shaler loses court case
various | 22.03.2002 13:46
Shayler challenge to secrets act fails
Law lords rule that right to free speech is not absolute
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday March 22, 2002
The Guardian
David Shayler, the renegade former MI5 officer, yesterday lost his fight to stop his criminal trial when the law lords unanimously dismissed his argument that the Official Secrets Act infringed his right to freedom of expression.
Mr Shayler argued that he disclosed information about MI5 to a newspaper in the public interest and that the secrets act was incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Five law lords rejected his arguments, effectively depriving him of a legal defence in his secrets trial due to start at the Old Bailey on October 7.
"Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute," said Lord Bingham. The European convention on human rights - enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act -also recognised it was not absolute, he said.
The Official Secrets Act imposes a blanket ban on former members of the security and intelligence services from saying anything about their work without prior authority.
There was much domestic legal authority "pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure", said Lord Bingham. He added it was open to a former member of MI5 to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the agency.
Lord Bingham said: "The crux of this case is whether the safeguards built into the Official Secrets Act are sufficient to ensure that unlawfulness and irregularity can be reported to those with the power and duty to take effective action, and the power to withhold authorisation to publish is not abused and that proper disclosures are not stifled."
Lord Bingham dismissed Mr Shayler's claims that his allegations of impropriety and inefficiency in MI5 would not have been addressed if he had simply complained about them to his superiors. Those procedures, Lord Bingham insisted, provided "sufficient and effective safeguards".
However, the law lords said former members of the security and intelligence services should be allowed to disclose information about their work if they were given authority to do so. This was interpreted yesterday by lawyers as giving implicit support to Dame Stella Rimington, who published her memoirs last month despite furious opposition from the Whitehall security establishment.
Information which revealed "matters which, however scandalous or embarrassing, would not damage any security or intelligence interest" should be allowed to be published, the law lords indicated.
If there was a dispute, former agents could ask for a juducial review and the final say would be up to the courts, the law lords said.
John Wadham, director of Liberty, the civil rights group and Mr Shayler's lawyer, said last night he was disappointed by the judgment.
"Maybe it is time for the Labour government to implement its policy in opposition to reform the secrets act and have a public interest defence," he said.
Shayler is charged with disclosing documents and information to the press in 1997, including MI5 holding files on Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson, and others once considered subversive, allegations that it ran a "honey trap" operation against a potential informer, had an outdated cold war culture, and condoned alcoholism among staff.
Special Reports
The David Shayler case
Freedom of information
Useful links
Shayler.com
Spies on the internet
MI5
Crown Prosecution Service
Campaign for Freedom of Information
http://www.guardian.co.uk/shayler/article/0,2763,671977,00.html
------------------------------------------------------
British News
March 22, 2002
Law lords reject Shayler's appeal
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
THE former MI5 officer David Shayler lost his appeal to the House of Lords yesterday to claim a right of public interest as a defence in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on three charges under the Official Secrets Act.
Five law lords, headed by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, unanimously rejected his appeal to defend himself on the basis that he had the right to bring to public notice allegations of misdemeanour at MI5.
Mr Shayler has been charged with unauthorised disclosures from 29 classified MI5 documents, some stamped “top secret”, in articles in The Mail on Sunday in 1997. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, ruled that while individuals had the fundamental right of free expression, Mr Shayler had signed the Official Secrets Act, “acknowledging the confidential nature of documents and other information relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations that might come into his possession as a result of his position”.
Lord Bingham had no doubt that the sections of the Act under which Mr Shayler was being prosecuted “restricted his prima facie right to free expression”. In his judgment, backed by the four other law lords, he said: “There is much domestic authority pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure.”
The judgment came after a ruling by Mr Justice Moses, the trial judge, who in a preparatory hearing last year, refused Mr Shayler’s application to use a public interest defence. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The case may now go to the European Court of Human Rights.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-243377,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------
Former MI5 man loses court battle
David Shayler has lost his battle in the highest court in the land for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
© Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/page.cfm?objectid=11722871&method=full
------------------------------------------------------
MI5 man loses court battle
(Filed: 21/03/2002)
FORMER MI5 agent David Shayler today lost his battle for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
The trial judge Mr Justice Moses and the Court of Appeal both ruled that he was unable to use a "public interest" defence in his trial, nor was he able to argue a defence of "necessity", in other words that he had been compelled to reveal secret information to expose wrongdoing.
