Journalists' Sources

A journalist, Suzanne Breen, has been taken to court by the Police Service of Northern Ireland who want her to turn over all records of her interactions with Real IRA sources. The judge in the case has said he may order her to hand this material over, depending on how Breen's legal team respond.

Although there are specific reasons for thinking that Breen ought to have the right to keep her sources secret on this occasion - i.e. her own security - I'm interested in the general principle of journalists being allowed to keep their sources secret. What is this institution for? Is it a net benefit? I take it that the argument in favour runs that it is better for more information about terrorists to reach the public domain, and if journalists couldn't conceal their sources they would be severely restricted in how they cover these sorts of stories. Wheras the benefit of police access to journalists' information would be short term only - terrorists just wouldn't talk to journalists.

I'm inclined to think that the principle is a good one, and the only reason I can see for not actually having the principle encoded in law is that this could be exploited by people using it as a cover for involvement in terrorism and serious criminality.

Also, the fact that police are going through the courts may contradict a piece in the Guardian I blogged about a few weeks ago suggesting that journalists would soon be unable to keep sources secret because of the insecurity of digital communications.