Journalists should be given public interest defence in law, says Nick Clegg

Details

Category: Uncategorised

Created on Sunday, 26 October 2014 00:00

Journalists should be given public interest defence in law, says Nick Clegg

20 October 2014

Lib Dem leader says journalists should not fear being prosecuted under computer misuse, data protection and bribery laws

Rowena Mason, political correspondent

details 

Journalists should be able to rely on a public interest defence if they break some laws relating to computer misuse, data protection and bribery, Nick Clegg has said.

The Liberal Democrat leader said he believed journalists should be able to go after information in the public interest without fear of being prosecuted.

He spoke out at his monthly press conference before a debate in the House of Lords on Monday night, where a Lib Dem peer will table amendments proposing public interest defences to the crime and criminal justice bill.

“I think there should be a basically a public interest defence put in law,” Clegg said. “You probably need to put it in the Data Protection Act, the Bribery Act, maybe one or two other laws as well, where you enshrine a public interest defence for you, for the press. So that where you are going after information and you’re being challenged, you can set out a public interest defence to do so.”

Liberal Democrat sources said they did not think the amendments would be pushed to a vote and were hopeful that they might get agreement with the Conservatives about putting forward some government proposals “in the not too distant future”.

Asked about whether the government could back a public interest defence for journalists, the prime minister’s official spokesman said it would look at ideas that emerge from the review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

This legislation is being reviewed following concern about police getting access to journalists’ phone records to hunt for their sources.

Clegg said: “Let’s have the review of Ripa and look at what ideas and proposals may emerge from that, both obviously specifically in the context of Ripa and whether there is potentially a wider application to those ideas and proposals. I’m sure that people will listen to what is said in the chamber.”

The amendments propose a new defence for journalists who unlawfully obtain personal data (section 55 of the Data Protection Act) where they do so as part of a story that is in the public interest, a public interest defence in the Computer Misuse Act, and a public interest defence in the Bribery Act.

Another amendment would raise the maximum penalty for unlawfully obtaining personal data under section 55 from a fine to include the possibility of probation, community service and, in the most serious cases, imprisonment for up to two years.

They follow vote at the Liberal Democrat party conference in Glasgow that called for “effective public interest defences in [the Data Protection Act] and others (including the Computer Misuse Act 1990, RIPA and the Bribery Act 2000) to protect responsible journalism, and ensuring greater protection for legally privileged and journalistic material from requests for telephone and other records”.

A senior Liberal Democrat source said the party was “supportive of the principle of the amendments, which are designed to defend this country’s proud tradition of investigate journalism”.

“These amendments aren’t yet government policy. They are being floated by one of our backbenchers in the House of Lords to see what the reaction of the other parties is,” he added. “The Liberal Democrats are currently working in government to secure support across the coalition for these protections.”

Separately, Clegg emphasised that he supported the government’s moves to review Ripa, as there should be greater protections for journalists before police can access their records.

“It’s incredibly important in a free society that journalists should be able to go after information where there’s a clear public interest to do so, without fear of being snooped upon or having all of their files kind of rifled through without clear justification,” the deputy prime minister said.

“I think where the police basically ask you, if I can put it like that, for information which might reveal your sources, in the sort of privileged information, I think that shouldn’t just be done at the say so of the police officer, even of a senior police officer.

“I think it should be done at the say so of a judge. I think it’s a big thing to say to the press in this country: ‘We can demand where you got your information from and we don’t even need to go to a judge to do so.’ I think that needs to change.”

A Liberal Democrat peer has also made a last-minute attempt to water down the government’s new law on mandatory jail sentences for people convicted twice of possessing a knife.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has laid an amendment calling for all under-18s to be exempt from the legislation, which would currently apply to anyone over the age of 16.

There has been a long-running dispute between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats over compulsory jail sentences for knife offences, which caused a coalition rift earlier this year.

The Conservative leadership backed an amendment brought forward by backbencher Nick de Bois proposing a custodial term for second offenders, but the Lib Dems argued it should be up to the discretion of judges.

In the end, the Conservatives and Labour clubbed together to get the amendment accepted by the House of Commons in June in the first time the two parties have collaborated on legislation while excluding the Lib Dems.

De Bois, who led the campaign for tougher sentences, condemned the Lib Dem position.

“To kill someone with a knife you first have to carry a knife - [the] Lib Dems are wrong to try a last-minute block of mandatory custodial sentence,” he said.

The amendment will be debated during the report stage of the crime and criminal justice bill in the House of Lords on Monday night.

However, Liberal Democrat sources said they did not expect the proposal to gain much traction with the other parties.

Source: The Guardian UK