Today five law lords agreed and said there was no incompatibility between the 1989 Official Secrets Act, under which Shayler faces prosecution, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing "freedom of expression".
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute".
The European Convention recognised that it was not absolute and could be restricted if a state could show that restriction was necessary in a democratic society.
The 1989 Act imposed a ban on disclosure of information or documents relating to security or intelligence by a former member of the service "without lawful authority".
There was much domestic legal authority "pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure" as the commodity in which it dealt was secret and confidential information. But it was open to a former member of the service to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the service.
Shayler's criminal trial is due to take place later this year. It concerns claims he made in the Mail on Sunday in 1997 that agents in the 1970s tapped the telephone of Peter Mandelson, later to serve as Northern Ireland Secretary, and kept a file on Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/21/umi5.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/03/21/ixport.html
-----------------------------------------------------
Renegade British spy loses court fight
LONDON, March 21 — Renegade ex-spy David Shayler lost on Thursday a legal battle in the British courts in which he claimed attempts to prosecute him for giving away government secrets breached his human rights.
Shayler, who worked for Britain's MI5 domestic intelligence service from 1991 to 1996, said he acted in the public interest in disclosing information he gained while working there and vowed to fight on.
The 36-year-old is accused of disclosing state secrets in a series of newspaper articles in 1997 about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the intelligence services.
Although the House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge, Shayler welcomed the decision by the country's highest court saying it allowed him to use a legal defence he had previously feared he would not be able to use.
''It's a victory. We now have a defence of necessity...that means basically that it was a lesser...crime to reveal greater crimes,'' he told Reuters in an interview.
''This means I can get disclosure of documents...which will prove not just the truth of what I'm saying but prove that I actually raised issues with MI5 and as a result of that was persecuted by the service,'' he added.
Shayler has accused British intelligence services of botching probes into IRA guerrilla attacks in London in the 1990s and failing to prevent a 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London.
He also accuses the government of ignoring an alleged 1996 plot by British agents to kill Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi -- which authorities deny.
Shayler said he would subpoena Prime Minister Tony Blair adding that Blair was legally obliged to see him to discuss what had gone wrong with the intelligence services.
Dismissing the appeal, senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said: ''The special position of those employed in the security and intelligence services, and the special nature of the work they carry out, impose duties and responsibilities on them.
''If the service is not secure those working against the interests of the state, whether terrorists, other criminals or foreign agents, will be alerted, and able to take evasive action.''
The High Court and the Appeal Court have already rejected Shayler's claims.
Shayler's trial is expected to begin in October. Shayler said he may still try to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters03-21-061547.asp?reg=EUROPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY 21/03/02 14:25:17
Shayler loses human rights challenge
Renegade MI5 agent David Shayler today lost his battle in the highest court in the land for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
The trial judge Mr Justice Moses and the Court of Appeal both ruled that he was unable to use a ``public interest`` defence in his trial, nor was he able to argue a defence of ``necessity``, in other words that he had been compelled to reveal secret information to expose wrongdoing.
Today five law lords agreed and said there was no incompatibility between the 1989 Official Secrets Act, under which Shayler faces prosecution, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing ``freedom of expression``.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ``Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute``.
The European Convention recognised that it was not absolute and could be restricted if a state could show that restriction was necessary in a democratic society.
The 1989 Act imposed a ban on disclosure of information or documents relating to security or intelligence by a former member of the service ``without lawful authority``.
There was much domestic legal authority ``pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure`` as the commodity in which it dealt was secret and confidential information.
But it was open to a former member of the service to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the service.
Lord Bingham said: ``The crux of this case is whether the safeguards built into the Official Secrets Act are sufficient to ensure that unlawfulness and irregularity can be reported to those with the power and duty to take effective action, and the power to withhold authorisation to publish is not abused and that proper disclosures are not stifled.``
In his opinion the existing procedures properly applied, including the right to seek judicial review, ``provide sufficient and effective safeguards``.
Lord Bingham said: ``If a person who has given a binding undertaking of confidentiality seeks to be relieved, even in part, from that undertaking he must seek authorisation and, if so advised, challenge any refusal of authorisation.
