McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

A coroner has demanded that Martin Brunt divulge his source




A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had “trolled” the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists’ rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.






http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4357525.ece

I can imagine a huge pair of chunky calfs will be shaking in their EEE-width boots somewhere north of Hadrian's Wall round about now.

That's great! Did you hear this on the news sallypelt?

Now we have to see this happen.

At the time of writing access to the article is only available through subscription to The Times online which happens to be another of Murdoch's titles, lj.

If Brunt divulges his source it raises the possibility of their being called to give evidence, in which case they may be asked to divulge who complied the dossier.  

However, until I can read the full report in print later this morning, my breath remains unbated.

Eta: Is there a particular reason why this has been posted in 'Ben Needham' when it should more properly be included in the Brenda Leyland topic? Can admin please move it to its more rightful place?

I've typed up the article - apologies for any typos.

Reveal source of story on McCann internet abuser, reporter ordered.
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent

A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had "trolled" the parents of Madeleine McCann

The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists' rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

Martin Brunt, Sky's crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October. Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt's expose of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousand of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the "worst of humankind".

Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has  said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since. Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.

Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago. Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: "I don't think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It's a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers. As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists."

Bob Satwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was "always worrying" when a journalist was asked to reveal their source because they should "obviously" remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities to know journalistic sources, which had previously been "sacrosanct". He added: "Its (sic) almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that's a highly dangerous position."

The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge's agreement before they can snoop on journalists.

Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.

Hang on... wasn't the dossier handed into the Police as well?

It will be the same person surely? Why doesn't the Coroner ask them too?

Is in the paper Times today, buried near the back.
Leicestershire police - we can trust them, right?

aquila wrote:I've typed up the article - apologies for any typos.

Reveal source of story on McCann internet abuser, reporter ordered.
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent

A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had "trolled" the parents of Madeleine McCann

The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists' rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

Martin Brunt, Sky's crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October. Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt's expose of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousand of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the "worst of humankind".

Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has  said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since. Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.

Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago. Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: "I don't think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It's a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers. As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists."

Bob Satwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was "always worrying" when a journalist was asked to reveal their source because they should "obviously" remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities to know journalistic sources, which had previously been "sacrosanct". He added: "Its (sic) almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that's a highly dangerous position."

The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge's agreement before they can snoop on journalists.

Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.

Thanks for typing it out and posting up.

No doubt Sky is going to protect its source by citing the law that allows journalists' right to keep their source confidential.  

In said case where the death is involved, that happened as a direct consequence of stalking and harassement by the journalist when the journalist had lied on record publicly to BL about police investigating her, and also when Sky had shamefully and (probably unlawfully) invaded on the BL's privacy by having her flashed up on rolling news 24/7,  then let's hope nature/remit of the inquest overrides that law.  

Let's hope that the State is within its perogative to demand that newspaper reveals source or face consequences.  Let's also hope that a refusal to disclose information for an inquest can be seen as obstruction and/or peversion of justice and/or contempt of Court and that journalist in question can be brought to book for any of those.

It won't be good of Sky to refuse to co-operate with the Police investigation.
The Police may already have given the Coroner their source - as to who the compilers were and who handed them the dossier. Chances are the Coroner will assume that the source for the police is same source for Sky.  That can fairly safely be deduced to be relatively correct as what are the chances of different person dealing with Police and Press. Even if a group of people is behind the organising and compiling of the dossiers, chances are it wont be a group that hands in to Sky or Police, it will be down to one selected person destinated to do the job. 

Asking the press to reveal may be a formality as well as a chance to find out if there's more than one source.  It's left to be determined was there more than one compiler and if in multiples, the identities of them; and more pertinently who instigated this project.  Is source solely responsible for singling out BL for sky or is that done in conjunction and cooperation with Sky?  

More than one source would mean it is a probably a well orchestrated effort by a group (probably close or associated to the Mcs) who has McCanns vested interest at heart to want to protect them.  Otherwise that begs the question why would a group of strangers would resort to that length to protect the Mcs?

aiyoyo wrote:

aquila wrote:I've typed up the article - apologies for any typos.

