Scottish Human Rights Law Group

A serving police officer who blogged anonymously about his work and his often critical opinions of the administration of justice was refused an injunction which would have protected his identification. He had no expectation of privacy in the information in question. Blogging was essentially a public activity. He might well be in breach of policing regulations. Besides that, the public had a legitimate interest in knowing the status and identity of a police officer who was making such criticisms.

Interestingly, he argued using both Arts 8 and Art 10. Eady J held Art 8 wasn’t engaged, and would have been unlikely to trump the public interest in his unmasking anyway. Although his Art 10 rights in relation to political speech were of considerable value, The Times, too, could be said to be making a contribution to a debate of general
interest and the public had a right to know.

This case was decided by the Queen’s Bench on 16 June 2009 and is available here.

Rosalind McInnes