Diogo Santos-Coelho, R (on the application of) v Carlisle Magistrates Court & Anor
[2024] EWHC 875 (Admin)
LXP, R (on the application of) v Central Criminal Court
10 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2824 (Admin)
High Court
Police got a warrant to search a journalist's computer. A judge said it was okay even if there were journalist secrets on it. A higher court said that wasn't right; a journalist's secrets are protected and a proper balance must be struck. They ordered a new review to make sure the journalist's secrets are protected before the police look at anything.
Key Facts
- •The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) obtained warrants to search the claimant's devices under the Official Secrets Act 1911.
- •The claimant, a journalist, argued the warrants infringed his journalistic privileges.
- •The Recorder of London allowed the MPS to examine the devices, subject to certain conditions.
- •The claimant sought judicial review of the Recorder's ruling.
- •The MPS conceded the claimant was a journalist but argued seized material, even if journalistic, could be examined if stolen or evidence of crime.
- •The central issue was whether the CJPA obviates the need for a balancing exercise of Article 10 ECHR rights when examining potentially journalistic material seized lawfully but potentially containing stolen material.
Legal Principles
Protection of journalistic material under PACE and CJPA.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJPA)
Balancing exercise of Article 10 ECHR rights against public interest in criminal investigations.
Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Whether 'stolen' material can still be considered 'journalistic material'.
Case law: R (Miranda) v Home Secretary; BBC v Sugar; R (El-Kurd) v Winchester Crown Court; Re Fine Point Films
Outcomes
The Recorder's ruling was quashed.
The Recorder erred in law by concluding that 'stolen' material cannot be 'journalistic material' and failed to properly balance Article 10 ECHR rights. The CJPA does not override the need for this balancing exercise.
New directions were issued.
To ensure a proper balancing of the claimant's journalistic privileges and the MPS's investigative needs. Independent counsel will examine the devices first, identifying relevant and journalistic material before the MPS.
Similar Cases
Mohammed Naseem Dost & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2799 (Admin)
Jenna Corderoy v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 698 (GRC)
Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Dechert LLP & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3273 (KB)
Andrew Hale-Byrne v Secretary of State for Business and Trade & Anor
[2024] EWHC 942 (KB)