Leveson and Murdoch: Hypocrisy and the Protection of Journalists – Evan Harris

27 01 2015

Leveson-inquiryNick Cohen has many qualities as a polemical writer and orator and is a fierce defender of free expression. We have fought many battles on the same side, not least blasphemy abolition, against an over-broad religious hatred law, and libel reform, but he is wrong about Leveson and about the Hacked Off campaign for a free and accountable press. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law, Strasbourg: Saint Paul Luxembourg SA v Luxembourg, Newspaper protected under Articles 8 and 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

17 05 2013

cabecalho_abertoIn the case of Saint Paul Luxembourg SA v Luxembourg (Case No 26419/10) decided on 18 April 2013, the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights considered the protection of journalists against coercive court orders.  It held that a warrant to search a newspaper office was, in the circumstances,  a violation of Article 8 and, because it was in wide terms which potentially included information about sources, it was also a violation of Article 10.  The Judgment is only available in French. Read the rest of this entry »

Leveson and ‘journalistic materials’: another myth – Brian Cathcart

24 02 2013

Leveson reportIf Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations are implemented in full, does that mean that it will be easier for police officers conducting investigations to seize confidential research materials from journalists? The idea has gained some currency, but the answer to the question is no. Read the rest of this entry »