A big HELLO from a Canadian DUer to all of you and...

[Spazito]

a question for you, if you don't mind. I have been following the leaked documents news from the UK very closely and I read or hear that there is no equivalent to the US First Amendment protection for the press in the UK, is that true?

Also, is there whistleblower protection for those who have leaked?

I did try and search out answers on the House of Commons site but wasn't able to find anything on it so I would very much appreciate any help you can give me on this!

[trotsky]

1. From what I understand,

you can be sued in the UK for printing something scandalous, just like here in the US. However, in the US, the suit will be dropped if what you printed was TRUE. In the UK, this is not the case.

[Spazito]

2. Thank you for your response

Would the publishing of the leaked documents be considered scandalous or would that 'tag' be limited to tabloid reporting aka on Prince Charles, etc?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. In English libel and slander law, the burden of proof is on the author

to prove that what they wrote was true. This does make it a lot easier to sue for libel in the UK than elsewhere.

There has been a development in this area, known as "qualified privilege". This was the defence the Telegraph used when sued by George Galloway last year. They didn't attempt to prove their story was true, but that they reported it fairly and without malice, and that the story was in the public interest. This had been established as a defence in a case brought against The Times by Albert Reynolds, the former Irish PM. But the court decided the Telegraph hadn't been fair in its reporting, so found for Galloway (this is now being appealed). See eg http://journalism.cf.ac.uk/2005/MAJS/sjojbp/galloway.htm

There are also laws about privacy, such as publication of medical treatment details, or photos taken of people on private property.

However, for leaked government documents, it's most likely to be the Official Secrets Act that's used. Although we do now have a Freedom of Information Act, the government can refuse to release anything related to national security - as the Downing Street Memo was. Katherine Gun was charged under this act when she revealed we had been bugging UNSC members before invading Iraq.

On the brink of war last March, The Observer obtained a top-secret email from the US National Security Agency asking spies at GCHQ to help carry out an illegal intelligence 'surge' on the UN Security Council. The memo asked for 'the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers the edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. The operation targeted Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and, most controversially, Pakistan.

Gun, a 28-year-old Mandarin translator at GCHQ, was arrested for leaking the memo and charged with breaches of the Secrets Act eight months later. Her trial collapsed in February after her lawyers demanded disclosure of the Attorney-General's legal advice. The government said the trial was dropped because new intelligence had been received which revealed they would be unlikely to gain a conviction.

The Official Secrets Act prevents Gun from inciting others to breach Britain's tough secrecy legislation, but the documents concerned are not classified. The government has consistently argued that they are covered by conventions of legal confidentiality, which safeguard the relationship between lawyer and client.

At present there is no 'public interest' defence for whistleblowers unless they can argue that their leak was intended to prevent an immediate threat to life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,2763,1302631,00.html

I wonder if her trial would have gone ahead if they had already been forced to publish the AG's advice on the Iraq invasion at that time.

[Spazito]

5. Thanks so much for your response, it helps my understanding

of the issue a great deal! Your question re the trial of Katherine Gun would have, indeed, gone ahead if the facts known now had been available at the time. An aside, perhaps, but I am wondering if she would now have leave to appeal because of the new documentation that has come to light?

[Taxloss]

7. Aha - but truth is not a defence on its own.

If a story can be demonstrated to defame, in certain circumstances it can be libellous even if true.

But the freedom of the press is theoretically protected under the Human Rights Act.

[Vladimir]

8. How can it defame if its true?

seriously, you got me interested now - is there a recent example of this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Yes, like Vladimir, I'd like to know if this has happened recently

I know you can't put complete trust in internet law sites, but:

# Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement
# Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation
# It follows that a defamatory statement which is proved to be true is not a libel. It can remain defamatory.

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.shtml

That does presume the story has been proved (presumably meaning 'beyond a reasonable doubt') to be true, rather than 'most likely true'.

[Taxloss]

10. You have to give a right to reply for the truth to be watertight.

Otherwise, the claimant can point to malicious intent. However, if the claimant's case rests on the allegations being untrue, and they are shown to be true, then their case disappears and they're probably going to prison for perjury a la Jonathan Aitken.

This is just what I remember from journaism training seminars years ago. The truth is a good defence - it's not a perfect defence.

[Guy_Montag]

3. There is some whistleblower protection here

but I suppose this would come under the Official Secrets Act & therefore be exempt from that. Well maybe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1155681,00.html

As for freedom of speech, again we have that, but it is overruled by the OSA. The Govt. can impose a DA-Notice on a paper, but not for embarrassment, only for things that matter.

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/notices.htm

Interestingly the downing street memos are not getting much airplay here, though no-one is suggesting they are false.

[Spazito]

6. Thanks for your response and the links!

They are very helpful.