{"id":67520,"date":"2019-03-16T10:15:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-16T10:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=67520"},"modified":"2019-04-17T17:09:40","modified_gmt":"2019-04-17T17:09:40","slug":"mirror-publisher-loses-appeal-to-protect-confidential-sources-in-phone-hacking-litigation-press-ga","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/mirror-publisher-loses-appeal-to-protect-confidential-sources-in-phone-hacking-litigation-press-ga\/","title":{"rendered":"Mirror publisher loses appeal to protect confidential sources in phone-hacking litigation – Press Ga…"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

The publisher of the Mirror titles and the Sunday People has failed in a Court of Appeal bid to ensure confidential sources are protected in the disclosure of call records as part of phone-hacking litigation.<\/p>\n

Mirror Group Newspapers applied to the High Court in March last year to amend the \u201cearly disclosure\u201d regime, which means it must provide phone-hacking claimants with call data in relation to them and four nominated friends or family members, known as associates.<\/p>\n

Mr Justice Mann dismissed the case, saying the regime was \u201cvery important to the just and proportionate disposal of cases\u201d and that the call data was \u201cof great significance in the litigation\u201d.<\/p>\n

MGN, which took the case to the Court of Appeal last month, wants claimants to seek proof of consent from their associates before it hands over call data to reduce the risk of identifying confidential sources.<\/p>\n

Alex Wilson, a solicitor for MGN, told the High Court last year that an issue had arisen in the case of one phone-hacking claimant.<\/p>\n

Wilson said call data relating to an associate of the claimant would clearly reveal that person as a confidential source as it \u201cdemonstrates the extensive contact and communication\u201d between them and Mirror journalists.<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cFor obvious reasons we cannot provide further details so as to avoid the risk of revealing the identity of that source.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also said that MGN was \u201cunable to justify resisting disclosure\u201d in an individual case as it would run the risk of identifying the source through the small pool of associates chosen by that claimant.<\/p>\n

James Heath, lead solicitor for the claimants, told the court that MGN\u2019s proposed variation of the order, requiring consent from associates, would be \u201cunworkable and onerous\u201d.<\/p>\n

Lord Justice McCombe, Sir Ernest Ryder and Lord Justice Floyd unanimously dismissed MGN\u2019s appeal last week.<\/a><\/p>\n

They found that Mr Justice Mann had not failed in conducting the balancing test required under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.<\/p>\n

The act says: \u201cNo court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judges said the case was presented to Mr Justice Mann last year in such a way that \u201cthe risk of identifying the source was an unavoidable by-product of the requirement that the call data should be disclosed.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn those circumstances, the judge was entitled to weigh the public interest in the ability of the multiple claimants to assess and prosecute their claims with the benefit of the call data against the public interest in protection of the identity of the source.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judges added that it is important to note the\u00a0early disclosure regime had already led to hundreds of cases being settled by giving claimants \u201cwhat they need in order to assess the strength of their respective cases at an early stage\u201d.<\/p>\n

There are around 100 cases still in the pipeline, and only one in which disclosure causes a potential source protection issue, they pointed out.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a>
\n