18 September 2018
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
The NUJ said the judgement is significant victory for the campaign to protect journalists' sources and the right of journalists to adhere to the NUJ's ethical code of conduct that states:
"A journalist protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work."
The ruling also represents a blow to the UK government and its dogmatic pursuit of repressive surveillance laws.
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the ECHR ruled that mass surveillance by GCHQ and other intelligence agencies, without adequate safeguards to protect the freedom of the press, is unlawful. The case will force the government to review how it intercepts journalists communications.
The Bureaus case was part of a wider submission supported by the NUJ, IFJ and brought by human rights organisations including Amnesty, Privacy International, and Liberty following the revelations about the invasive surveillance by GCHQ and other agencies revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013.
The Bureau was specifically concerned about the chilling effect that mass surveillance may have on whistleblowers seeking to reveal wrongdoing to investigative journalists, and the difficulty of guaranteeing a sources anonymity when communications are being monitored in such a pervasive way.
Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said: "This ruling is a great result for ethical journalism and journalists in the UK. We have been campaigning for years against the UK government's repressive surveillance laws that are detrimental to the public interest. We will continue to use all the avenues available to us to improve and amend the current laws and codes of practice. The Bureau should be congratulated for its excellent work and this is a hugely significant and positive outcome."
The Bureaus Managing Editor Rachel Oldroyd welcomed the ECHR judgment and said: "The Bureau believes the freedom of the press is a vital cornerstone of democracy and that journalists must be able to protect their sources. We are particularly concerned about the chilling effect that the threat of state surveillance has on whistleblowers who want to expose wrongdoing, and this ruling will force our government to put safeguards in place. It is an extremely good day for journalism."
The court was particularly worried about the potential deliberate targeting of journalists work by security agencies without measures in place to protect confidentiality. The court "expressed particular concern" about the absence of any published safeguards relating to the circumstances in which confidential journalistic material could be selected.
The court found that the UK government was in breach of Article 10, the right to freedom of expression, because of the "potential chilling effect that any perceived interference with the confidentiality of journalists' communications and, in particular, their sources might have on the freedom of the press."
Gavin Millar QC, counsel for TBIJ, said: "The government must now rewrite the law as to how the security and intelligence service can look at and use journalists confidential communications and material. Secretive arrangements like these cannot continue. There must be a public interest which overrides the vital right to journalistic free speech before officials can scrutinise such material." "
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.