Reveal source of story on McCann internet abuser, reporter ordered.
Fiona Hamilton Crime Correspondent

A coroner has demanded that a Sky News reporter divulge his source for a story about a woman who was found dead after the broadcaster revealed that she had "trolled" the parents of Madeleine McCann

The demand has raised fresh concerns about the state encroaching on journalists' rights to keep their sources confidential, in the wake of revelations that police forces looked into their phone records on hundreds of occasions.

Martin Brunt, Sky's crime correspondent, is due to give evidence next month at the inquest of Brenda Leyland, 63, whose body was found in October. Mrs Leyland, of Burton Overy, Leicestershire, had been confronted days earlier as part of Mr Brunt's expose of a vitriolic online campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. Their daughter, Madeleine, was three years old when she vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.

Mrs Leyland, a divorced mother of two, was said to have used the Twitter handle @sweepyface to post thousand of tweets about the McCanns, describing them as the "worst of humankind".

Leicestershire police wrote to Sky on behalf of the coroner, Catherine Mason, asking a series of questions including the identity of the person who was behind the dossier of tweets. Sky has  said that it will protect its source, arguing that its rights are protected under European law. It is understood that neither the police nor the coroner have responded since. Mr Brunt and Jonathan Levy, director of news gathering operations at Sky News, are expected to be called to give evidence as witnesses on March 20.

Coroners were given extra powers to question witnesses in new rules issued 18 months ago. Gavin Millar, QC, a prominent media lawyer, said: "I don't think coroners really understand the limits of their powers in terms of trying to force journalists to reveal their sources. It's a specialist area of law and they are not media lawyers. As the investigations of coroners become more forensic and more determined, and they are given extra powers to require information from witnesses, they are going to have to start confronting these issues and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists."

Bob Satwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said that it was "always worrying" when a journalist was asked to reveal their source because they should "obviously" remain confidential. He said that there had been a drive by the authorities to know journalistic sources, which had previously been "sacrosanct". He added: "Its (sic) almost like they think the media is a fair game, and that's a highly dangerous position."

The demand comes after the government promised to change legislation so that police must gain a judge's agreement before they can snoop on journalists.

Police admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain email and phone communications between 82 journalists and 242 sources across 34 investigations in the past three years.

Thanks for typing it out and posting up.

No doubt Sky is going to protect its source by citing the law that allows journalists' right to keep their source confidential.  

In said case where the death is involved, that happened as a direct consequence of stalking and harassement by the journalist when the journalist had lied on record publicly to BL about police investigating her, and also when Sky had shamefully and (probably unlawfully) invaded on the BL's privacy by having her flashed up on rolling news 24/7,  then let's hope nature/remit of the inquest overrides that law.  

Let's hope that the State is within its perogative to demand that newspaper reveals source or face consequences.  Let's also hope that a refusal to disclose information for an inquest can be seen as obstruction and/or peversion of justice and/or contempt of Court and that journalist in question can be brought to book for any of those.

It won't be good of Sky to refuse to co-operate with the Police investigation.
The Police may already have given the Coroner their source - as to who the compilers were and who handed them the dossier. Chances are the Coroner will assume that the source for the police is same source for Sky.  That can fairly safely be deduced to be relatively correct as what are the chances of different person dealing with Police and Press. Even if a group of people is behind the organising and compiling of the dossiers, chances are it wont be a group that hands in to Sky or Police, it will be down to one selected person destinated to do the job. 

Asking the press to reveal may be a formality as well as a chance to find out if there's more than one source.  It's left to be determined was there more than one compiler and if in multiples, the identities of them; and more pertinently who instigated this project.  Is source solely responsible for singling out BL for sky or is that done in conjunction and cooperation with Sky?  

More than one source would mean it is a probably a well orchestrated effort by a group (probably close or associated to the Mcs) who has McCanns vested interest at heart to want to protect them.  Otherwise that begs the question why would a group of strangers would resort to that length to protect the Mcs?

Good points, and hope the truth will be revealed in the cause of death of Brenda Leyland, her family deserve nothing less.

Thx to
Bampots
Location: Lancaster
------------------------------------------------------------

NUJ code of conduct has these 12 points;


1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4 Differentiates between fact and opinion
5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
( "Produces no material likely to lead to hatred": re 'tweets' TO BL, AFTER Brunt 'visit', from Cindy Martin!)
10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare
12 Avoids plagiarism
The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code
===============================================
A look at the above raises several questions in regards to Brunt/Leyland

At least in IMO points 2,4,6,9 should be looked at.

Bampots
Location: Lancaster

Surely if the source was just some 'troll' then Brunt would have no problem revealing them. Wonder who he's protecting .....

Well, same hair 'style'!

I'd fully expect J McGamble to have the same hair 'style'..............if he had 'hair'!

"secret code' innit?

nglfi wrote:Surely if the source was just some 'troll' then Brunt would have no problem revealing them. Wonder who he's protecting .....

One assumes the source would have to be an avid and active twitter user to have noticed the "trolling", and would have been watching and following the Mc hagtag.   This person, if stranger to Mcs, shows an unnatural interest in protecting the Mcs to the extent of spending time digging into twitters identities, compiling and then sending it not only to Police but also informed Sky with particular attention on BL.  All very ODD, unless there is more than meet the eyes.  And I seriously hope all will be revealed at the inquest.

Who is to know if the source is a "troll" or not, unless her or his twitter name is revealed.  What is certain is that this person has Mcs interest at heart to have bent over backwards for them.  Not unlike the unconditional love/support BK showered on the Mccanns, pledging his unlimited support in more than one way, and he claims not to know the Mcs prior to the incident.

Dear ms Mason,

I strongly suggest you drop whatever it is you are doing right now:

Please note that a Gavin Millar, Queens Counsel (no less), in the venerated Times has deigned to dole out some free advice to you and your ilk, namely that you are out of your depths asking Mr Brunt for some information which caused him to doorstep somebody previously unknown to him, that you do not really (REALLY, you see?) understand the limits of your power, and finally, the clincher, his FREE advice; that you sit down and acquire some learning about the rights of journalists. 

You silly woman you, dabbling in some law you know nothing about. Best leave that to the experts, capish?

Dear ms Mason: roll up your sleeves, please do acquire some learning, and please solve this case as you see fit.

And do not bow to intimidation, will you, be the pressure you encounter and will encounter, ever so strong

Best of luck to you!

PS: Isn't that rich, free advice from a QC?

Inquest will be a whitewash.
This trick of asking Brunt to reveal his source is just panto. Such a request obviously falls beyond a coroner's remit and powers, as the Police and any practising coroner would well know. Besides, as another poster pointed out, the Police were given the very same dossier as Brunt, from the same source and at the same time - no need for them to ask Brunt about it.

It's a moderately high profile case, so the State has to be seen to "investigate" it, while simultaneously protecting its own interests.

All just my opinions.

jeanmonroe wrote:

I think this shows quite graphically why bald should be the default hairstyle of all men over forty.

ETA: At least Mitchell actually resembles that which he aspires to be - i.e. a Tory politician. Brunt looks like some kind of vagrant.

Why is Brunt looking like a cross between Cliff Richard and Chris de Burgh?

Maybe 'ladyinred' knows the answer?

If he lies to a coroner he would be guilty of perjury, so he has to be truthful.

ultimaThule wrote:At the time of writing access to the article is only available through subscription to The Times online which happens to be another of Murdoch's titles, lj.

If Brunt divulges his source it raises the possibility of their being called to give evidence, in which case they may be asked to divulge who complied the dossier.  

However, until I can read the full report in print later this morning, my breath remains unbated.

Eta: Is there a particular reason why this has been posted in 'Ben Needham' when it should more properly be included in the Brenda Leyland topic?   Can admin please move it to its more rightful place?

I was just wondering if the MSM would do anything with this news, I expected not and was not disappointed.

Sonic72..he can just refuse to answer. Which he will.

sonic72 wrote:If he lies to a coroner he would be guilty of perjury, so he has to be truthful.

Whether he will reveal info demanded of him by the Coroner depend on WHO he's protecting.  A nobody or a somebody (high profile).  
If the source is a nobody, had nothing to do with team mccann as in not associated and not connected to team mccann at all in any way shape or form, and he's not under any risk of being sued if he reveals it then there's no valid reason why he shouldn't reveal it.  

He can choose to reveal it and ask for a proviso that the source is not named by the mainstream outlets. Only the court and BL's family need to know that.  Especially BL's family they need to know the truth.  This type of provision can't apply if the source is team mccann because of his complicity in helping the Mcs to pursue and persecuted their doubters, and that is a serious crime punishable by the law, not only for him but for the source and people behind the orchestration of naming and shaming mccanns skeptics.

If he won't answer it at all depsite the circumstances that justifies it ( a death inquest ) then one may deduce there's more than meet the eyes.  That likely team mccann is behind this whole sorrowful affair with him in collusion with them and there will be adverse implications for him and them if he were to reveal and complicit them and in doing so complicit himself.  If the source is (indeed) team mccann and sky is in cohort with them, there is very serious case for Sky to answer to - for incitement to commit suicide.  

He will be advised and guided by the powerful Sky corporate lawyers, have no doubt about it.

sonic72 wrote:

"If he lies to a coroner he would be guilty of perjury, so he has to be truthful."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If he is 'truthful' he would be 'guilty' of upsetting the 'establishment' 'Murdoch' 'Sky News' etc.,

Oh, AND the McS!

So he has to 'lie', imo.

As an aside: Anyone 'taking bets' on a MB 'resignation/retirement' for 'family reasons/ill health' (blah, blah, blah) BEFORE the BL 'inquest'?

Like so MANY 'do' just BEFORE an inquiry finding/ serious case review report is 'due/published'

Lots and lots of 'cops' RESIGN before IPCC 'reports' come out!

Just a 'quickie'

Does anyone 'know' if 'named trolls', in the 'dossier' are being afforded UK police 'protection' right now?

Obviously, if the dossier 'compilers' have given the 'names', in the dossier, to 'nutters' then the named people, in the dossier, are at potential 'risk' of 'harm', aren't they?

Or do UK police only 'protect' pro McCann 'supporters'?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/english-and-welsh-suicide-rates-at-highest-level-for-15-years-1.2110307

Irish Times are saying SKY will refuse to name source of dossier under article 10 of European Human Rights. 

This to me is proof of sorts that there is something to hide, or some piece of information they can cash in later!

Not sure it would be strictly 'safe' to say that because Sky are pleading protection from revealing the source that this means that there is 'something to hide', or rather that Sky are engaged in hiding it. It is standard practice. A point of principle. If Sky just cave and spill the beans now, no whistleblower will ever want to confide in them again. It's considered 'journalistic integrity'.

There is a potential by-product of this silence depending on the nature of the enquiry. For example, a powerful enough 'court' with a clear determination and interest in investigating could indeed find other ways to ascertain the source without the news organisation giving anything up. For their part Sky could be sticking to principle but be fully aware that the coroner already has the name they're looking for and needs to find other ways to pin the course of events to them publicly. Beyond that, depending on which way the coroner goes with this, MB and Sky could end up looking very bad - a journalist who publishes a protected source on their own authority, without due diligence, and causes actionable harm in the process, will end up bearing the - excuse the pun - Brunt of any and all legal attention in a 'buck stops here' kind of way. Sky's position essentially becomes as a de facto proxy. If what Sky published and the manner in which they became the embodied effect of the dossier is found to be actionable, their only hope of not carrying the can is to say 'we were deceived by...' If they're not prepared to say that, then they carry the can. Numerous cases have proved that even journalists cannot simply say 'I published what I was told, I can't be held accountable if that causes a problem.' Recklessness does not get excused when the mightiest media corps are called to account.

As it stands this action on the part of Newscorp does not mean anything inherently other than that they will stick to standard procedure for a media organisation, and I would strongly suspect the coroner already knows exactly where the dossier came from. Requiring MB/Sky to formally state the name almost certainly will only affect the manner in which the game will be played from here on in. I doubt very much that the coroner would get as far - in cooperation with the police - as beginning to follow the mystery to whatever dark crevice it began in if the ultimate intention was to have the inquiry confounded by predictable use of media protection and then proceed with a mundane verdict. On the part of the coroner, this is certainly a shot across someone's bow.

I would imagine that 'ankles' have been quaking since 'operation troll' went so badly wrong.

Thank you for a good informative first post RR, makes perfect sense, and welcome to the forum.

I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police.   The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named?  Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named.  What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action.   Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

I thought it was handed in by the family of McCann?