Restoration of 'ricin case' article to The Guardian website

[muriel_volestrangler]

An interesting piece from The Guardian's ombudsman, about the article saying that the 'ricin plot' was never a serious threat, which was pulled from The Guardian site in April 'for legal reasons'.

In the light of the letter from the Ministry of Defence, the Guardian immediately removed the article from its website. It did so on the advice of its lawyers, who then set out to clarify the situation and in particular to obtain a copy of the relevant order. This was said to be in the form of a public-interest immunity certificate (a PII) which had been submitted to the court on behalf of the defence secretary and had received the approval of the judge. The letter from the legal department of the MoD indicated that the grounds for the application were the need to protect the safety of the witnesses from, it said, "persons unconnected with the case".

Despite several requests, the MoD and the Crown Prosecution Service failed to provide the Guardian with a copy of the order. However, its lawyers spoke to the prosecution and defence lawyers in the case, who confirmed that the judge had granted an unopposed application to protect the identity of Porton Down witnesses. Apparently, they were not named in open court and they were screened from the jury when they gave evidence. No order was posted in the court press room - the usual practice with reporting restrictions - and Mr Campbell was not at court.

The article has now been put back on the website with the anonymity of the Porton Down scientists protected. Mr Campbell said: "The story is in no way damaged by the removal of the names." The restored version has at the top of it the following note: "Corrected version: this article has been restored to the website after being removed and corrected following a legal complaint."

In the interval - roughly six months - between the removal of the article from the website and its restoration a few days ago, a number of conspiracy theories have developed. In particular, the Guardian has been accused of caving in to government pressure exerted through D-notices. In fact, D-notices have not existed since 1993. In that year they became DA notices (defence advisory notices). There are only five of them. They are all to be found on the website www.dnotice.org.uk. They are advisory and the committee responsible for the system has no power of enforcement. It had no involvement of any kind in Duncan Campbell's ricin article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1598960,00.html

I thought I remembered discussion about the removal of the article here at DU, but can't find it (perhaps it was another site). Anyway, interesting that the MoD reached for the 'PII' excuse, when there was no such beast in this case; and that D notices are now advisory - though I'm sure I've heard them mentioned many times since 1993.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

1. Interesting piece

and I'm grateful for the explanation. You're right that we discussed this when it happened - I unsuccessfully looked for that thread when I posted an article about the 3 jurors speaking out on Panorama.

I was also unaware that D-Notices were advisory. From the BBC:

The notices are not legally binding but most newspaper editors and broadcasting chiefs tend to pay heed as it does not look good to be seen to be endangering national security or servicemen's lives.

The committee's secretary, Rear Admiral Nick Wilkinson, also gives informal advice to the media and did so during the Iraq war on the activities of special forces.

An example of a DA notice in operation was the recent case of British soldiers captured by rebels in Sierra Leone.

Special forces were sent to rescue them but a DA notice was issued preventing reporting of the mission in case the captured soldiers were killed or hidden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3093225.stm

maybe emad can publish some of his suppresed scoops ;)

FWIW, here's the restored story (& if you're curious, as I always am, a google will find the missing names):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1585130,00.html

[D-Notice]

2. There's more about

this on Spy Blog