``If that refusal is upheld in the courts it must, however reluctantly, be accepted.``
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote unanimously agreed and dismissed Shayler`s challenge.
Shayler`s criminal trial is due to take place later this year.
It concerns claims he made in the Mail on Sunday in 1997 that agents in the 1970s tapped the telephone of Peter Mandelson, later to serve as Northern Ireland Secretary, and kept a file on Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary.
Related Stories
01/11/01 09:01:30 - Shayler renews 'public interest' defence fight
09/11/00 10:42:06 - Shayler pleads not guilty
http://www.utvinternet.com/news_disp/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=15724
------------------------------------------------------
House of Lords rules against Shayler in MI5 case
Last updated: 21-03-02, 15:19
Former spy Mr David Shayler today lost the last round of a legal battle in the British courts in which he claimed attempts to prosecute him for giving away government secrets breached his human rights.
The High Court and Appeal Court have already rejected his claims that he was acting out of patriotism and today the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, backed the view of the lower courts.
Dismissing the appeal, senior Law Lord Lord Bingham said: "The special position of those employed in the security and intelligence services, and the special nature of the work they carry out, impose duties and responsibilities on them. This meant that sensitive information obtained by members of the intelligence services should not be disclosed".
Mr Shayler, who worked for Britain's MI5 domestic intelligence service, may try to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
He had claimed that any disclosures he made were in the public interest and he could rely on freedom of expression rights contained in the Human Rights Act as a defence.
He has accused British intelligence agencies of botching investigations into IRA attacks in London in the 1990s and failing to prevent a 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London.
He also accuses the government of ignoring an alleged 1996 plot by British agents to kill Libyan leader Mr Muammar Gaddafi - an allegation the aauthorities deny.
Lord Bingham said a security service must be secure saying: "The commodity in which such a service deals is secret and confidential information. If the service is not secure those working against the interests of the state, whether terrorists, other criminals or foreign agents, will be alerted, and able to take evasive action".
AFP
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0321/breaking60.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
Law lords rule that right to free speech is not absolute
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday March 22, 2002
The Guardian
David Shayler, the renegade former MI5 officer, yesterday lost his fight to stop his criminal trial when the law lords unanimously dismissed his argument that the Official Secrets Act infringed his right to freedom of expression.
Mr Shayler argued that he disclosed information about MI5 to a newspaper in the public interest and that the secrets act was incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Five law lords rejected his arguments, effectively depriving him of a legal defence in his secrets trial due to start at the Old Bailey on October 7.
"Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute," said Lord Bingham. The European convention on human rights - enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act -also recognised it was not absolute, he said.
The Official Secrets Act imposes a blanket ban on former members of the security and intelligence services from saying anything about their work without prior authority.
There was much domestic legal authority "pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure", said Lord Bingham. He added it was open to a former member of MI5 to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the agency.
Lord Bingham said: "The crux of this case is whether the safeguards built into the Official Secrets Act are sufficient to ensure that unlawfulness and irregularity can be reported to those with the power and duty to take effective action, and the power to withhold authorisation to publish is not abused and that proper disclosures are not stifled."
Lord Bingham dismissed Mr Shayler's claims that his allegations of impropriety and inefficiency in MI5 would not have been addressed if he had simply complained about them to his superiors. Those procedures, Lord Bingham insisted, provided "sufficient and effective safeguards".
However, the law lords said former members of the security and intelligence services should be allowed to disclose information about their work if they were given authority to do so. This was interpreted yesterday by lawyers as giving implicit support to Dame Stella Rimington, who published her memoirs last month despite furious opposition from the Whitehall security establishment.
Information which revealed "matters which, however scandalous or embarrassing, would not damage any security or intelligence interest" should be allowed to be published, the law lords indicated.
If there was a dispute, former agents could ask for a juducial review and the final say would be up to the courts, the law lords said.
John Wadham, director of Liberty, the civil rights group and Mr Shayler's lawyer, said last night he was disappointed by the judgment.
"Maybe it is time for the Labour government to implement its policy in opposition to reform the secrets act and have a public interest defence," he said.
Shayler is charged with disclosing documents and information to the press in 1997, including MI5 holding files on Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson, and others once considered subversive, allegations that it ran a "honey trap" operation against a potential informer, had an outdated cold war culture, and condoned alcoholism among staff.
