Reaction:The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) expressed dismay at the High Court's decision in the case taken by the planning tribunal against The Irish Times.
"The protection of confidential sources of information is of vital importance to investigative journalism and any judgment which undermines the right of journalists to protect confidential sources has serious implications for all journalists and for democratic society," said NUJ general secretary Séamus Dooley.
He said the judgment raised a number of fundamental issues for journalists, in particular the distinction between anonymous and known sources.
"When a journalist receives an anonymous tip-off, the professional obligation to protect that source is not lessened. Tip-offs may well be received from whistle-blowers for whom anonymity is a matter of professional survival," he said.
Mr Dooley praised The Irish Timesfor the "vigorous" manner in which the case was contested and pledged the NUJ's support for any appeal to the Supreme Court.
National Newspapers of Ireland said protection of sources, whether anonymous or known, was a central principle of journalism and must never be interfered with. "Today's decision poses a threat to the work of all journalists and their ability to keep the public well informed and government and public bodies under scrutiny."
Irish TimesEditor Geraldine Kennedy described the decision as a difficult one with huge implications for the practice of journalism.
She pointed out that, during the hearing, President of the High Court Mr Justice Richard Johnson and his colleagues accepted that the story about payments to the Taoiseach when he was minister for finance in 1993 was a matter of public interest. "It is disappointing that the issue of public interest seemed to receive no weighting in the judgment."
Ms Kennedy acknowledged the court had offered "a very harsh judgment" on the motivation of The Irish Timesin publishing the story. "However, my primary purpose at all times in handling the story was to protect the sources of information and not to challenge the rule of law or the courts."
Asked about the court's criticism of her and colleague Colm Keena for destroying the documents at issue in the case, she said she was acutely conscious at the time the decision was made to destroy the documents of the circumstances in which a former editor of the Guardian, Peter Preston, found himself in a similar case involving whistle-blower Sarah Tisdall.
"He was dealing with an anonymous source and believed that by handing over a document the source would have protected her own identity. The document in the end led to the identity of the source and Ms Tisdall went to jail."
