29 May 12 | Index Index, minipost
Guardian journalist Amelia Hill will not be charged over a police leak relating to phone hacking that took place in the early stages of the inquiry. The Crown Prosecution Service made the decision not to prosecute Hill, who was one of the journalists who revealed Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, or the police officer who was alleged to have passed her early information about the inquiry. A spokesperson for the director of public prosecutions said that there was no evidence the police officer had been paid for the information, and the information disclosed was not highly sensitive.
09 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
As he took soundings from lawyers earlier this week, Lord Justice Leveson served notice that he would run his inquiry into the hackgate scandal and media ethics very much on his own terms. With the odd put-down to barristers for sloppy briefs, Leveson set out the running order of his investigation and priorities. He will be nobody’s patsy.
The key players have already been dubbed in the corridors of the court either the “perps” (the alleged perpetrators) or the “victims”. Most of the narrative so far in the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee proceedings and in the broader public domain has clearly been able to delineate between the two.
Yet, as events over the past few days show, the deeper the tentacles of the law intervene, the more confused some are becoming about rights and wrongs. The Metropolitan police’s questioning under caution of Guardian reporter Amelia Hill is the most serious known case so far of an embattled force struggling to understand the terrain. They probably did it in their state of confusion, without thinking through the ramifications. Instances such as this should not be repeated.
It is perfectly within the rights of any company or organisation to discipline an employee if they leak information without authorisation – although it is equally for courts or tribunals to determine whether that action was in the public interest.
There is absolutely no authority, however, to impinge upon a journalist’s legitimate work — the garnering of sources and subsequent protection of them. Hill is not accused of paying anyone for information or doing anything underhand or immoral. She has no case to answer and should never have been questioned. It is good that not only did the NUJ spring to her defence — as would be expected of it — but also the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. While not mentioning the case directly, he told MPs: “We must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society”.
One of the challenges for Leveson is to ensure that whatever measures are proposed to tighten procedures in the wake of the phone hacking scandal do not impinge on much-needed investigative journalism. A strong media is a bedrock to a healthy democracy and, as I never tire of saying: Look back over the past decades and ask yourself, have journalists found out too much about the activities of those with power or too little?
With that in mind, Leveson will need to help the forces of law and order to separate out the Amelia Hills from the spivs and crooks in league with bent coppers.
