The case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 27 March 1996.

Why is the case important?

The case is important for two main reasons. First, the Court specified the first equality requirement flowing from the expression in Article 10, paragraph 2 of the European Court of Human Rights, saying that states' restrictions or penalties have to be prescribed by law.

Second, in controlling whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Grand Chamber underlined democratic relevance of the freedom of press, which also extends to the protection of journalistic sources.

Principle facts. The applicant, Mr. William Goodwin, was a journalist, British national, who was employed by the Morgan Grand Pian PLC to work as a trainee journalist with a company known as The Engineer.

In November 1989, the applicant received a phone call from a source giving him information concerning to the financial problems of a private company known as Tedra LTD, the information given to the applicant originating from the company's confidential corporate plan.

Granting the application of the company concerned, the High Court of Justice issued an injunction restraining to the publishers of The Engineer from publishing any information deprived from the corporate plan.

Furthermore, the applicant was asked to disclose his source, since the disclosure was, according to the domestic law, necessary in the interest of justice.

After failing to comply with this order, he was fined by the High Court for contempt of court. The applicant alleged that a disclosive order requiring him to reveal the identity of his journalistic source and the fine imposed upon him for having refused to do so constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

The Grand Chamber held by 11 votes to 7 that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

The Court's finding

On the question whether the interference was prescribed by law, the relevant section of the UK Contempt of the Court Act provided that no court may require a person to disclose a journalistic source unless that the disclosure is necessary in the interest of the justice.

The Grand Chamber found in that provision did satisfy the foreseeably requirement flowing from the expression prescribed by law.

In that regard, the Court reiterated on the one hand that the relevant national law must be formulated with sufficient prescription to enable the person's concern to foresee to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances the consequences which give action may entail.

On the other hand, the Grand Chamber recognized that national courts enjoy a certain degree of flexibility in developing the law when assessing what measures are necessary in the interest of justice.

By contrast, the Court applied a level of the most careful scrutiny on the question whether the interference was necessary in the democratic society and therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the private company concerned.

The Grand Chamber underlined that safeguards afforded to the press are of particular importance for the democratic nature of the society.

Protecting journalist sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of press.

In this regard, the Court warned against potential chilling effects, disclosure, orders of the kind that the impugned one can have.

If sources are not protected sufficiently, they may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest.

Protecting sources means protecting the so-called vital public watchdog scroll of the press, which depends on accurate and reliable information.

Consequently, the margin of appreciation of national authorities to assess whether there is a pressing social need for restriction impugned is circumscribed by the interests of democratic society in ensuring and maintaining a free press.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights illustrates the core importance of the protection of journalist sources.

Without reliable sources, journalists are unable to provide accurate and reliable information on matters of public interest and to foster accountability of transparency.