Thread by @bricksilk

There is much to support In this thorough and impressive treatment by @Law_Commission of a highly delicate subject. It features one major shift from its 2017 consultation paper. Journalists and NGOs will like it, Government not so much ... /1

https://twitter.com/Law_Commission/status/1300812275612299265

A new defence to prosecutions under #OSA1989 is recommended for disclosures that, though unauthorised, are considered by a jury to be (objectively) “in the public interest”. /2

The report correctly notes that “it has been the firmly and consistently held view of successive governments that a public interest defence is not desirable in the context of official secrets legislation” (11.4). /3

There is some limited (but useful) analysis of Canadian law (11.60-11.66). /4

But having chosen not to consult on a public interest defence, @Law_Commission has unfortunately found itself unable to make a detailed recommendation on what it should look like. /5

Legislators (speaking for myself) would feel more confidence in this recommendation if it could be precisely spelled out, and supported by an authoritative comparative analysis of public interest defences as they have operated in other jurisdictions. /6

Are there any comprehensive studies out there already? Or Is there a university department that could fill the gap before the forthcoming Bill is too far advanced? /7

Grateful for any suggestions. My mind, like others in Parliament I am sure, is open. So impact guaranteed! /8

Know of anything/anyone helpful @Prof_Phillipson @cforcese @DurhamLawSchool (Helen Fenwick) @LioraLazarus @conorgearty @AnthonyGlees @ProfMarkElliott @jeff_a_king @LuciaZedner @TomRHickman @ProfGWilliams? Thanks for any ideas /9