Any attempt to fine The Irish Timesor jail its journalists for failing to disclose the source of information about payments to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern would reflect badly on Irish democracy, according to former editor of the GuardianPeter Preston.
Mr Preston warned it would be "a very serious thing to do" if a fine were imposed on the newspaper, or Irish Timeseditor Geraldine Kennedy and reporter Colm Keena were to face imprisonment for refusing to divulge information about the anonymous source.
Last Tuesday, the High Court ordered the two journalists to answer questions from the Mahon tribunal about the source of an article about payments to Mr Ahern when he was minister for finance in 1993.
On Newstalk FM yesterday, Mr Preston said he still blamed himself for his decision to hand over a leaked document in court proceedings involving the Guardianin 1983.
That decision, concerning secret department of defence documents about the movement of Cruise missiles, was supplied by an anonymous source.
The newspaper's action enabled the authorities to identify the photocopier used to copy the document and ultimately led to the jailing of Sarah Tisdall, a clerk in the foreign office, for six months.
Mr Preston said it would have been much better to have destroyed the document. "Absolutely, definitively, I think at the end of the day what we should have done was to destroy the document."
During contempt-of-court proceedings, he said, the Guardian had been given "all sorts of reassurances" about the right of journalists to protect their sources. The newspaper also felt it had a good chance of winning and almost did. However, having given its word to hand over the document in the event of losing, this is what it did. It did not know what precautions the person leaking the document had taken to protect his or her identity.
Fianna Fáil TD Martin Mansergh said Mr Preston had done the right thing in handing over the document. People who engaged in civil disobedience, as Ms Tisdall had, had to be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.
The media had persistently over-estimated the level of public interest in the issue of the Taoiseach's finances, Mr Mansergh said. "I'm struck by how rarely the matter is discussed with me."
The content of The Irish Timesarticle, published in September 2006, about payments to Mr Ahern might well have come out in the tribunal at a later date, he added, "but if it had not done, would the country have been much worse off?" Mr Mansergh asked.
The article had disrupted the flow of the tribunal and the public had a right to know who was trying to "knock" the tribunal.
Mr Mansergh said that as someone from a family of historians, he knew there was something very wrong about the destruction of documents.
Former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty, writing in yesterday's Sunday Independent, said the Irish Timescase came down to one question: did the documents emanate from the tribunal or not? For the two journalists to answer "yes" or "no" to this question did not breach any journalistic principle, he suggested.
The Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Séamus Dooley, said the High Court judgment was a complex one which contained some positive features for the media. The Irish Timescase would go all the way to the European courts, he predicted.
