YESTERDAY'S decision by the European Court on Human Rights on the Bill Goodwin case is a direct challenge to the Government and to Irish legal traditions. Our courts, have continually rejected the proposition that forcing journalists to disclose the names of informants is an assault on the freedom of the press. They will now have to accept it.

The Strasbourg court took a very firm stand in this case, ruling that "the protection of journalists and their sources overrides the importance of protecting property". Journalists have long argued that members of the public will not come, forward with information about scandals if their identities will be revealed. Judges and politicians have discounted their case. This judgment will force them to rethink their positions.

The decision reflects a growing emphasis on freedom of speech issues on the part of the court. The right to protect sources is widely recognised in international law. Already the United States and six European countries recognise that journalists, have a responsibility to keep their informants names secret.

In France, a journalist appearing as a witness in either a civil or a criminal case concerning information gathered by him has an absolute right not to disclose names. In Austria, reporters have the right not even to answer questions. In Sweden, it is a journalist's legal duty to protect his source's name.

Despite its huge implications, the case had small beginnings. Mr Goodwin (23), was a trainee at the Engineer, a weekly magazine. In 1989 he received a call about a financial restructuring at a company known as Tetra. This seemed to contradict Tetra's public statements that it was not in financial difficulties. When he rang the company for a statement, Tetra replied with a gagging writ. This was followed by a lone legal campaign to force him to reveal the source of his information.

IN 1989 a court ordered Mr Goodwin to serve an injunction on the source of his information. He declined. Later that year, the Court of Appeal ordered him to hand over his notes about the case in a sealed envelope which would be opened if the appeal was lost. Again he declined. In 1990 he was fined £5,000 after he lost his appeal in the House of Lords.

The European Commission on Human Rights, which looks into cases before they are put to the human rights court itself, ruled on his case in 1993. It found that Mr Goodwin's rights had been breached - and asked the British government to reach a friendly settlement with him. This did not occur and the human rights commission brought his cases before the European Court of Human, Rights a year ago.

One ironic aspect of this case is that the legislation under which Mr Goodwin was convicted was ostensibly introduced to provide some protection for journalists. Section 10 of the UK 1981 Contempt of Court Act states:

"No court may require to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt, of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."

The House of Lords found that "the interests of justice" required Mr Goodwin to name his source.

THE result of this case highlights the failure of well meaning half measures. In 1981, the British government had come under pressure for threatening journalists and the 1981 Act was trumpeted as a vindication of journalistic rights. At the time, the National Union of Journalists and civil rights groups pointed out that the phrase "in the interests of justice" gave no real protection to sources at all.

Similar legislative efforts were made in Leinster House during September 1994. Journalist Susan O'Keeffe had been charged with contempt of court for refusing to expose the sources of her World in Action expose which brought about the Beef Tribunal. Michael McDowell TD introduced a Bill using the same phraseology as the British Act.

Under Mr McDowell's Bill, the State would have the burden of proof that the "interests of justice" had been endangered by the journalist's refusal to disclose sources. But the Bill was voted down.

Leinster House has since seen only one genuflection in the direction of journalistic confidentiality. The Freedom of Information Bill being piloted through by Junior Minister Eithne Fitzgerald contains a section on civil servants who come across wrong doing. They are entitled to approach a list of State officials such as the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Garda Commissioner. But the list does not include TDs and talking to journalists is forbidden.

The Strasbourg judgment puts an onus on the Government radically to alter its legislative approach to the protection of journalistic sources. For the moment, it is unlikely that the DPP will move against journalists on this matter. But, in the absence of new legislation, it is quite possible that yesterday's embarrassment for the British government will be shared by its Irish counterpart in the future.

Ronan Brady is a spokesman for the National Union of Journalists.