The case of Mr Barry O'Kelly, the journalist who is threatened with imprisonment for his failure to divulge his source of information for an article in The Irish Press in 1992, is only the latest in a series of such cases which has occurred in this State over the years. It would be improper to comment on the substance of Mr O'Kelly's case, but it does afford an opportunity to review Irish law in this area and to compare it with the practice in other jurisdictions.
The need to protect and nurture sources is an essential part of the everyday work of the journalist. Sources are the lifeblood of a well informed and free press. Without them the journalist - and, by extension, the public is dependent on rumour and speculation.
The Constitution provides nothing in the way of special protection to journalists in the matter of confidentiality of sources. And among politicians and lawyers alike, there is a general conviction that there should be no special exemption for journalists. If they refuse to swear up they are in contempt and they should go to jail. Irish domestic law has been influenced by no countervailing considerations. It has been an open and shut issue. Hence, the imprisonment of the RTE journalist, Kevin O'Kelly in 1972 after he refused to identify an interviewee.
The most notorious recent case - that of Ms Susan O'Keefe who refused to disclose the source of her information to the Beef Tribunal - was thrown out on a technicality. But, no less than Mr O'Kelly, she also faced the threat of possible imprisonment for a lengthy period.
The current Government, which proclaims its commitment to openness and transparency in public life, has promised fresh legislation in this area. Two years ago, M Eithne Fitzgerald, the Minister responsible, promised that legislation to protect journalists and their sources should be "seriously examined". And although the jurisprudence of many other states, including some of our EU partners, has recognised the necessity of protecting journalistic sources, any move in this jurisdiction is still awaited.
European law indeed, has moved swiftly in recent years. Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights - in the Goodwin vs UK case - vindicated the conduct of a British journalist who had been fined £5000 in the British courts for refusing to disclose his sources. The Strasbourg court found that the protection of journalistic sources represented one of the basic conditions for press freedom. The court recognised the unique role of the journalist as a watchdog on behalf of the public and the consequent need for a legal framework which would support rather than hinder the search for truth. In so doing, The European Court reflected the kind of thinking which informs media law in other jurisdictions, notably the United States and Japan.
The need for legislation in this State which would go some way to reflecting these values, has long been sought by the media as part of a wider reform of publishing law. But successive governments have been unmoved, even those which promised to conduct business as if behind a pane of glass or (in an earlier administration) to open the shutters and to "let in the light". The Government is still reluctant to dilute the legal constraints upon the media. And journalists, working in a state that now holds the presidency of the European Union, continue to face the threat of imprisonment if they refuse to disclose their sources. It is no proud record.