|
Beresovsky v Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Co. & another
In ongoing libel proceedings arising out of words spoken by a man whose identity was obscured (alleged to be D2) in a broadcast made by D1 (a television station based in Russia) C sought disclosure of documents from D1 for purposes, including the identification of the speaker, expecting this to confirm him as D2. An order to this effect was made at a hearing at which D1 was not represented, but at which an objection to identifying the speaker was raised in a witness statement, on the grounds of the journalistic confidentiality maintained, inter alia, by s.10 Contempt of Court Act 1981.
D1 applied to set aside the Order relying on the principles most recently before the ECHR in Financial Times v UK 16.12.09 (the Interbrew case). On 13 January 2010, for reasons which are to be delivered later, Eady J varied the scope of his Order so that it covered only documents tending to show whether the speaker knew he was being interviewed (which was also an issue in the case) and provided that any document relevant to that issue could be redacted or pixellated to protect the speaker's identity.
William McCormick, instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte represented the Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Co.
|