Journalist wins right to keep Brady story source secret

 Add your view

An investigative journalist has fought off a renewed bid to force him to reveal his source for an article published seven years ago about a mental hospital's alleged mistreatment of Moors murderer Ian Brady.

Mersey Care NHS Trust had urged the Court of Appeal to overturn a High Court ruling won by reporter Robin Ackroyd in February last year.

Read more... • Myra's last secret: See our exclusive serialisation Hindley's unpublished autobiography

The High Court had rejected argument by the trust - responsible for top security Ashworth Hospital where Brady has been held since 1985 - that the public interest in a journalist's right to protect his sources was overridden by patient confidentiality.

It was not disputed that the hospital had a legitimate aim in seeking to establish the identity of the employee who had leaked information about Brady's treatment, including forced feeding during a hunger strike.

The issue was whether there was a "pressing social need" for disclosure of the journalist's source in this case.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that to require disclosure for an article published more than six years ago, would not be proportionate.

He made his decision in the light of the passage of time and because of new evidence indicating that the source did not act for money, the extent of the material leaked by the source was more limited than previously understood and there had been no further leaks.

Brady, 69, was jailed for life with Myra Hindley in 1966 for the murders of five children

"I have heard the evidence of Mr Ackroyd and have concluded that he was a responsible journalist whose purpose was to act in the public interest."

Today, The Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Leveson said that the judge took into account the key considerations on either side of the argument and they did not think there was any basis on which they could properly interfere with the balance he struck.

In all the circumstances, he was entitled to hold that it was not convincingly established that there was in 2006 a pressing social need for disclosure and that such an order was not proportionate to the pursuit of the hospital's legitimate aim to seek redress against the source, given the vital public interest in the protection of a journalist's source.

The appeal was the latest in a series of court battles between the trust and the media over the Brady case which have incurred legal costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Some of the information disclosed to Mr Ackroyd came from Brady's medical records on a confidential database known as the Patient Administrative and Clinical Information Service (PACIS).

It formed the basis of a story published in the Daily Mirror in December 1999.

The Mirror fought unsuccessfully all the way to the House of Lords to avoid having to disclose its source - Mr Ackroyd - who then became the target of the action brought by the trust in its attempts to identify who leaked the information.

Brady, 69, who was jailed for life with Myra Hindley in 1966 for the murders of five children, has claimed that the hospital used "the legal pretext of doctor-patient confidentiality" to conceal conditions at Ashworth.

He began his hunger strike in September 1999 after he complained about being forcibly removed from his room at the hospital to a new ward because of security concerns sparked by a patient on his old ward.

After today's ruling, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) hailed it as a "landmark victory".

General Secretary Jeremy Dear said: "At last justice has prevailed and Robin Ackroyd - and all journalists - can rest assured that they will not be forced to reveal their sources.

"Robin has showed immense courage in defending this important principle during seven very tough years and thanks to his brave stand media freedom in this country is stronger today.

"It was evident from the start that this was a clear case of public interest. This principle must be safeguarded so that investigative journalists can do their vital job of exposing uncomfortable truths.

"Lessons need to be learnt from this case. The hundreds of thousands of pounds Mersey Care NHS Trust poured into pursuing Robin through the courts would have been far better spent on treating the people within their care.

"I hope that the Trust will finally draw a line under this long and painful episode. They must desist from yet another appeal and stop throwing good money after bad."

Mr Ackroyd said: "I said long ago that I didn't want a legal battle but would fight if Ashworth took me to court.

"This matter has wasted a huge amount of my time. Frankly, I've had better decades.

"However I have repeatedly made very clear my position about the protection of confidential journalistic sources. I have remained resilient throughout."

 

What's on today   What's on tomorrow

Receive our newsletter