BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
stories meant that the State would have a particular interest in identifying
the sources. The risk would be particularly grave where the source was a
government whistle-blower. The chilling effect of the mere potential that
such sources would be identified was significant. As a consequence, the
MLA argued that at a minimum Article 10 required prior independent
judicial oversight of any attempt to obtain journalistic material or identify
journalistic sources, and that the judicial process be inter partes.
(vii)The National Union of Journalists (“NUJ”) and the International Federation
of Journalists (“IFJ”)
441. The NUJ and the IFJ submitted that the confidentiality of sources
was indispensable for press freedom. They also expressed concern about the
possible sharing of data retained by the United Kingdom with other
countries. If confidential journalistic material were to be shared with a
country which could not be trusted to handle it securely, it could end up in
the hands of people who would harm the journalist or his or her source. In
the interveners’ view, the safeguards in the updated IC Code and the
Acquisition of Communications Data Code of Practice were not adequate,
especially where the journalist or the identification of his or her source was
not the target of the surveillance measure.
3. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles on the protection of journalists’ sources
442. As freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential
foundations of a democratic society, the Court has always subjected the
safeguards for respect of freedom of expression in cases under Article 10 of
the Convention to special scrutiny. The safeguards to be afforded to the
press are of particular importance, and the protection of journalistic sources
is one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press. Without such protection,
sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public
about matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of
the press may be undermined, and the ability of the press to provide
accurate and reliable information may be affected adversely (see, inter alia,
Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, no. 17488/90, § 39, 27 March 1996;
Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., cited above, § 50; and Weber and Saravia, cited
above, § 143).
443. Orders to disclose sources potentially have a detrimental impact,
not only on the source, whose identity may be revealed, but also on the
newspaper or other publication against which the order is directed, whose
reputation may be negatively affected in the eyes of future potential sources
by the disclosure; and on members of the public, who have an interest in
receiving information imparted through anonymous sources. There is,
however, “a fundamental difference” between the authorities ordering a
133