Journalist wins important legal victory over Birmingham bombing material

A journalist who investigated the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings will not have to hand over his notes to police after they lost a legal bid to force him to reveal his sources.

Chris Mullin, 74, challenged an application by West Midlands Police to require him to disclose source material dating back to his investigation in 1985 and 1986.

Speaking after an Old Bailey judge ruled he would not have to hand over the material, Mullin said he was “grateful” for the judge’s decision, adding that the right of a journalist to protect sources is “fundamental to a free press in a democracy”.

Chris Mullin court case
Chris Mullin speaks to the media outside the Old Bailey in London (Jonathan Brady/PA)

A victory for journalism

In his book, Error Of Judgement, and a series of documentaries, Mullin helped expose one of the worst miscarriages of justice, leading to the release of the Birmingham Six after their convictions were quashed in 1991.

Twenty-one people were killed in the bomb attack on two pubs in Birmingham on November 21 1974.

Read on...

West Midlands Police used the Terrorism Act to bring the production order application.

Handing down his ruling on Tuesday morning, the judge Mark Lucraft said: “I decline to grant the production order sought.”

He said there were three issues that the court had to determine.

The first was whether Mr Mullin had the material in his possession and if so what such material does he have.

The judge wrote:

On this issue, I find that CM (Chris Mullin) does have material in his possession, custody or power that comes within the wording of the production order as refined in the course of the hearing.

The second issue was whether there were “reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or together with other material, to a terrorist investigation”.

The judge wrote: “On this issue, I find that the condition is made out.”

He said the third issue was whether there are

reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest that the material should be produced, or that access to it should be given having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to a terrorist investigation if it is obtained and to the circumstances under which CM has the material in his possession, custody or power.

The judge continued:

In effect, is there a clear and compelling case that there is an overriding public interest that might displace CM’s strong Article 10 right to protect his confidential journalistic source along with the Court considering its discretion?

On this issue I do not find an overriding public interest to displace the journalistic source protection right. I decline to grant the production order sought.

Chris Mullin
Chris Mullin said he was grateful the judge had ruled in his favour (Jonathan Brady/PA)

“This is a landmark freedom of expression decision”

Speaking after the ruling was handed down, Mullin said:

The right of a journalist to protect his or her sources is fundamental to a free press in a democracy. My actions in this case were overwhelmingly in the public interest.

They led to the release of six innocent men after 17 years in prison, the winding up of the notorious West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad and the quashing of a further 30 or so wrongful convictions.

This case also resulted in the setting up a Royal Commission which, among other reforms, led to the setting up of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the quashing of another 500 or more wrongful convictions.

My investigation is also the main reason why the identity of three of the four bombers is known

Mullin’s solicitor said the judgment was a “landmark” for freedom of expression.

Louis Charalambous, of Simons Muirhead Burton, said:

This is a landmark freedom of expression decision which properly recognises the public interest in Chris Mullin’s journalism which led to the release of the Birmingham Six.

If a confidential source cannot rely on a journalist’s promise of lifelong protection then these investigations will never see the light of day.”

 

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Police using modern anti-terrorism laws to uncover sources for a ground-breaking expose of state injustice – one settled more than three decades ago! – suggests a deeply profound level of psychosis within law enforcement.
      Writing from New Zealand, we have a great many officers who have migrated from the United Kingdom. One can only wonder how many of them were involved – and are involved? – in this … what? Mind boggling? Staggering? Sinister? Gob smacking abuse of judicial process?
      Words fail me.
      Absolute awe for the journalist and his legal team for standing up to this utter madness.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.