Page 225 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
Cruise’, the Guardian published a confidential memorandum prepared by the Secretary of
State for Defence, which dealt with the question of the arrival of cruise missiles in Britain.
When the Government issued proceedings demanding the return of the document, the
Guardian realized that the marks on their copy would identify their source. It cited Section
10 of the CCA and refused to return the document. The court had to consider the conflict
between national security and the protection of a journalistic source. The House of Lords
ordered the Guardian to disclose the memorandum:

The maintenance of national security requires that trustworthy servants in a
position to mishandle highly classified documents passing from the Secretary of
State for Defence to other Ministers shall be identified at the earliest possible
moment and removed from their positions. This is blindingly obvious. Whether or
not the Editor acted in the public interest in publishing the document was not the
issue. The Secretary of State’s concern was quite different. It was that a servant of
the Crown who handled classified documents had decided for himself whether
classified information should be disseminated to the public. If he could do it on one
occasion he might do it on others, when the safety of the state would be truly
imperilled.

The Guardian was forced to hand back the document, revealing the source to be a junior civil
servant in the Foreign Office called Sarah Tidsall, who was subsequently sentenced to six
months imprisonment.

It is clear that where interests of national security are concerned, the necessity of disclosure
will be ‘almost automatic’ (X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd (1991)).

Moreover, even though the court may have sympathy for a journalist who does not wish to
divulge information carried in his head, it will not look kindly on a journalist who refuses to
hand over physical property such as documents that belong to someone else. After the
sentencing of Tisdall, the Guardian admitted that it should have destroyed the document
before the Government issued proceedings.

11.2.4 For the prevention of disorder or crime

The public interest in preventing disorder or crime is of such ‘overriding importance’ that
disclosure will usually be ‘almost automatic’ (X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd
(1991)).

In X v Y (1988), a News of the World reporter was provided with information from local
health authority medical records that showed that two of the doctors employed by the health
authority were suffering from AIDS but were still in practice. The information had been
provided by an employee at the hospital treating the doctors. The health authority issued
proceedings in order to prevent publication of its confidential information and to force the
188