I believe that the law should allow journalists to protect
their sources, but not absolutely. I certainly think this should be the case in
civil litigation, and perhaps minor criminal matters. I would also agree that there should be some guarantees to ensure
the integrity of the process, and particularly after the Gilligan
case.

(Gilligan claimed that, in his famous BBC broadcast, which some
thought would bring down the Blair government, his source had been Dr Kelly. He
revealed this only after Kelly’s suicide. Under cross examination he conceded
that although they had spoken Kelly was not the source for his particular
claim.)

I think there should be some independent editorial scrutiny
before a story, based on a protected source, is published or broadcast . I
understand some American newspapers have long required this. This is particularly so where publication would seriously damage
somone’s reputation. Where the law does not allow journalists to protect their
sources, obviously a journalist will have to decide whether to comply, or accept
whatever consequences follow. It’s a dilemma because the ethical rule is to give the
protection to sources that has been promised.

A journalist could give an undertaking to protect a source
subject to compliance with a court order.