(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has condemned as “a dangerous precedent” the 7 December 2004 sentencing of Ken Peters, a journalist with the “Hamilton Spectator”, for protecting his source. He had been found in contempt of court at an earlier hearing. Peters, a municipal reporter, had refused to disclose the name of a person present when sensitive […]
(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has condemned as “a dangerous precedent” the 7 December 2004 sentencing of Ken Peters, a journalist with the “Hamilton Spectator”, for protecting his source. He had been found in contempt of court at an earlier hearing.
Peters, a municipal reporter, had refused to disclose the name of a person present when sensitive documents were given to him by a source in 1995. The documents related to serious problems at a Hamilton retirement home, which he used as the basis for a series of articles. The retirement home later brought a libel action in relation to the articles.
“We are surprised that this case was not dropped, since the journalist’s source revealed his own identity,” said the organisation. “In any case, Ken Peters should not have been taken to court for this reason.”
“This verdict sets a dangerous precedent in a country that until now has been spared legal action against journalists trying to protect their sources,” the organisation added.
“Journalists are not court auxiliaries,” RSF said. “In protecting their sources, they protect society’s right to scrutinise what goes on in public life. The protection of sources is an inviolable principle.”
Peters was sentenced on 7 December to pay the costs of the case, amounting to US$31,600. He plans to appeal the ruling. The “Hamilton Spectator” has said that it will pay the costs itself. The sentence had been adjourned from 1 December, when Peters was found in contempt of court.
After Henry Merling, a former municipal councillor, revealed himself to be the journalist’s source, the case was sent to a civil court and the possibility of criminal action was averted. Peters will not have an official record and will avoid a prison sentence.
During the hearing, Judge David Crane criticised the Canadian media’s stance on protection of sources, which he said forced a journalist to act against the law. He repeated on several occasions that no one was above the law.