Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Journalist wins battle over Moors murderer medical records

Mike Taylor,Pa
Tuesday 07 February 2006 12:30 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.

The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.

Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.

A journalist today fought off an attempt to force him to reveal his sources for an article published more than five years ago about a mental hospital's treatment of Moors murderer Ian Brady.

A High Court judge in London rejected the argument by the top security Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside that the public interest in a journalist's right to protect his sources was overridden in this case by the need to protect the confidentiality of medical records.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Considering the facts now, in my judgment it has not been convincingly established that there is today a pressing social need that the sources should be identified."

He said that to require freelance writer Robin Ackroyd to disclose his sources "would not be proportionate to the pursuit of the hospital's legitimate aim to seek redress against the source, given the vital public interest in the protection of a journalist's source".

The judge stressed that nothing he had said should be taken "as providing any encouragement to those who would disclose medical records".

He said he made his decision in the light of the passage of time and because of new evidence indicating that the source did not act for money, the extent of the material leaked by the source was more limited than previously understood and there had been no further leaks.

"In addition, the stance of Ian Brady has changed, and I have not found that the disclosure was made without his consent," said the judge.

"I have heard the evidence of Mr Ackroyd and have concluded that he was a responsible journalist whose purpose was to act in the public interest."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in