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.