The court of appeal has ruled that reporting restrictions on a leaked memo containing details of a meeting in 2004 between Tony Blair and George Bush must remain in place, even while acknowledging that the initial grounds on which restrictions were based were incorrect.
Index on Censorship is claiming a limited victory in its joint appeal with the BBC, the Times, the Guardian and other media organisations, against the gagging orders on reporting the Leo O’Connor and David Keogh official secrets trial. As reported in the current issue of Free Press, O’Connor and Keogh were jailed in May for breaching the Official Secrets Act. David Keogh, a civil servant, had leaked a memo of a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair, which he gave to Leo O’Connor, a parliamentary researcher.
During the trial, discussion of the contents of the memo were held in camera. After Keogh and O’Connor were sentenced, the judge, Mr Justice Aikens, ruled under the Contempt of Court Act that the press could not discuss the trial and the alleged contents of the memo in the same article – despite the fact that the memo had already been widely discussed in the press. He also ruled that the media could not report a statement made by David Keogh in open court, which related to the contents of the memo.
According to Index, the Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling – albeit under a different section of the law – which bans the press from reporting the statement made by David Keogh in open court. It also ruled that the press cannot suggest that allegations about the contents of the memo, which appeared in the Daily Mirror in 2005, was discussed as evidence given in camera. Mr Justice Aikens has said that the reports were inaccurate.
So although the Kafkaesque restrictions have been modified, the press remains gagged on how it reports the case. No journalist can write freely about this case without risking contempt of court.
The appeal means that secrecy is maintained, protecting the UK government and the US administration from immense potential embarrassment. The prosecution even conceded during the trial that the leak did not constitute ‘actual damage’.
What is exposed is the farce of conducting an official secrets case. The contents of the memo remain in the public interest, but it remains in the government’s interest to keep them hidden.
The court of appeal has ruled that reporting restrictions on a leaked memo containing details of a meeting in 2004 between Tony Blair and George Bush must remain in place, even while acknowledging that the initial grounds on which restrictions were based were incorrect.
Index on Censorship is claiming a limited victory in its joint appeal with the BBC, the Times, the Guardian and other media organisations, against the gagging orders on reporting the Leo O’Connor and David Keogh official secrets trial. As reported in the current issue of Free Press, O’Connor and Keogh were jailed in May for breaching the Official Secrets Act. David Keogh, a civil servant, had leaked a memo of a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair, which he gave to Leo O’Connor, a parliamentary researcher.
During the trial, discussion of the contents of the memo were held in camera. After Keogh and O’Connor were sentenced, the judge, Mr Justice Aikens, ruled under the Contempt of Court Act that the press could not discuss the trial and the alleged contents of the memo in the same article – despite the fact that the memo had already been widely discussed in the press. He also ruled that the media could not report a statement made by David Keogh in open court, which related to the contents of the memo.
According to Index, the Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling – albeit under a different section of the law – which bans the press from reporting the statement made by David Keogh in open court. It also ruled that the press cannot suggest that allegations about the contents of the memo, which appeared in the Daily Mirror in 2005, was discussed as evidence given in camera. Mr Justice Aikens has said that the reports were inaccurate.
So although the Kafkaesque restrictions have been modified, the press remains gagged on how it reports the case. No journalist can write freely about this case without risking contempt of court.
The appeal means that secrecy is maintained, protecting the UK government and the US administration from immense potential embarrassment. The prosecution even conceded during the trial that the leak did not constitute ‘actual damage’.
What is exposed is the farce of conducting an official secrets case. The contents of the memo remain in the public interest, but it remains in the government’s interest to keep them hidden.
A bad day for journalism and the right to report.