Goodwin v. the United Kingdom | 1996

Greater protection for the media after journalist fined for refusing to reveal the identity of his source

Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, March 1996

Background

William Goodwin was a journalist. He was provided with leaked information about a software company’s finances. William concluded that the company was misleading its shareholders and the public by hiding this information and publishing unjustifiably positive financial reports.

The company wanted to sue the person who had leaked the information. However, William refused to reveal the identity of his source. The company successfully sued him to force him to reveal the name. Yet William refused to obey the court order, on the grounds that a journalist should be able to protect his sources. He was fined £5,000 for contempt of court.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court said that the protection of media sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom. A journalist should only be made to reveal his source when there is an overriding public interest.

There had been no overriding public interest in this case, the court ruled. The order requiring William to reveal his source had violated his right to receive and give out information.

Follow-up

The European court’s strong protection of journalists’ sources has been considered by the UK courts in similar cases, to avoid the same problem happening again.

William never revealed the identity of his source.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Excessive police operation against journalists leads to reforms to protect media sources

Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The European court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.

Themes: Right to privacy Freedom of speech

Belgium

Nurse compensated after being fired for whistleblowing

Brigitte Heinisch was a geriatric nurse. She claimed that practices in the old people’s home where she worked were putting patients at risk. After she made her allegations public, she was fired. Yet, the German courts found that her dismissal was lawful - so Mrs Heinisch took her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Germany

Justice for man made to pay huge fine for publishing criticism of a public official

Zoran Lepojić wrote an article saying that a mayor had wasted public money. The mayor successfully brought defamation charges, and Zoran was fined more than eight average monthly salaries. The European court ruled that this had been unreasonable, violating Zoran's right to free speech. The Supreme Court of Serbia took steps to protect freedom of expression in such circumstances.