This is an interesting case, although Ms Justice Henke makes it plain that it is fact specific (and that actually no decisions were made on the issue) so it is not intended to be a precedent.
In this case, a journalist sought to attend a hearing, and those representing father put into a case summary that they were seeking an order that the journalist should reveal who had contacted her. This was never actually pursued at the hearing, although a draft order including the provision was circulated and served upon the journalists.
The journalist asked the Court to confirm how this order had arisen – as set out above, it was not an order that was ever made.
Nonetheless the High Court set out the wider judgments as to why journalists sources are protected, that might not be widely known to family practitioners, and it is useful in that regard.
Tickle v The Father & Ors [2025] EWFC 160 (09 June 2025)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/160.html
The Statement of Case provided by Ms Tickle and dated 21 October was written in response to the father’s initial position statement and the draft order. It sets out her understandably strong opposition to any journalist being ordered by a court to reveal their source. The reasons she gives are based firmly in the ethical code that all accredited journalists follow. She rightly took me to Telegraaf Media Nederland v The Netherlands (App 39315/06), paras [126]-[127] which states as follows:
“126. Under the terms of Article 10 § 2, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which also apply to the press. Article 10 protects a journalist’s right – and duty – to impart information on matters of public interest provided that he is acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.
- Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is recognised and reflected in various international instruments […] Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.”
For the test Ms Tickle cited Goodwin v UK (App 17488/90) (1996) 22 EHRR 123, para [39]
“Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of Contracting States and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.”
I was also taken by Ms Tickle to British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096, 1129-1130 per Lord Denning MR in CA (appeal to HoL dismissed):
“The public has a right of access to information which is of public concern and of which the public ought to know. The newspapers are the agents, so to speak, of the public to collect that information and to tell the public of it. In support of this right of access, the newspapers should not in general be compelled to disclose their sources of information … The reason is because, if they were compelled to disclose their sources, they would soon be bereft of information which they ought to have. Their sources would dry up. Wrongdoing would not be disclosed. Charlatans would not be exposed. Unfairness would go unremedied. Misdeeds in the corridors of power — in companies or in government departments — would never be known. Investigative journalism has proved itself as a valuable adjunct of the freedom of the press … It should not be unduly hampered or restricted by the law. Much of the information gathered by the press has been imparted to the informant in confidence. He is guilty of a breach of confidence in telling it to the press. But this is not a reason why his name should be disclosed. Otherwise much information, that ought to be made public, will never be made known. Likewise with documents. They may infringe copyright. But that is no reason for compelling their disclosure, if by so doing it would mean disclosing the name of the informant.”
I accept the authorities cited by Ms Tickle accurately reflect the law.
As every journalist knows, the principle is that you protect your source at all costs, even if necessary being willing to go to prison rather than name them.
suesspiciousminds 