Special Reports
The David Shayler case
Freedom of information
Useful links
Shayler.com
Spies on the internet
MI5
Crown Prosecution Service
Campaign for Freedom of Information
http://www.guardian.co.uk/shayler/article/0,2763,671977,00.html
------------------------------------------------------
British News
March 22, 2002
Law lords reject Shayler's appeal
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
THE former MI5 officer David Shayler lost his appeal to the House of Lords yesterday to claim a right of public interest as a defence in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on three charges under the Official Secrets Act.
Five law lords, headed by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, unanimously rejected his appeal to defend himself on the basis that he had the right to bring to public notice allegations of misdemeanour at MI5.
Mr Shayler has been charged with unauthorised disclosures from 29 classified MI5 documents, some stamped “top secret”, in articles in The Mail on Sunday in 1997. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, ruled that while individuals had the fundamental right of free expression, Mr Shayler had signed the Official Secrets Act, “acknowledging the confidential nature of documents and other information relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations that might come into his possession as a result of his position”.
Lord Bingham had no doubt that the sections of the Act under which Mr Shayler was being prosecuted “restricted his prima facie right to free expression”. In his judgment, backed by the four other law lords, he said: “There is much domestic authority pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure.”
The judgment came after a ruling by Mr Justice Moses, the trial judge, who in a preparatory hearing last year, refused Mr Shayler’s application to use a public interest defence. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The case may now go to the European Court of Human Rights.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-243377,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------
Former MI5 man loses court battle
David Shayler has lost his battle in the highest court in the land for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
© Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/page.cfm?objectid=11722871&method=full
------------------------------------------------------
MI5 man loses court battle
(Filed: 21/03/2002)
FORMER MI5 agent David Shayler today lost his battle for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
The trial judge Mr Justice Moses and the Court of Appeal both ruled that he was unable to use a "public interest" defence in his trial, nor was he able to argue a defence of "necessity", in other words that he had been compelled to reveal secret information to expose wrongdoing.
Today five law lords agreed and said there was no incompatibility between the 1989 Official Secrets Act, under which Shayler faces prosecution, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing "freedom of expression".
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute".
The European Convention recognised that it was not absolute and could be restricted if a state could show that restriction was necessary in a democratic society.
The 1989 Act imposed a ban on disclosure of information or documents relating to security or intelligence by a former member of the service "without lawful authority".
There was much domestic legal authority "pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure" as the commodity in which it dealt was secret and confidential information. But it was open to a former member of the service to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the service.
Shayler's criminal trial is due to take place later this year. It concerns claims he made in the Mail on Sunday in 1997 that agents in the 1970s tapped the telephone of Peter Mandelson, later to serve as Northern Ireland Secretary, and kept a file on Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/21/umi5.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/03/21/ixport.html
-----------------------------------------------------
Renegade British spy loses court fight
LONDON, March 21 — Renegade ex-spy David Shayler lost on Thursday a legal battle in the British courts in which he claimed attempts to prosecute him for giving away government secrets breached his human rights.
Shayler, who worked for Britain's MI5 domestic intelligence service from 1991 to 1996, said he acted in the public interest in disclosing information he gained while working there and vowed to fight on.
The 36-year-old is accused of disclosing state secrets in a series of newspaper articles in 1997 about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the intelligence services.
Although the House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge, Shayler welcomed the decision by the country's highest court saying it allowed him to use a legal defence he had previously feared he would not be able to use.
''It's a victory. We now have a defence of necessity...that means basically that it was a lesser...crime to reveal greater crimes,'' he told Reuters in an interview.
''This means I can get disclosure of documents...which will prove not just the truth of what I'm saying but prove that I actually raised issues with MI5 and as a result of that was persecuted by the service,'' he added.
Shayler has accused British intelligence services of botching probes into IRA guerrilla attacks in London in the 1990s and failing to prevent a 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London.
He also accuses the government of ignoring an alleged 1996 plot by British agents to kill Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi -- which authorities deny.
Shayler said he would subpoena Prime Minister Tony Blair adding that Blair was legally obliged to see him to discuss what had gone wrong with the intelligence services.
Dismissing the appeal, senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said: ''The special position of those employed in the security and intelligence services, and the special nature of the work they carry out, impose duties and responsibilities on them.
