STF NA MÍDIA

Scotland Yard apparently
justifies its application for a
draconian search order on the
theory that the journalists
may have "incited" officers
to disclose confidential information
to them. But the
court of appeal in David
Shayler s case made clear it
would take an "extreme case"
for a journalist to be guilty of
incitement. There would need,
for example, to be the
offer of money, which is not
alleged here. There is nothing
to suggest that the information
the journalists obtained
was "damaging", a
requirement for prosecution.
The allegation of incitement
appears to be a device to obtain
journalistic sources of a
revelation that was overwhelmingly
in the public
interest. Indeed, it was in the
international public interest,
informing as it did the worldwide
interest in the parliamentary
select committee s
invigilation of the Murdochs.
Why, then, is this not a defence?
Back in 1989, when
the act was going through
parliament, the Labour and
Liberal opposition urged that
a public interest defence
should be incorporated, but
the Thatcher government,
hostile to the media after its
embarrassment over Spycatcher,
was implacably opposed.
Clearly, the time has
come for the coalition to make
good its claim to support
press freedom by making this
belated amendment to the
Official Secrets Act.
In the meantime, what can be
done immediately about Scotland
Yard s oppressive initiative?
The government cannot
avoid responsibility, as
the attorney general is required
under Section 9 of the act
to approve all prosecutions,
and it logically follows that
he should intervene at the
earliest stage to stop Scotland
Yard preparing a misguided
prosecution in a manner which
breaches the law. The
matter should be raised in
parliament, much as the Speaker
was condemned for allowing
the unconstitutional
Scotland Yard searches of
Damian Green s office in the
hope of finding documents
implicating his source.
If the attorney general is i-
nhibited from acting, and the
police refuse to take advice
from the DPP, then the matter
will proceed to court. The
journalists may be faced with
the unhappy dilemma of having
to consider whether to
destroy their notes were the
court to. If they have promised
their source(s) confidentiality,
no doubt they will do
so and go to jail for contempt
of court. That will be an ironic
tribute to the stupidity of
Scotland Yard – a police
service that fails to investigate
criminal hackers but puts
in jail the journalists who
exposed them.
Geoffrey Robertson QC is
co-author of Robertson and
Nicol on Media Law (5th
edition, Penguin)
Texas Execution Stayed Based on Race Testimony
JUSTIÇA NO EXTERIOR •
THE NEW YORK TIMES (US) • NATIONAL • 16/9/2011
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
HOUSTON — In May 1997,
a psychologist took the stand
in a courtroom here during
the sentencing hearing of
Duane E. Buck, a black man
found guilty of killing his
former girlfriend and her
friend.
The psychologist, Walter
Quijano, had been called by
the defense, and he testified
that he did not believe Mr.
Buck would be dangerous in
the future. But on crossexamination,
the prosecutor
asked Dr. Quijano more detailed
questions about the
factors used to determine
whether Mr. Buck might be a
danger later in life.
“You have determined that
the sex factor, that a male is
more violent than a female
because that’s just the way it
is, and that the race factor,
black, increases the future
dangerousness for various
complicated reasons,” the
S T F N A M Í D I A • 2 2 d e s e t e m b r o d e 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Á G I N A 9 5