Keywords: David Shayler, M15 (Jack Straw, Big Brother Award....) Full decision @: http://www.xs4all.nl/~mprofaca/shayler15052001.html ~Aimee ...... <snip> Summary of conclusions I conclude (1) Section 1 (1) and Section (4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 do not permit a defendant to raise a defence that his disclosure was necessary in the public interest to avert damage to life or limb or serious damage to property. (2) the legislation does permit disclosure which may be in the public interest either to those identified in section 12 (1) within the 1989 Act or disclosure to others with the authority of those identified in section 12 (1). (3) a refusal of authority may be challenged in a court exercising the jurisdiction of Judicial Review. (4) the imposition of criminal sanctions in support of the restrictions contained in Section 1 (1) and Section 4 (1), without the possibility of raising such a defence, are necessary in a democratic society. They are no wider than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting national security. They are not disproportionate. The reasons advanced by the Crown convincingly establish relevant and sufficient justification for the restriction. (5) in those circumstance the provisions of Section 1 (1) and Section 4 (3), are compatible with Article 10. For these reasons I rule that it is not open to the defendant to assert that such disclosure of documents or information without lawful authority as the Crown may prove was or may have been necessary in the public interest. Neither side contended that the defence provided under Section 1 (4) had any application in this case. If the Crown are correct in its interpretation of the statute, no question of lawful authority arises. If the defence is correct the defendant has no need to rely upon that defence. I shall accordingly direct the jury that if the Crown satisfies the jury so that it is sure: - 1. that the defendant has been a member of the security and intelligence services; 2. that he disclosed documents relating to security or intelligence which were in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of those services (Count 1) or information obtained by reason of warrants issued under Section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (Count 2) or information relating to security or intelligence which was in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of those services (Count 3) 3. that he made such disclosure without lawful authority, then the jury must convict. ......
