TV men ordered to name source

Press, 9 May 1980, Page 6

TV men ordered to name source

[NZPA London A British television comIpany has been ordered by ithe Court of Appeal to name its source for a programme critical of British Steel, the financiallytroubled State-owned corporation.

In what newspapers and television predicted would be a land-mark decision in the disputed area of journalists’ privilege, Lord Denning, [Master of the Rolls (president of the Court of ApIpeal). said that protection [was given to the media only ion condition that it did not [abuse its power.

> Granada _■ Television had appealed against a High [Court judgment which ruled i that it must reveal its [source for a documentary 'programme, “The Steel Papers,” screened in February. . .

The nrogramme, one of the “World in Action” series, was based on dbcu-

h merits which had been ■ leaked to Granada by a British Steel employee. ,| The programme suggested [that British Steel suffered, [from incompetent manage-! Iment. In his reserved judgment, Lord Denning said Granada had behaved so badly in using top-level confidential documents that it had lost the protection normally given to the media over sources of information. Lord Denning said it was “most unfortunate” that Granada did not tell British! Steel until the day on which the programme was to be recorded that it had confidential documents intended for use in the broadcast. The chairman of . British; [Steel (Sir Charles Villiers) ,■ was given no opportunity toj see the script before he ar-i rived at the studio to be! interviewed and the conduct! of the l interviewer on thei: programme was deplorable/ Lord Denning said. 1 And he said it was dis-1 graceful that Granada had 1 ;

i, tampered with the docu-i intents before returning them • [to British Steel, when a [court action was already; •pending. ~ i I Granada had mutilated: [part of the documents toj prevent identification of the; source. Lord Denning said the 1 principle that emerged from previous legal decisions seemed to be that the public had a right of access to information which was of ’ public concern. • Newspapers were the' l iagents of the public and| should not in general bei compelled to disclose their! sources of information, he> said. | If they were compelled top ;do so. their sources would u [soon dry up. | “Investigative journalism [' [has proved itself a valuable 1 : [adjunct of the freedom of,: The press.” the judgment j said. “It should not be undu-;; ly hampered or restricted by;: law. ■ ' !l “Much of the information,: gathered by the press was'!

[imparted in confidence. An informant might be guilty of a breach of confidence in [speaking to the press. But l 'that was not a reason why; Tris name should be dis-; [closed, otherwise much[information that ought to be tmade public would never be known. “Likewise with documents. They might infringe copyright, but that was no reason for compelling their disclosure if by so doing it would mean disclosing the name of the informant.” , But, Lord Denning said, [the principle was not absolute. “It seems to me that the! rule by which a newspaper! should not be compelled to' disclose its source of infer-: mation is granted on condi-, tion that it acts with a due ( sense of responsibility,” he! said. “In order to be deserving; of freedom, the press must; show itself worthy of it, a! free'press must be a responsible press. The power off the press is . great. It mustll

not abuse its power. If a newspaper should act irres[ponsibly, then it forfeits its 'claim to protect its sources [Of information.” ; Lord Justice Templeman agreed with the judgment and said British Steel needed to know the name of the informer because innocent employees were under suspicion. Lord Justice Watkins, who made the judgment unanimous, said journalists performed a service crucial to maintaining a free society but, like everyone else, they had to live and work within the laws of the land. Immunity from disclosure, offered by journalists to informants, should not be regarded as one of the species of privilege to which the courts would pay a unique respect. Granada was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords but the company’s counsel said an application would be made to the Lords Appeal Committee for a hearing.