Sunday, November 30, 2008



British Gestapo defeated: Freedom of the press upheld in court

Apparently, British newspapers can report "leaks" from officials as part of a right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"The 1 million pound prosecution of a local newspaper journalist and the police source who "leaked" stories to her collapsed yesterday after evidence gathered against them in a police bugging operation was declared inadmissible.

The 18-month-long case and investigation - monitored at senior levels in Whitehall and described in court as "Orwellian" - was thrown out when a judge ruled that operations mounted to identify the reporter's sources were a violation of human rights....

Ms Murrer's defence team argued successfully that her right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

Gavin Millar, QC, told the court: "The measures used by Thames Valley Police against Sally Murrer are familiar in authoritarian states where the police are used to discourage the media from reporting on issues of public interest using confidential sources. Thankfully because of article 10 they are almost unheard of here. This case is, sadly, a rare exception."

Source

9 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:50 AM

    I hope we will have the same kind of judges in the usa when obama the blessed takes over and starts his fascist thought and speech police .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:54 AM

    Too late. It's already started.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:29 AM

    Article 10 sounds like a nifty idea, but the devil is in the details!

    It says that people have the right of expression, but there are duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    This judge saw it as the right to free expression, but the next one could very easily say that since she didn’t get the proper permit first, she goes to jail.

    Mobius

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:27 PM

    I agree with Mobius, the woman belongs in jail!

    ReplyDelete

Comments in Chinese or Russian will be deleted as I do not understand them. Spammers: Don't bother. Irrelevant comments will not be published