HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL for ENGLAND and WALES v BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL for ENGLAND and WALES v BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Where there is a crystallised dispute about whether particular information would be identifying, the court must resolve it based on all evidence, applying the 'real risk' standard, and should not impose blanket prohibitions. The views of both national security experts and experienced journalists are relevant, but the court must make the final determination.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Scope of Injunction and General Principles
Outcome
Partial grant of injunction with general prohibition and specific resolution of disputed categories; further details in private judgment.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Covert Human Intelligence Sources, Contempt of Court
Media Law Human Rights Law National Security Law Reporting Restrictions Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Covert Human Intelligence Sources Contempt of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Scope of Injunction and General Principles

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What information would give rise to a real risk of identifying X if disclosed?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate standard for determining if information is identifying?
  3. 3 How should disputes about identifying information be resolved in the context of closed material procedures?

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is a crystallised dispute about whether particular information would be identifying, the court must resolve it based on all evidence, applying the 'real risk' standard, and should not impose blanket prohibitions. The views of both national security experts and experienced journalists are relevant, but the court must make the final determination.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of injunction with general prohibition and specific resolution of disputed categories; further details in private judgment.

Orders

  • General prohibition on publication of information directly or indirectly identifying X.
  • Specific categories of information to be treated as identifying resolved in private judgment.