View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Comment
October 14, 2014

Police must now explain why they went against Parliament’s wishes in using RIPA to target journalists

By Cleland Thom

The Home Office's announcement that it will introduce measures to stop the police using RIPA to access journalists' phone records appears to be a rare victory for press freedom.

But its intervention does not answer the question: who, if anyone, gave the police the authority use RIPA in this way? 

In a democracy, the police have a duty to enforce laws in the way that Parliament intended.

Parliament originally introduced RIPA to target terrorists. The police would have known that: they only had to read the government's explanatory notes In fact RIPA originally did not even grant additional powers to the police … only to the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ.

The police cannot possibly argue that Parliament had journalists in mind when it voted RIPA onto the statute book in 2000. 

David Blunkett  agrees. He was the Home Secretary responsible for producing the regulations that governed the way RIPA was used.

And writing in this week's Mail on Sunday, he said: "The legislation was introduced in order to confine the number of organisations and agencies whould could engage in surveillance of interception of material.

Content from our partners
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it

"No-one 13 years ago imagined for a moment that legislation secured through Parliamentary debate would be used to fetter the right of a free press in a democratic nation to do a responsible job."

The police now need to explain who advised them that RIPA gave them the power to usurp the existing legal protection of journalists' sources.

We also need to discover how they targeted journalists without scrutiny or accountability for so many years.

Cleland Thom runs media law refresher courses

 

Topics in this article :

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network