Attorney-General v Observer Ltd

Attorney General v Observer Ltd [1990] ^[1] is an English tort law case on breach of confidentiality. It also raised questions of the interests of public policy and freedom of expression, under the European Convention on Human Rights, because it involved a spy's publication of secret information.

Peter Wright worked for MI5. After retiring he wrote a book called Spycatcher, describing his work. This was in breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911. It was published in Australia and the US. The Observer and The Guardian published articles on proceedings in the Australian courts by the UK government to stop the publication. The Attorney General then sought and received an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of information obtained by Wright in June 1986. In July 1987 the Sunday Times published extracts from the book two days before its publication in the US. The Attorney General sought and was given injunctions to restrain further publication. But Scott J discharged them, holding the paper was liable to account for profits resulting from the publication. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's appeal, and he appealed again to the House of Lords.

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brightman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle upheld the Attorney General's appeal, finding that the Sunday Times publication was in breach of its duty of confidence.^[2] That could arise both in contract and equity. A duty of confidence precludes disclosure to others, and a third party (like a newspaper) with confidential information is similarly bound by a duty if they know it is confidential. This was true unless the confidential information was already known to the general public, or the duty to keep the information secret was outweighed by a countervailing public interest in the information.

كان على المدعي العام إثبات أن الكشف عن المعلومات يتعارض مع المصلحة العامة. ولأن رواية "صائد الجواسيس" كانت قد نُشرت بالفعل على نطاق واسع عالميًا، لم تكن هناك حاجة إلى أوامر قضائية. لم تتضمن المقالات في صحيفتي "ذي أوبزرفر" و "ذي غارديان" أي معلومات ضارة، ما يعني عدم وجود خرق للسرية. لكن صحيفة "صنداي تايمز" أخلّت بواجبها في الحفاظ على السرية. لم تكن محمية بدفاع النشر المسبق، ولم يُغيّر من الأمر شيئًا كون القصة ستُنشر قريبًا في الولايات المتحدة. وبالتالي، كانت مسؤولة عن الأرباح التي حققتها. مع ذلك، لم تُصدر أي أوامر قضائية أخرى في هذه المسألة.

خلال إصدار القرار، ذكر اللورد جوف مبدأ القانون العام القائل بأن "[في إنجلترا] لكل شخص حرية فعل أي شيء، شريطة الالتزام بأحكام القانون فقط". ^{[ 3 ]}

• النص الكامل للحكم من موقع Bailii