Risk and Responsibility: What It Means To Protect Journalistic Sources
As media lawyers at Reviewed & Cleared, we often work with documentary filmmakers and investigative journalists to protect confidential sources. Our pre-publication team advises journalists across broadcast, audio and print on investigations into public bodies such as the NHS and policing, corporate wrongdoing, abuse cases, national security and environmental stories. In many of these cases, people simply wouldn’t speak without some protection.
We have domestic laws rooted in freedom of expression that offer some protection for sources, but it isn’t absolute, and it’s important to understand the risks for the journalist and their source. Courts shouldn’t force you to reveal a source unless it’s necessary in the interests of justice, national security, or the prevention of crime or disorder. That creates a strong presumption in favour of protection, but it’s never guaranteed. Sensitive journalistic material can also, for example, be requested by the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act via a Production Order, and we regularly advise on challenging or narrowing those types of requests.
It’s important to be honest with sources about the legal protections they are afforded. Absolute anonymity is almost impossible to promise. What is more realistic is that you’ll take every journalistic step to protect them. Some journalists go further, saying they would be prepared to disobey a court order to do so. That’s a personal choice, but it reflects how seriously source protection is taken. The flip side is that disobeying a court order can result in a journalist being found in contempt of court, a criminal offence that may lead to fines or even a prison sentence.
For investigations being broadcast on Ofcom-regulated platforms, there is another layer. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code doesn’t override the law, but relying on anonymous sources can’t result in audiences being misled or those featured being portrayed unfairly.
It’s important to recognise that contributors sometimes risk their careers, reputations and personal safety to be the source of a story. However, when your source isn’t prepared to go on the record or to give evidence in a future libel case, their evidence may carry less weight, making allegations harder to defend if challenged.
This means that while anonymous material can help strengthen a story, it may not always stand on its own without further corroborating evidence. Balancing the need to tell important stories with the need to stand them up legally isn’t always straightforward, and source protection sits right at the heart of that. If you have questions about protecting sources in your investigation, our specialist team would be very happy to help. lawyers@reviewedandcleared.com
News & Views Category: Film & TV
