Paisley Jr : I’d go to jail to save my source
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.The ruling issued today by the High Court represents a defeat for the former junior Stormont minister in a legal battle with the Billy Wright public inquiry.
The DUP Member of the Legislative Assembly was given 17 days to comply with the decision and disclose the identity of a prison officer he said contacted him about the destruction of up to 5,600 files.
But the politician was defiant following the ruling. He said today: “The name of the source will not be revealed by me. It will never be revealed by me.
“The choice is obvious, give the name or go to jail. The choice is jail.”
The politician wrote to Mr Wright’s father in June 2007 about people being employed by the Prison Service to dispose of files before data protection legislation took effect.
His letter stated that the information had been provided by a “senior prison officer”, who said the decision to destroy the files was “taken at the top”.
The chairman of inquiry into the 1997 Wright murder Lord MacLean took the view that the identity of this prison officer was “of great importance to the Inquiry” and that it was in the public interest for Mr Paisley Jr to disclose the identity.
The MLA vowed to stand by a promise of confidentiality given to the individual.
He called courtroom evidence in his support from DUP First Minister Peter Robinson.
Mr Robinson argued that public representatives must maintain assurances of confidentiality given to members of the public.
He said that otherwise the public would not come forward with information and the role of their representatives would be diminished.
In his High Court ruling, Mr Justice Gillen said that, conventionally, confidentiality has been confined to journalists, doctors or priests who owe a duty to their sources, patients or parishioners.
“There is much to be said in favour of the argument that for a democratic and elected representative of the people the public interest in the preservation of the duty of confidentiality is at least as great even though it is not enshrined in legislation,” he noted.
The judge said he had to determine whether the chairman of the inquiry had carried out a balancing exercise between the right of freedom of expression and the interests of justice.
Mr Justice Gillen considered that the issue of the destruction of files by the Prison Service, especially if it was on instructions “from the top”, would play a central part in the public inquiry.
He was satisfied that the chairman had weighed all relevant matters in the balance before determining that the identity of the prison officer who provided the information does “meet a pressing social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim which this inquiry is pursuing”.
Mr Justice Gillen concluded that requiring Mr Paisley Jr to provide the name or other identifying information about the prison officer is “measured and justified when set against the weight of the freedom of expression which must be accorded to public representatives”.
He said he that was satisfied that the inquiry had provided a clear and compelling case and ordered Mr Paisley Jr to provide this information to the inquiry within 17 days.
* This article is from the Belfast Telegraph
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments