Threat to press freedom from anti-terror laws

LAST October, The Sun newspaper made an official complaint about the way the Metropolitan Police had been using anti-terror laws to snoop on its journalists’ phone records.

The Met had been using powers granted under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to view journalists’ phone records so as to identify police sources who had been leaking information to the newspaper.

Among the cases the police were investigating was the Plebgate saga centring on former Tory whip Andrew Mitchell’s altercation with the police in Downing Street.

The Sun naturally cried foul about police using their RIPA powers in such circumstances. “We must slay the grim RIPA,” read a comment piece in the newspaper, adding: “A free press is fundamental to all of our freedoms. And to have a free press reporters need to be able to protect the identity of their sources.”

Some readers of The Press may have little sympathy for The Sun. The national press, after all, hardly covered themselves in glory over the phone hacking affair.

But this is a completely different issue. It is about the police using powers initially granted to help them in the fight against terrorism for entirely different purposes – such as the identification of whistleblowers who are not breaking the law.

It is an issue that goes to the very heart of the freedom of the press, and of local newspapers’ ability to hold public organisations to account. Because if “inside sources” who provide newspapers like The Press with information about staff shortages in the NHS or hardships being experienced by elderly people as a result of social care cuts feel that their identity can no longer be protected, they will no longer be willing to come forward.

“Like most regional newspapers, The Press often relies upon whistleblowers to help us report truths that the authorities might find uncomfortable but which you have a right to know,” said Perry Austin-Clarke, the editor of The Press.

“We were able to report on staffing problems at York Hospital partly because of information provided to us in confidence by NHS workers. Likewise, our coverage of problems with social care in York depended upon information from concerned staff who spoke to us in confidence. And we would never have been able to cover the various twists and turns of the Lendal Bridge experiment without leaked information.

“If journalists’ telephone records can be routinely viewed by the police and other enforcement agencies, leading to the identification of sources, such whistleblowers will not come forward. The main casualty of that will be the truth – and your right to know.”

Mike Laycock, chief reporter at The Press, added: “It is crucial that confidential sources must be able to trust journalists if they are to provide vital information. If they believe that their confidentiality could be compromised they are less likely to come forward and the truth is less likely to be exposed.”

The Government has been consulting on a new code of conduct regulating the way the police should use their RIPA powers.

But the Society of Editors says the proposed code provides “wholly inadequate” protection for journalists’ sources.

In an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron signed by Mr Austin-Clarke and more than 100 other local and national newspaper editors, the Society calls for the code to provide much better protection.

And police should need to get the approval of a judge before accessing phone records –not simply the approval of a senior officer, as set out in the code.

“The guidance needs to make it clear that a public official communicating information to a journalist without official approval (ie a leak) cannot be sufficient justification for a RIPA telecoms request,” the letter says.

Police say accessing communications data is an important investigation technique used to prevent and detect crime, keep communities safe, and protect people.

“The use of the RIPA is strictly controlled and can only be authorised under certain circumstances, taking into account proportionality and human rights legislation,” a North Yorkshire Police spokesman said.

“Police forces are regularly inspected by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner to ensure compliance with those procedures.”

But today in The Press, local politicians from across the political spectrum rally round in support of the Society of Editors’ stance.

“The police need to have powers to investigate terrorism, but these powers should not be used in order to impede newspapers’ ability to report on problems in the health service or with social care funding, or their ability to investigate the conduct of politicians or other senior officials,” said York Central’s Labour MP, Sir Hugh Bayley.

“I support The Press on this, and have sent my own response to the Government’s consultation document, urging them not to take the use of RIPA too far.”

York Outer’s Conservative MP Julian Sturdy said: “We must always be vigilant about the encroachment of counter-terrorism powers given by the state for the protection of our liberties into wider society, whereby personal liberties are put in jeopardy.”

“The freedom of the press and the confidentiality of press sources must be defended for the benefit of all. A strong and independent press is an important pillar of free democracy and acts as a check and balance on government and other institutions.”

• Read the full text of the Society of Editors letter

Politicians call for safeguards so investigations are not compromised

LOCAL politicians gave their views on the issue:

Coun Dafydd Williams, the leader of City of York Council, said: “The first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and so any proposals that seek to do so should be welcomed. I, therefore, have no concerns about allowing greater use of phone tapping powers to help to counter terrorism and if other illegal behaviour is found whilst looking through phone records then the police cannot turn a blind eye to it. However, there must be sufficient safeguards put in place to ensure that the freedom of the press to engage in lawful investigative journalism is not inhibited by any measures that seek to protect us and so careful attention to detail will need to be paid to these proposals.”

Cllr Chris Steward, leader of the Conservative group on the council, said it was right that police should be able to fully investigate terrorist threats or serious crimes such as murder, including accessing journalists’ phone records if necessary, for example, if journalists had been talking to terrorists. But viewing journalists’ phone records should only be done with the approval of a judge, he said, not simply on the say so of a senior police officer. And it should not be done when investigating more minor crimes. “This must not become a general snoopers’ charter,” he added.

Cllr Keith Aspden, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the council, said: “We fully support the Society of Editors’ letter. It is crucial that journalistic freedom is protected and the powers, created to combat terrorism, should not be being used to curb the press. I agree that journalists’ phone records should only be accessed on the say so of a judge.”

Green councillor Dave Taylor said: “I would support the Society of Editors on this. These investigatory powers must be used very sparingly.”