Wednesday 27 October 2010

Media Law 5 - Confidentitality amongst other things

Our fifth Media Law lecture was focused on the subject of confidentiality but also took in the related subject of Official Secrets as the two are very much related. It helped to explain the difference between stories of confidential information being leaked such as the WikiLeaks scandal and tabloid fodder like John Terry's alleged affair with a teammates fiance, Vanessa Peroncell, (more on which later).

First I feel the need to talk about the Official Secrets Act 1911 which is not strictly confidentiality but which it is necessary to talk about in relation to confidentiality. The WikiLeaks story is not confidentiality for example but it does deal with Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I can end the discussion on Section 1 quite easily. Don't break it ever, it's basically treason. Section 2 however covers basically everything that the government does so using an example given to us by Chris, his 'Silly Secrets' column once featured a 'How to Put on Camouflage' diagram which when published is technically a breach of Section 2. Obviously this wasn't something that the MoD felt it necessary to deal with as Chris was never arrested for breach of the Official Secrets Act.

Trade secrets are protected by civil law, it is a 'tort', i.e. concerning civil wrongs. If you were to tell Pepsi the secret ingredient of Coca Cola for example, it is a breach of their commercial confidentiality. Some students believe they can get away with reporting a secret leaked by someone else; this is not the case. Even if you were not the person who leaked the trade secret, you are responsible as well in a case of third party breach. The example was given of the hospital worker, Graham Pink, who told the papers that the geriatric ward in his hospital was dirty. This was wrong and he probably should have told his boss first, not a journalist. It's dangerous reporting on anything that isn't from the courts or from Parliament because you are not protected by your qualified privilege in these places. If say 40% of news is Parliament and 40% is the courts, the final 20% is legally dangerous and probably best avoided if you are not confident in the story.

If you are going to print a story that is particularly dangerous in terms of confidentiality (using the example of commercial confidentiality), then there are certain things you need to do in order to publish it. First of all make it clear to the person that you are a journalist. Often this will probably mean they will stop talking to you but it is a necessary evil if they were just about to tell you a wholly confidential and wholly dangerous piece of information. Ask the person if they are still prepared for you to run the story, even though you will probably be sacked for a prima facie (at first sight) breach of confidentiality. Often with some peoples jobs they will have a gagging clause, e.g. Nurses working for the NHS. If you are running the story, you must protect the source at all costs, the only alternative is to not run the story. If you tell them, you break code of conduct (which of course is not as bad anymore without the unions) but if you don't tell them, you can be done for contempt of court. The best example of this is the case of Bill Goodwin who obtained a draft plan for the purpose of negotiating the struggling Tetra Ltd. out of financial difficulties. Goodwin phoned the company to check the details and they brought an injunction against revealing the information and Goodwin did not comply with the order, being fined £5000. Years later the European Court of Human Rights held that the court order and fine violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If you don't want to reveal the source, really the best thing you can do is have thousands of other ways in which the information could have got to you: found it in skip, anonymous envelope, the list is probably endless.

Occasionally however, there are perfectly innocent cases of breaking the Official Secrets Act. All army bases are protected places under the act and so a general view shot that takes in an army base is a breach, and you will be tried. You need to get written permission because otherwise it's illegal. Probably safer in a way never to point a camera at the army, they might point a gun back...

Confidential information needs to conform to a certain amount of things before it can be considered confidential.
It must:
  • Have 'the necessary quality of confidence'
  • have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence
  • have no permission granted
  • be shown to cause detriment.

  • Finally I will move on to the more usual definition of confidentiality which deals with Section 8 of the Human Rights Act - everyone is entitled to the normal enjoyment of private life. You cannot without permission photograph or film anybody and publish it unless they're involved in a clear public event. This means that all those pictures of celebrities you're constantly poring over in newspapers and magazines are posed, no matter how spontaneous they may appear. In the case involving Princess Caroline, she was photographed riding a horse which she claimed was part of her private activity and the Court of Human Rights found that the respect for her private life had been breached. In general view shots, you need to secure the consent of everyone who appears in the shot, this is why many of the shots you see on television feature so many people with only their bodies. There are different types of consent; there is explicit consent where a person agrees to an interview or similar, (can't complain about invasion of privacy then), and implied consent, for example when someone is waving or looking into a camera, (if they're attention seeking, they can't say it invades their rights, a streaker can't sue for breach of privacy).

    Often in these cases an injunction will be brought out which leads us to the John Terry story. A while ago now a story emerged alleging that John Terry had had an affair with Vanessa Peroncell, made even more interesting because she was the fiance of his team mate, Wayne Bridge, at the time. A super-injunction was initially brought out as the alleged affair was not reported until some time after it was supposed to have taken place. Once it was reported however, the gloves were off and Terry was defamed across the media. It is interesting then that recently, Ms Peroncell has released a statement saying the affair never took place and this only garnered a few lines of print, instead of the few months that the allegations got.

    In summary: Confidentiality is a tricky thing. But it's no secret (pun quite clearly intended) that dealing with it is one of the most difficult aspects of a journalists life.

    Stay classy Internet.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment