An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he incriminate himself. The order had been made in the context of the Act which provided certain safeguards including preconditions and an overriding discretion in the judge, and ‘ it is clear that the judge personally must be satisfied that the statutory requirements have been established. He is not simply asking himself whether the decision of the constable making the application was reasonable, nor whether it would be susceptible to judicial review on Wednesbury grounds.’
Nevertheless, the order was rescinded save with regard to one document. As to conflicting decisions of the European Court: ‘We are not permitted to re-examine decisions of the European Court in order to ascertain whether the conclusion of the House of Lord or Court of Appeal may be inconsistent with those decisions, or susceptible to a continuing gloss. The principle of stare decisis cannot be circumvented or disapplied in this way, and if it were the result would be chaos.’
Judges:
Judge LJ, Maurice Kay J, Gibbs J
Citations:
Gazette 05-Oct-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 662, [2000] UKHRR 796, [2002] Crim LR 64, [2001] EMLR 4, [2001] 2 All ER 244
Links:
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Official Secrets Act 1989 5
Citing:
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited by:
Cited – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Cited – Faisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 21-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged a production order made by the magistrates in respect of journalists’ material. They complained that the application had used secret evidence not disclosed to it, and that the judge had not given adequate reasons to support . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85169