UK Media Gagged In "Official Secrets" Trial

An anonymous reader writes "According to an an article at Cryptome, the UK media has been gagged from reporting on the trial of an ex-intelligence agent. More than this, they've even been gagged from reporting on the gag! Several UK websites that were covering the story have removed it. Insidious..."

Comments

Re:does this happen often?

[WeaponOfChoice]

I'm not a history major either but I'd imagine that this type of thing happens quite often (though less often than the conspiracy theorists would think).
The the power to completely restrict the availability of information must get mighty seductive and would be useful to cover up all sorts of inconvenient items.
Of course, in the current day and age, it is almost impossible to completely restrict this info, even if the only information available is that information has been concealed. People get mighty suspicious if a government seems to be too eager to cover up too many things in the intrests of a supposedly free society (and press I guess).

The thing I'd like to know is when do these gag orders expire. Even classified material becomes declassified after a time. It's not too unreasonable to believe that the information that has been obscured will be made available in time and the reasoning behind the obsfucation will also be available so the decision will be under some measure of public scrutiny eventually.
It'd be interesting to know the penalties involved in invoking this kind of power in the personal intrests of the people in power at the time (as opposed to the proper use... errr... for the good of all people I guess...)

eh?

[Trevelyan]

I live in the UK, and this is first time I heard of this =/
I was watching BBC 1 O'Clock news only a few hours ago as well.

Seriously though what do they hope to achive when poeple (like I have) can get news from web sites around the world?

One way around this

[redelm]

The easiest way way around this gag order is to send a series of American journalists in, one per day, and have them leave the UK and files their stories from the US onto the web/sat. They might need to stay out of the UK 'til the trial is over.

It's really silly to try to keep things half-secret. Either keep them fully secret in Star Chambers or fully open. You can't have it halfway, and trying is repugnant.

Re:Insidious?

[JonK]

OK: a bit of background.

The guy being tried is one David Shayler, who is being prosecuted for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. His defence is that he was whistle-blowing, which is an admissible defence in UK law (see R vs Ponting, where Clive Ponting was prosecuted for a breach of the OSA by the Crown for revealing to an MP (Tam Dalyell) that Ministers were mis-leading Parliament. He was found not guilty, basically because the jury refused to swallow the prosecution line that revealing Ministerial malfeasance was not a justification for breaching the OSA). Shayler revealed, extensively, just how much of a joke MI5 (the branch of the British goverment responsible for "internal security" - keeping tabs on subversives, terrorists, republicans (note the lower-case R), anti-apartheid campaigners and the like) was: among the individuals who MI5 kept files on were about half the members of the current Cabinet, while the organisation itself was a joke: hidebound, locked into a cold-war culture and mindset and staffed by demoralised alcoholics. See this article for a more forensic examination.

Unsuprisingly, MI5 wasn't at all happy about being held up for ridicule in this way and, while denying all the allegations, also pressed for Shayler to be prosecuted for breaching the OSA. Shayler, with the backing of various human rights organisations, has fought this, claiming, amongst other things, that the revelations were in the public interest and did not damage national security, and that the human rights act, which came into law in October 2000, protects whistle-blowers who act in the public interest. Various courts, up to and including the Law Lords, have decided that he has no absolute exemption and must stand trial, which is what is now happening.

So, did Shayler, by his actions, put Britain or British agents in danger. Well, no. Did he embarass the security services? Yes, absolutely. Does this mean he should be tried in camera. In my opinion, no: surely there is an absolute protection for the man who blows the whistle, and this includes (wherever possible) giving him his day in open court in front of the judge and jury, and in the public eye.