Site menu:

Site search

Get Updates

Enter your email address to hear about new posts. (You can view my privacy policy here.)


 

RSS Recent Posts

Archives (month)

Topics

Hasty Copper and the Paper with Secrets

I keep reading expressions of anger that the Metropolitan Police sought a court order under the Official Secrets Act to uncover the Guardian’s source behind the phone hacking story (here, here, here, here, and here, to name but a few). I’m not convinced.

The Guardian, we are told by these writers, are the good guys. It was their revelation that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked which made the public aware of what had been going on and led to so much that followed in the public interest. It is even suggested that it was the Guardian’s reporting which led to the arrests that followed under Operation Weeting.

Really? The Guardian’s story about Milly Dowler’s phone was published on 4 July 2011. Operation Weeting began nearly six months earlier.

Was the Guardian the means by which the police became aware that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked? Quite the opposite. It seems that what the Guardian published was either a leak from the police or, at best, from another source, but a leak, nonetheless, of information which the police were already in possession of.

So, if the Guardian’s revelations assisted the police with their investigation, how exactly?

There’s no doubt that the Guardian triggered the public revulsion at what had been happening at News of the World. But was anything gained by expediting our revulsion? And who is to decide when the time is right to make that information public? Is it really the Guardian?

The Leveson enquiry has begun some of its work ahead of the criminal investigation being completed because the public outrage demanded that something be done sooner rather than later. But Leveson won’t be able to complete his work until all the prosecutions (if there are to be any) have been concluded. If the Guardian’s source was the police themselves, it seems unlikely that the leak assisted the police with their investigation. The contrary is more likely: the Guardian’s disclosures may even have hampered the police.

See also:  A pressing need for regulation …

The Metropolitan Police Service has dropped its action against the Guardian because, so it seems, the law does not support the police’s position. Rightfully so. There are good reasons for allowing the press to protect their sources.

But this case doesn’t seem to be one of them.

Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.

Related articles on this website
I’m not sure quite how to say this. So I’ll say it twice:Yesterday, a young graduate won her claim against the government’s back-to-work scheme. She argued that the regulations and ...
Read the complete article
The press are against statutory regulation of their activities. That is the message they have been sending to the Leveson Inquiry. But most people fear that, without a legislative underpinning, ...
Read the complete article
In 2012, when I clicked on a link in order to watch a family friend appear in front of the Leveson Inquiry, I little realised just how much the subject ...
Read the complete article
I keep hearing that last Friday's agreement between the UK and the EU 27 means that a hard Brexit is off the table. Well, I'm looking at the table and ...
Read the complete article
A couple of matters caught my attention this morning, from the world of journalism and coffee shops. Part 1 ... Friday the fifteenth The Daily Mail wants us to believe that an ...
Read the complete article
Lovers of Life on Mars may have thought that DCI Gene Hunt was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. In fact, it was a real (ex-)cop, former ...
Read the complete article
Like many people, I have been following The Leveson Inquiry intermittently. As someone with a background in regulatory policy, I am particularly interested in the way that many witnesses have ...
Read the complete article
What are the chances of being able to write a 2,000 page report on press regulation and walk away with all-party support (or even all-Party support)? Plainly, not very high. ...
Read the complete article
Journalists in a tiz at Supreme Court’s win-win decision
Leveson could legislate for a non-statutory regulator
A pressing need for regulation …
Hard Brexit is dead. Long live … hard Brexit
Friday fiascos
“I’m Hayman and I’m ’aving hoops”
Leveson and the Living Trees
Leveson – Is the battle already lost?