon we have against the state, and we should all be very suspicious of the very people it holds to account trying to water it down.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12