1

The Law.SE question Can everyone name Soldier F now that an MP has? is about Soldier F, who is charged over the Bloody Sunday killings. The consensus on the answers to the question is that doing so remains illegal.

Things now become difficult because one of the commenters to the question has named Soldier F. The commenter appears to indicate they are in the US, and thus not directly liable.

However, as the link to that question now contains information in contempt of court, is it illegal for someone in the UK to send that link to someone else in the UK, since by doing so they are essentially referring people to information in contempt of court? Is tweeting out a link to that question (in the intent of sharing an interesting point of law), now equivalent to tweeting out Soldier F’s name?

(This would obviously be a frustrating outcome, since the linked question is exclusively about UK law, and therefore of the most interest to people in the UK)

anothersoldierfquestion
  • 21
  • 1

1 Answers1

1

No, it’s not illegal

It is legal to tell people where they can source information.

For example, I can tell you that top-secret information on the UK's nuclear defence strategy is available from the Department of Defence. They won't give it to you if you don't have top-secret clearance and a need-to-know but there's no problem in me telling you that that's where the information is.

I can also tell you that what was said in Parliament as recorded in the Hansard is public information and is available here. As the other question has addressed, the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 gives absolute immunity for the publication of the Hansard. However, publishing an extract or abstract has only qualified immunity where the exact limits have not been fully tested.

I am not subject to UK court orders but even if I was, telling you where information is, is not the same as telling you the information directly.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546