Breen Finds U.K. Government Response Ludicrous, Insulting

Suzanne Breen

Suzanne Breen, the U.K. reporter who refused to surrender notes on Real IRA and was supported by the OPC and the Belfast Court, responds to Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Shaun Woodward's letter to the OPC where he writes that a free press "must be balanced against the need to protect the safety and security of the public."

The OPC Press Freedom Committee wrote a letter in support of Breen being able to keep her notes on June 12.

RELATED LINKS
Shaun Woodward's reply to the OPC (July 14)
Belfast Court Rules Reporter Can Keep IRA Notes (June 18)
OPC Press Freedom Committee to Northern Ireland (June 12)

VIDEO
Breen responds to the ruling (June 18, BBC.co.uk)

Here is Breen's statement to the OPC:

I find Shaun Woodward’s summary of the judgement incomplete and self-justifying. Mr. Woodward said that that the judge recognised that betraying source confidentiality would place my life at risk and outweighed the public interest in releasing the material.

Yes, the judge did recognise my right to life under Article Two of the European Convention. But Mr. Woodward completely omits the other crucial part of the ruling. Judge Tom Burgess stated that the confidentiality of sources was protected in law. He ruled that “the concept of confidentiality for journalists protecting their sources is recognised in law and specifically under the 2000 Terrorism Act and Article 10 of the (European) Convention”.

This was a landmark decision. It is the first time since the 2000 Terrorism Act that protection of sources has been enshrined in a judgement. Yet Mr. Woodward declines to acknowledge this vital part of the ruling. Could it be that the British government doesn’t wish to face up to the legal precedent that Judge Burgess has set? Does the government hope that by ignoring this part of the ruling, it will go away?

Mr. Woodward’s assertion that the legal outcome showed that the “system works” is as ludicrous as it is insulting. Myself and my family were put through hell from the moment these proceedings were initiated. I was placed under the stress of potentially facing either death – if I complied with what police wanted – or a prison sentence of up to five years if I didn’t.

The system of which Mr. Woodward is so proud allowed the PSNI to present their case in total secrecy. It was Kafkaesque. The public, press, myself and my lawyers were cleared from the court so police could present their arguments in camera. We fought our corner from a massively disadvantaged position. We mounted a defence without even knowing what the police had said.

The whole episode shows the dangerously undemocratic nature of the system, nothing else. It was the courage of one judge, Tom Burgess, which resulted in this wonderful, progressive verdict. Also, the importance cannot be over-emphasised of the strong national and international campaign mounted by my newspaper, the National Union of Journalists, civil liberties organisations and groups like the Overseas Press Club of America.

I am still waiting for the British government to explain the inconsistent approach taken to pursuing journalists who speak to paramilitaries. A week after the UDA murdered six Catholics, and threatened to kill many more, I interviewed the group. The authorities never even contacted me, let alone initiated legal proceedings.

That would unfortunately indicate to me that the murders of Sappers Quinsey and Azimkar were of higher priority than that of six Catholics. There should be no hierarchy of life. Murder is murder. But the authorities a la carte attitude to pursuing journalists insinuates that such decisions are politically, not security driven.