Of course the police must uphold the law, but interfering with press freedom is dangerous | thearticle

It is something of an understatement to say that the resignation of Sir Kim Darroch as the UK’s Ambassador to Washington will not be remembered as a highpoint in Transatlantic relations. US

President Donald Trump reacted to the publication of diplomatic telegrams that described his administration in unflattering terms like a petulant child, ironically highlighting the issues

Sir Kim had raised in the documents. With such a reaction, and paltry support from the man assumed to be the next Prime Minister, Sir Kim’s position became untenable. The diplomatic fallout

was serious enough, but then the Metropolitan Police got involved. They opened an investigation into the source of journalist Isabel Oakeshott’s _Mail on Sunday_ story. In a statement,

Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said: “Given the widely reported consequences of that leak, I am satisfied that there has been damage caused to UK international relations, and there would

be clear public interest in bringing the person or people responsible to justice.” That is one thing. Leaking such documents may well contravene the Official Secrets Act, so it is no

surprise that the police got involved. But the top cop went on to tell editors and journalists not to publish such leaks at all. “The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage

they have caused or are likely to cause may also be a criminal matter,” he said. “I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked

government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty’s

Government.” Assistant Commissioner Basu has somewhat misunderstood the purpose of journalism and leaks. People put these documents in the public domain because they feel that there is

something the public should know, and that there is no other way for this to happen. Journalists write stories on them because it is a crucial way of holding the powerful to account. Should

the _Washington Post_ have sent the Pentagon Papers back? No journalist or editor in his or her right mind is going to turn down the publication of such documents. Anyone who did would

surely lose his job. Editors may make provisions to protect the identity or security of some individuals. However, a story as clearly in the public interest as this, must be published. While

it is right and proper that there is a tension between press and police, threatening leakers and journalists with prison in this manner is a blatant attempt to bully the media. Trying to

ascertain and understand the motivations of both the leaker and the publication running the story is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, plenty of people did question why Ms Oakeshott, a prominent

Brexiteer and known associate of Nigel Farage and his ally Arron Banks, might want such a story published. But that is an entirely separate issue to the legitimacy of the _Mail on Sunday_

publishing it, and then determinedly protecting whoever might have handed over the documents. While most of us could have guessed at the British diplomatic view of the Trump Administration,

there is a wider point. We live in an age where fake news and misinformation are rife. A key way of countering that is journalists publishing powerful, well-sourced information. That may be

uncomfortable for some, but that is what journalism is for. It is for this reason that journalists are meant to be prepared to go to prison instead of revealing the source of leaks. Ms

Oakeshott, it is worth putting out, did not do this during the fallout of the Chris Huhne/Vicky Pryce case. She ran a story in the _Sunday Times_ that someone had taken the former Cabinet

minister’s points for speeding. Stories by others in the _Mail on Sunday_ made it clear that that person was Ms Pryce. After a legal battle, the extensive correspondence between Ms Oakeshott

and Ms Pryce ended up with the police, and Ms Pryce went to prison. Ms Oakeshott insisted that she provided warnings about the legal risks Ms Pryce was taking, but it is hardly protecting

your source. Ultimately, a free press is key tenet of a liberal, democratic, society. While it is right and proper for the police to uphold the law, the press must resist attempts to stop

important information coming into the public domain. In this post-truth era, doing so has scarcely been more important.