We've been here before, 20 years ago, in the "Spycatcher" trial. The UK sued to suppress information from the book which had been printed in Australia from making it into the UK newspapers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/13/...
" These two newspapers had for some time been conducting a campaign for an independent investigation into the workings of the Security Service. The details given included the following allegations of improper, criminal and unconstitutional conduct on the part of MI5 officers:
(a) MI5 "bugged" all diplomatic conferences at Lancaster House in London throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, as well as the Zimbabwe independence negotiations in 1979;
(b) MI5 "bugged" diplomats from France, Germany, Greece and Indonesia, as well as Mr Kruschev’s hotel suite during his visit to Britain in the 1950’s, and was guilty of routine burglary and "bugging" (including the entering of Soviet consulates abroad);
(c) MI5 plotted unsuccessfully to assassinate President Nasser of Egypt at the time of the Suez crisis;
(d) MI5 plotted against Harold Wilson during his premiership from 1974 to 1976;
(e) MI5 (contrary to its guidelines) diverted its resources to investigate left-wing political groups in Britain."
(a) and (b) are basically the same as some of Snowden's allegations: diplomatic meetings are bugged.
(c) is a routine violation of international law, although to be fair we were trying to invade Suez at the time;
(d) is MI5 trying to overthrow our democratic government, straightforward totalitarianism;
(e) is still going on, and Scotland Yard are involved as well (e.g. the deeply embedded undercover officers in the Green movement).
The judgement eventually held that MI5 attempting to block the publication of Spycatcher was a human rights violation. I would expect a similar result in an ECHR trial about attempts to block Snowden's leaks, if such a trial happened.
EDIT: The downvotes are strong on this one :-) I have only posted the transcript from the court. Are we downvoting primary sources now?
I think it is important to provide the crux of the context which you have failed to do so -
[18]
(e) The Attorney General’s principal objection was not to the dissemination of allegations about the Security Service but to the fact that those allegations were made by one of its former employees, it being that particular fact which O.G. wished to publish.
There was credible evidence (in the shape of Sir Robert Armstrong’s affidavits; see paragraph 16 above) that the appearance of confidentiality was essential to the operation of the Security Service and that the efficient discharge of its duties would be impaired, with consequent danger to national security, if senior officers were known to be free to disclose what they had learned whilst employed by it.
Although this evidence remained to be tested at the substantive trial, the refusal of an interlocutory injunction would permit indirect publication and permanently deprive the Attorney General of his rights at the trial. Bearing in mind, inter alia, that the alleged unlawful activities had occurred some time in the past, there was, moreover, no compelling interest requiring publication immediately rather than after the trial.
United Kingdom vs. Observer (sister paper to the Guardian) is worth reading at this point: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-...
" These two newspapers had for some time been conducting a campaign for an independent investigation into the workings of the Security Service. The details given included the following allegations of improper, criminal and unconstitutional conduct on the part of MI5 officers:
(a) MI5 "bugged" all diplomatic conferences at Lancaster House in London throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, as well as the Zimbabwe independence negotiations in 1979;
(b) MI5 "bugged" diplomats from France, Germany, Greece and Indonesia, as well as Mr Kruschev’s hotel suite during his visit to Britain in the 1950’s, and was guilty of routine burglary and "bugging" (including the entering of Soviet consulates abroad);
(c) MI5 plotted unsuccessfully to assassinate President Nasser of Egypt at the time of the Suez crisis;
(d) MI5 plotted against Harold Wilson during his premiership from 1974 to 1976;
(e) MI5 (contrary to its guidelines) diverted its resources to investigate left-wing political groups in Britain."
(a) and (b) are basically the same as some of Snowden's allegations: diplomatic meetings are bugged.
(c) is a routine violation of international law, although to be fair we were trying to invade Suez at the time;
(d) is MI5 trying to overthrow our democratic government, straightforward totalitarianism;
(e) is still going on, and Scotland Yard are involved as well (e.g. the deeply embedded undercover officers in the Green movement).
The judgement eventually held that MI5 attempting to block the publication of Spycatcher was a human rights violation. I would expect a similar result in an ECHR trial about attempts to block Snowden's leaks, if such a trial happened.