''If the service is not secure those working against the interests of the state, whether terrorists, other criminals or foreign agents, will be alerted, and able to take evasive action.''
The High Court and the Appeal Court have already rejected Shayler's claims.
Shayler's trial is expected to begin in October. Shayler said he may still try to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters03-21-061547.asp?reg=EUROPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY 21/03/02 14:25:17
Shayler loses human rights challenge
Renegade MI5 agent David Shayler today lost his battle in the highest court in the land for the right to use certain defences in his forthcoming Old Bailey trial on secrets charges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House of Lords unanimously rejected his human rights challenge.
Mr Shayler, who was born in Middlesbrough and now lives in London, is accused of disclosing state secrets in 1997 in a series of newspaper articles about alleged illegal activities and incompetence in the security services.
The trial judge Mr Justice Moses and the Court of Appeal both ruled that he was unable to use a ``public interest`` defence in his trial, nor was he able to argue a defence of ``necessity``, in other words that he had been compelled to reveal secret information to expose wrongdoing.
Today five law lords agreed and said there was no incompatibility between the 1989 Official Secrets Act, under which Shayler faces prosecution, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing ``freedom of expression``.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ``Despite the high importance attached to it, the right to free expression was never regarded in domestic law as absolute``.
The European Convention recognised that it was not absolute and could be restricted if a state could show that restriction was necessary in a democratic society.
The 1989 Act imposed a ban on disclosure of information or documents relating to security or intelligence by a former member of the service ``without lawful authority``.
There was much domestic legal authority ``pointing to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure`` as the commodity in which it dealt was secret and confidential information.
But it was open to a former member of the service to seek authorisation to make disclosures to a wider audience from his former superior or the head of the service.
Lord Bingham said: ``The crux of this case is whether the safeguards built into the Official Secrets Act are sufficient to ensure that unlawfulness and irregularity can be reported to those with the power and duty to take effective action, and the power to withhold authorisation to publish is not abused and that proper disclosures are not stifled.``
In his opinion the existing procedures properly applied, including the right to seek judicial review, ``provide sufficient and effective safeguards``.
Lord Bingham said: ``If a person who has given a binding undertaking of confidentiality seeks to be relieved, even in part, from that undertaking he must seek authorisation and, if so advised, challenge any refusal of authorisation.
``If that refusal is upheld in the courts it must, however reluctantly, be accepted.``
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote unanimously agreed and dismissed Shayler`s challenge.
Shayler`s criminal trial is due to take place later this year.
It concerns claims he made in the Mail on Sunday in 1997 that agents in the 1970s tapped the telephone of Peter Mandelson, later to serve as Northern Ireland Secretary, and kept a file on Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary.
Related Stories
01/11/01 09:01:30 - Shayler renews 'public interest' defence fight
09/11/00 10:42:06 - Shayler pleads not guilty
http://www.utvinternet.com/news_disp/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=15724
------------------------------------------------------
House of Lords rules against Shayler in MI5 case
Last updated: 21-03-02, 15:19
Former spy Mr David Shayler today lost the last round of a legal battle in the British courts in which he claimed attempts to prosecute him for giving away government secrets breached his human rights.
The High Court and Appeal Court have already rejected his claims that he was acting out of patriotism and today the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, backed the view of the lower courts.
Dismissing the appeal, senior Law Lord Lord Bingham said: "The special position of those employed in the security and intelligence services, and the special nature of the work they carry out, impose duties and responsibilities on them. This meant that sensitive information obtained by members of the intelligence services should not be disclosed".
Mr Shayler, who worked for Britain's MI5 domestic intelligence service, may try to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
He had claimed that any disclosures he made were in the public interest and he could rely on freedom of expression rights contained in the Human Rights Act as a defence.
He has accused British intelligence agencies of botching investigations into IRA attacks in London in the 1990s and failing to prevent a 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London.
He also accuses the government of ignoring an alleged 1996 plot by British agents to kill Libyan leader Mr Muammar Gaddafi - an allegation the aauthorities deny.
Lord Bingham said a security service must be secure saying: "The commodity in which such a service deals is secret and confidential information. If the service is not secure those working against the interests of the state, whether terrorists, other criminals or foreign agents, will be alerted, and able to take evasive action".
AFP
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0321/breaking60.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
various
Comments
Display the following 2 comments