BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
175
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 and ACD Codes 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.
(c) The Media Lawyers’ Association (“MLA”)
486. The MLA expressed deep concern that domestic law was moving
away from the strong presumption that journalistic sources would be
afforded special legal protection, since surveillance regimes allowed the
authorities to intercept journalists’ communications without the need for
prior judicial authorisation. Since the protection of journalists’ sources was
one of the core components of Article 10, more robust protection was
required.
3. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
487. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression constitutes one of
the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to
be afforded to the press are of particular importance. 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 adversely affected
(see, inter alia, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., cited above, § 50; Weber
and Saravia, cited above, § 143; Goodwin, cited above, § 39; and Roemen
and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-IV).
488. The Court has always subjected the safeguards for respect of
freedom of expression in cases under Article 10 of the Convention to special
scrutiny. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic
sources for press freedom in a democratic society, an interference cannot be
compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an
overriding requirement in the public interest (Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., cited
above, § 51; Goodwin, cited above, § 39; Roemen and Schmit, cited above,
§ 46; and Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November
2007).
489. The Court has recognised that there is “a fundamental difference”
between the authorities ordering a journalist to reveal the identity of his or
her sources, and the authorities carrying out searches at a journalist’s home
and workplace with a view to uncovering his or her sources (compare
Goodwin, cited above, with Roemen and Schmit, cited above, § 57). The