The protection of journalistic sources is somewhat sancrosant in the Uk. The press will stick by this as a matter of principle, because if they give up their sources they won't get leakers and whistleblowers and those all important sources.
So they won't just give up a source. They would have to be forced. And even then I think they would generally at least try and fight this. And the law is on their side generally.
The main legislation governing the protection of journalistic sources is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981). Section 10 provides that in a free and democratic society there is a need to protect journalists’ sources and presumes in favour of those journalists wishing to do so. There are however exceptions to this presumption where disclosure of the information will be deemed necessary. These are:
<span class="italic">in the interests of justice;</span>
<span class="italic">in the interests of national security;</span>
<span class="italic">for the prevention of disorder or crime;</span>
In the interests of justice
Whether disclosure of a journalistic source will be deemed to be in the interest of justice is dependent on the facts of the case. Courts are reluctant to establish that disclosure is in the interest of justice and will usually only do so where vital public or individual interest are at stake.
An example of this may be a large company in financial difficulties having this exposed by a newspaper using a confidential source within the company. The company may argue that there has been a breach of confidence by the source and therefore in the interests of justice that source should be disclosed to enable a breach of confidence claim to be brought. Nevertheless, the court will often claim that the public interest in revealing the company’s financial difficulties outweighs the company’s interest in the breach of confidence claim.
In the interests of national security
Where national security is concerned the necessity for disclosure of the source will be almost automatic. Keeping information concerning national security confidential outweighs the right to keep the source confidential.
This is because the people divulging information regarding national security will usually be those employed in government and therefore have an obligation of confidentiality. If someone in this position is willing to provide information to the press, they are not fulfilling their role as a trusted servant to the government and will need to be indentified and removed from their position to protect national security.
For the prevention of disorder or a crime
The public interest in preventing disorder or a crime is said to be of such overriding importance that disclosure will be almost automatic. If the disclosure can prevent a criminal offence taking place or some form of public disorder which affects the general public of the country, that will be considered more important than protecting the interests of an individual journalistic source.
Now does it fall into any of these categories?
Possibly. Possibly not.
Its worth reflecting on this by Stephen Bush:
stephen
Stephen Bush @stephenkb
I cannot believe that I am about to say something supportive about Gavin Williamson but: it wasn't a leak of classified material, about sources in the field or one with any operational information at all. It was a public infrastructure decision that should be debated in public.
Longer bit on this: it is, of course, shameful to disagree with a procurement decision in your department to the point you leak it and hope to stay in your Cabinet job, but May also comes out of this really badly:
www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/05/theresa-may-and-gavin-williamsons-reputations-should-both-be-destroyed-his
Theresa May and Gavin Williamson’s reputations should both be destroyed by his sacking
The South Staffordshire MP’s firing reflects poorly on both politicians concerned.
The dismissal reflects poorly on both Williamson and the woman who repeatedly promoted him. While the decision was taken at a meeting of the National Security Council, to which only ministers with security clearance are invited, it did not concern operational or classified information and the decision is fundamentally a public procurement one that deserves to be debated in full view. To do as May did and conduct a mole hunt right in heart of government is a ludicrous reaction, albeit one which typifies the British state’s attitude to and treatment of whistleblowers.
And this will be the line that The Telegraph would ultimately use, because their interests lie in protecting sources and encouraging whistleblowing.
Also, if I were the Met, I'd take one look at this mess and seriously consider what Stephen Bush says in order to declare it a political rather than security leak so they don't have to investigate this unholy political minefield.
May's gamble is perhaps precisely because its a political sacking rather than a legal sacking and those who have the greatest vested interests (The Telegraph and the police) really won't want a criminal investigation / won't want to cooperate with a criminal investigation.
But that calculation might well cook May's goose in its own right yet.