Papers to challenge Shayler decison

David Shayler before his exile in Paris

Two national newspapers have won permission to challenge an order to hand over e-mails or notes relating to the former MI5 secret agent David Shayler.

The editors of the Guardian and Observer and a correspondent are seeking a judicial review of the decision by Old Bailey judge Martin Stephens.

Both say unless it is overturned it will have serious implications for press freedom.

The challenge stems from public allegations made by Mr Shayler in both papers.

Mr Justice Tucker ruled at a hearing in the High Court on Tuesday that they have an "arguable case" which should be heard urgently.

Alan Rusbridger: Serious implications for press freedom

Mr Shayler's allegations focused on the alleged involvement of UK security services in a plot to assassinate Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi, and subsequent attempts to prosecute the former MI5 employee under the Official Secrets Act.

In March Judge Stephens made an order under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

"Essential evidence"

It required Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Observer editor Roger Alton and the newspaper's home affairs correspondent Martin Bright to hand over e-mails sent by Mr Shayler.

The judge said any e-mail address or other material would be "essential evidence" in police inquiries.

In the High Court both newspapers argued that the order represented interference with freedom of expression.

This is clearly a matter of public interest with significant implications for freedom of expression

The Guardian

Mr Michael Tugendhat QC, appearing for The Guardian and The Observer, said Judge Stephens had no material upon which to conlcude that the interests of national security outweighed the rights of the journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources.

Clare Montgomery QC, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the journalists had no arguable case.

After the Tuesday's ruling the Guardian Newspapers Ltd said in a statement: "We are very pleased with the judgment today.

"This is clearly a matter of public interest with significant implications for freedom of expression."