Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Jeremy Warner: Demands for disclosure are the thin end of a large wedge

The Interbrew Affair: Why the curious case of a drinks firm, a leaked document and the media has implications for the future of a free press

Friday 12 July 2002 00:00 BST
Comments

If you stick around for long enough in this profession, everything seems to come round again. Fifteen years ago as a young reporter at The Independent, I was at the centre of a protracted legal wrangle which ended in a £30,000 High Court fine for failure to disclose sources to a Department of Trade and Industry insider-dealing investigation.

The circumstances of the case The Independent is involved in today are very different, but the issues raised are almost exactly the same. The latest fracas arises from the sort of story routinely found on the business pages of national newspapers.

Confidential company documents had been anonymously circulated among a number of media organisations which showed that Interbrew, the Belgian brewer, was considering a takeover bid for South African Breweries. Naturally, the information was published, causing great embarrassment to Interbrew and probably scuppering any chance it had of securing an agreed merger with SAB.

Interbrew then began court proceedings to get the documents, in the belief that the source of the leak can thereby be identified and plugged for good.

Complicating matters further is the involvement of the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, newly equipped with an armoury of powers to compel disclosure.

The purpose of the source may have been that of making a fast, and illegal, buck by causing the SAB share price to rise, so the FSA has been conducting its own separate "market abuse" investigation of the episode.

The FSA is as keen to see the documents as Interbrew, but because it values its generally good relationship with the press, it has been more than happy for Interbrew to make all the legal running.

As can readily be seen, this is not a black-and-white case. The press is fighting for the principle of safeguarding sources. Interbrew has a legitimate interest in identifying the source to prevent a repeat, unauthorised, disclosure of confidential commercial information.

The Independent's position in all this is different from the other titles. I was not included in the original drop of leaked documents, but took steps to obtain them after they were circulating in the City. I thus incurred the double duty of protecting both the original anonymous source and the known secondary source.

For me, the whole thing is like déjà vu. The sources case I was involved in all those years ago involved the same clash of principles. Department of Trade and Industry inspectors were investigating alleged instances of insider dealing in the City.

It was their contention that I was being used to get information into the public domain, causing share prices to rise or fall, and enabling an insider-dealing ring to make money.

My contention then, backed by this newspaper, was that whether or not this was true, there was a legitimate case for publishing what were good, exclusive stories.

Further, that to disclose the sources, which in fact were many and varied, would have discouraged the free flow of information to The Independent as a newspaper and to me as a journalist because sources would know they were liable to be disclosed.

In that case and the present one, our opponents have argued that the stories were not in the public interest, overriding a journalist's right to protect his sources.

That's at best arguable, but in any case if newspapers are routinely obliged to disclose sources to interested parties, what chance do they have of getting any more than press releases?

It is the thin end of a very large wedge that wealthy vested interests would gladly drive between newspapers and their sources of information.

The press is accused of being asleep at the wheel in failing to alert the public to the scandals of Enron and WorldCom.

With the courts only too willing to help unmask anyone who discloses confidential corporate information, is it any surprise that so few are brave enough to do it?

Interbrew's determination to ride rough-shod over the traditional freedoms of the British press is indicative of its general lack of understanding of the markets in which it operates and the finer points of British cultural, economic and political life.

Since it arrived on these shores with the acquisition of Whitbread's brewing interests just over two years ago, its presence here has been a disaster. One cock-up has been followed by another as it arrogantly attempts to behave in the same high-handed manner that it applies in its own home market.

I'm afraid that these latest shenanigans are only too typical of its approach.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in