MPs from all major parties have backed a move to create a ‘public interest defence’ for whistleblowers.
Former Labour defence minister Kevan Jones has proposed changes to National Security Bill and Official Secrets Act, which would set out a “public interest” defence for the first time in decades.
It’s designed to give juries a clear definition to help them decide on cases.
And Mr Jones says it would protect against ‘data dumpers’ who “hoodwink” juries into believing ‘information anarchy’ is in the public interest.
He told the Mirror: “This amendment has been carefully crafted to tighten the definition of public interest and prevent data dumpers who leak indiscriminately.
“With considerable cross-party backing, I hope the Security Minister will recognise that, under this amendment, those who try to abuse the law are less likely to succeed.”
The amendment has been co-signed by Tory former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland, SNP Justice spokesperson Joanna Cherry and Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael.
Campaigners say current laws leaks made by whistleblowers on the same level as disclosures by spies to foreign governments.
But the proposed change would protect people like Clive Ponting, the British civil servant who leaked documents about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war in 1982.
He was acquitted of charges under the Official Secrets act in 1984, after telling the jury the disclosure was in the public interest.
But it led the government to change the law - removing the defence entirely and effectively allowing the government of the day to decide what counted as ‘the public interest.’
The wording of the amendment was based on ideas developed by lawyers from Mateix Chambers and Mishcon de Reya and co-ordinated by strategy firm Powerscourt.
Whistleblower advocacy group Protect has said a public interest defence would “enhance, rather than undermine, laws that protect Government information by removing the uncertainty of leaving decisions to a jury alone.”
They added: “We fear that without a public interest defence to the new National Security Bill and the 1989 Official Secrets Act, especially in light of the Bill’s proposed increased custodial sentences, whistleblowers will likely be deterred from raising concerns.
“This will leave potential serious wrongdoing, misconduct or illegality conducted by the executive sheltered and protected.
“This in turn raises serious questions over the transparency and accountability of the state – principles which our democracy relies upon.”
