Journalist wins battle over Moors murderer medical records
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A journalist today fought off an attempt to force him to reveal his sources for an article published more than five years ago about a mental hospital's treatment of Moors murderer Ian Brady.
A High Court judge in London rejected the argument by the top security Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside that the public interest in a journalist's right to protect his sources was overridden in this case by the need to protect the confidentiality of medical records.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Considering the facts now, in my judgment it has not been convincingly established that there is today a pressing social need that the sources should be identified."
He said that to require freelance writer Robin Ackroyd to disclose his sources "would not be proportionate to the pursuit of the hospital's legitimate aim to seek redress against the source, given the vital public interest in the protection of a journalist's source".
The judge stressed that nothing he had said should be taken "as providing any encouragement to those who would disclose medical records".
He said he made his decision in the light of the passage of time and because of new evidence indicating that the source did not act for money, the extent of the material leaked by the source was more limited than previously understood and there had been no further leaks.
"In addition, the stance of Ian Brady has changed, and I have not found that the disclosure was made without his consent," said the judge.
"I have heard the evidence of Mr Ackroyd and have concluded that he was a responsible journalist whose purpose was to act in the public interest."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments