Ordering a journalist to give evidence on a source was not justified, even though the source himself had come forward to the police (ECHR)
The case Becker v. Norway (application no. 21272/12)
concerned a journalist, Cecilie Becker, for a daily newspaper who was ordered
to give evidence in a criminal case brought against one of her sources, Mr X,
for market manipulation. Mr X had confirmed to the police that he had been Ms
Becker’s source for an article she had written in 2007 about the Norwegian Oil
Company’s allegedly difficult financial situation. The company’s stock
decreased after the article. Mr X was subsequently charged with using Ms Becker
to manipulate the financial market. Ms Becker refused to testify at any stage
of the proceedings against Mr X, and the courts therefore ordered her to
testify about her contacts with him, finding that there was no source to
protect as he had already come forward. They also considered that her evidence
might significantly assist the courts in elucidating the case. Mr X was however
convicted as charged before the final decision on her duty to give evidence had
been made.
The European Court of Human Rights in its decision of 5th
October 2017, held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 10
(freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court
found that its assessment turned, above all, on whether Ms Becker’s evidence
had been needed during the criminal investigation and subsequent court
proceedings against her source. It pointed out that her refusal to disclose her
source (or sources) had not at any point in time hindered either the
investigation or proceedings against Mr X. Indeed, the first-instance court
which convicted Mr X had been informed by the prosecutor that no motion for
extension (pending a final decision on the duty to give evidence) had been
made, because the case had been sufficiently disclosed even without Ms Becker’s
statement. It also bore in mind that Ms Becker’s journalistic methods had never
been called into question and she had not been accused of any illegal activity.
Furthermore, her right as a journalist to keep her sources confidential could
not automatically be removed because of a source’s conduct or because the
source’s identity had become known. The Court was not therefore convinced that
either the circumstances in the present case or the reasons provided had
justified compelling Ms Becker to testify. The Court held that Norway was to
reimburse Ms Becker the fine imposed on her for refusing to give evidence on
her source, in the event that it had already been paid. (hudoc.echr.coe.int)
Σχόλια