Compelling Journalists to Disclose Sources: Two Recent Decisions from Europe and New Zealand
Abstract:Courts continue to struggle world-wide with the issue of whether journalists should have immunity or privileges preventing them from being compelled to disclose confidential sources. New Zealand judges have previously taken a pragmatic approach in order to avoid compulsion if at all possible. However, New Zealand law has been changed recently to strengthen the position of journalists. In this note, I compare a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Financial Times Ltd v the United Kingdom, and a New Zealand High Court decision, Police v Campbell which tested the new legislative protection for journalists. The analysis reveals that although the Financial Times decision does not represent a new direction for the ECHR, it does emphasise that the starting point in the United Kingdom should always be a presumption that disclosure of sources is contrary to the public interest, and requires something exceptional to displace it. In contrast, Campbell suggests that the New Zealand statutory presumption against disclosure is to be treated as a more open-ended discretion involving balancing of the interests involved. I conclude that the European approach is preferable, and that if New Zealand courts carry out a proper analysis of the new provision using the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, this could be achieved.
Document Type: Commentary
Publication date: July 1, 2010
The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this new peer-reviewed journal is:
- essential for teaching and research
- essential for practice
- essential for policy-making.
It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens.