05 Assange trial


Tim Dawson asks how can we safely protect our sources following Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s adjudication on the US request to extradite publisher and activist Julian Assange?


Australian was charged would merit prosecution in the UK. Her affirmative answer is a blow for free expression. She considered minute details


F


of Assange’s alleged dealings with former US army intelligence analyst and Wikileaks source, Chelsea Manning, their exchanged messages via the Jabber app and the sharing of “rainbow tools” to break password hashes.


Finding that Assange could have faced charges had he published UK secrets, Baraitser quoted from the Official Secrets Act: “Te restriction on… free speech is prescribed by law.… Its objective is to safeguard national security by preventing the disclosure of information relating to the work of the… intelligence services.” Tis provision – that allows for the


prosecution of those who publish as well as those who leak official secrets – has long been a feature of UK legislation. Its use, however, must be approved by the Atorney General. For half a century or more, governments have been reluctant to sanction the


or deportation to be granted, District Judge Baraitser was required to determine whether the offences with which the


prosecution of journalists under this statute. Te Assange ruling, however, is a disturbing reminder of the implicit jeopardy in publishing leaked official secrets. Just how much collusion with a confidential source does it take to risk prosecution? By Judge Baraitser’s tests, very litle. Draſt revisions to the Officials


Secrets Act, for which the government has promised legislative time, risk exacerbating this situation. Gavin Miller, QC, in a briefing prepared for the NUJ on the proposed changes says: “It is regretable that the Law Commission has chosen to try and restrict the value of the public interest defence [for disclosures of Official Secrets by journalists]. Much beter if it had recommended that the discloser’s public interest defence was considered by the jury on its inherent merits.” Te possibility of


aggressive use of Official Secrets legislation arises as concern increases about the growing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps) – lawsuits


intended to intimidate and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defence. Already, libel, privacy and information protection rules provide numerous channels for the wealthy to harass reporters. While Assange’s cause célèbre status kept the trial in the public eye, now is the time for NUJ branches to campaign against the legislative harassment of journalists which is preventing them from serving the public interest and our right to know.


Organise a branch meeting focusing on the legislative challenges to journalism.


Action •


Seek out NUJ members who have


direct experience of such challenges to speak to the branch.


Build links with campaigns that have


• •


related interests, such as those against blacklisting, undercover policing known as the spy cops scandal and unwarranted surveillance.


CAMPAIGN


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8