SOURCE OF NEWS

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 October 1937, Page 10

SOURCE OF NEWS

A REPORTER CONVICTED. - The question of -a reporter’s fight not to disclose the source ot his information to the police was raised in a case heard at Stockport, Cheshire (says the "Daily Telegraph”). Air Ernest David Gibson Lewis, of Stockport, was accused of unlawfully failing to give on demand to a police officer information in his possession relating to a suspected offence under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, contrary to section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920. Mr Fenton Atkinson, prosecuting, said that the case was one- of the greatest interest and raised the important question as to how. far, if at all, the Official Secrets Act of 1911 applied to police officers. On June 11, the Chief Constable of Southport obtained a warrant lor the arrest of a, man on a charge ol fraudulent conversion. He circulated to other police forces a. confidential document, giving a description of the mail and lijs methods. [ Three days laicr tiie "Daily Dispatch" published an article headed "Frauds on Work less Alleged. Warjam, lor Man with a Sear." The article gave information which had been contained in the police circular. | H was obvious that whoever wrote Ihe article must have had access to Uli- coniidi ni.'al police circular. The Chief Constable of Southport, took the view that ihcre was grave reason to suppose that, some police officer had communicated the contents of the official document to a. Pressman. Tiie managing editor of the newspaper was approached, and after a little difficulty disclosed to Hie- police I that the article had been written by the defendant. IN FOR M A TIU N liE FI ’ S ED.

The police went Io .Mr Lewis and asked lor the source of his information. pointing out that he must give tile information or be guilty of an offence.

In tile ordinary way, :-....id .Mr Atkinson, there was no pu-'-cr Lor a police officer to compel a'.ij one to give- information if they refused to do so, but this was an exceptional case v, hich the Chief Constable considered’ came under the Official Secrets Act.

i It ’ . SiH'crinLentient ' Arnold Cattle 2 Deputy Chief Constable for South ’ nori, said in evidence that on July 29, : Mr Lewis said to him; "1 cannot talk ■ to ;,ou except in the presence of my - legal adviser. My mind is made up. I ■’'■cluse 'to’’give you the information ■ \<j\i want.” Cross-examined by Mr J. C. Jolly, L'oi' Lewis, the superintendent said that when he saw Mr Booth, managing editor of the paper, to obtain the hiloi motion, Mr Booth told him that what he was asking was contrary to established journalistic practice. Mr Booth gave the information under strong protest. Qmx-tioned concerning Hie circular, he said that the word ‘confidential” did not appear on it. iMr Jolly: is it mot right that the police frequently ask the Press for assistance in the prosecution of their inquiries as to the activities of criminals?—We certainly have asked the Press for their assistance on occasions. Superintendent. Cattle agreed tint on occasion information was delib j cratcly given to (lie Press in order that they might assist the police. [ Answering Mr Atkinson, Superin-i tendont Cajtle .said that l.hj.s particu-l lar circular was sent for Life use ol' the police only, and no authority was

eiv< n to them Lu circulate it to the Bros. BINE IMPOSED. Mr Nathaniel Booth, managing editor' of Allied 7\ewspapers in Manchestcr, v.us'ask<<! by Mr .Jolly: "Supposing that. yon. as a responsible' member of your profession, had seen this < ircular. Would you regard it as confidential?” I "Nn, not on balance,” replied Mr j 800 l h. Mr Jolly, ■'■•ho said he would not (•all any evidence, ' addressed the c.’ourt for the defence. “If Ihe prosecution were right that I this Act gave the police the light of interrogation." he said, "it seems reminiscent of the old procedure of the Star Chamber.

i I “1 submit that the prosecution in.volves the most serious questions relating to the principle of Lite liberty! Icl rhe subject." ■ He thought the Bench would require the strongest argument before 'they could be convincciLlhal Purlin'.ment over inteinjetr that the .Act should apply to circumstances of this kind. ■' Mr Lewis was asked by the police to do something quite inconsistent with the principles of his profession. I After the Bench had retired for [about twenty minutes, the chairman, Mr W. Johnston, 'announcedt ■ • i "The Magistrates find, firstly, that a police officer is p servant of the [ secondly, that, this document was a confid'eiitiul document; .and Thirdly, tliat there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Xhaftlli's’Avas' a confidential document."' They found Lewis had been g.u.ilty cf refusing to give the intorination asked, and lined him U 5. Mr Jolly, said that the case raised a very important (joint of law, and on his request the Magistrates consented to slate a case with a view to appeal.