MEDIA STUDIES
Why the government is putting the frighteners on servicemen who talk to the press
STEPHEN GLOVER
This government is no great lover of press freedom. I have written before about the infamous case of the journalist Tony Geraghty, against whom the Attorney-Gen- eral brought, and then dropped, charges under the Official Secrets Act. We should not forget that Mr Geraghty had a co- defendant, Lt Col. Nigel Wylde, whom the Attorney-General is still pursuing under section two of the same Act. Unless the government gets cold feet, as it did with Mr Geraghty, Mr Wylde will before long find himself on trial at the Old Bailey.
What is he supposed to have done? The Attorney-General alleges that he passed information to Mr Geraghty for his book The Irish War. In particular there is a pas- sage of several pages concerning computer surveillance techniques used in Northern Ireland. Mr Wylde is an expert in computers and intelligence, and between December 1997 and March 1998 he undertook consul- tancy work for the Ministry of Defence. He had retired from the army in 1991 after 25 years of service in the Royal Army Ord- nance Corps, during which time he was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for bomb-disposal work in Northern Ireland.
The case against Mr Wylde seems as flim- sy as the case against Mr Geraghty. Indeed, it is substantially the same, the main differ- ence being that one man is alleged to have passed information and the other to have received it. So far as I can see, the pages in The Irish War that have so upset the Attor- ney-General do not disclose any details that could be damaging to the state. I am no expert, of course, but this view seems to be shared by the authorities. The Ministry of Defence was well aware of the book before its publication in October 1998 and could have issued an injunction, but declined to do so. The Irish War remains on sale, though the MOD has delayed its publication in paperback. If the book is as damaging as all that, surely measures would have been taken to ensure its removal.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that an example is being made of Mr Wylde. I believe the charges against Mr Geraghty were dropped largely because of a vigorous press campaign which culminated in a piece by Anthony Lewis, the high priest of liberal- ism, in the New York Times painting the government in a repressive light. Lord Williams, the Attorney-General, was proba- bly told that a prosecution against a journal- ist would be more trouble than it was worth. But Mr Wylde is a former senior serving officer. The motive for prosecuting him is to send a signal to other serving officers that they talk to the media at their peril.
This is very illiberal. A free press depends on the willingness of servants of the state to give it secrets. I don't mean earth-shattering ones — there are very few of those — but little, interesting secrets that throw some light on the workings of government. Every day hundreds of off-the-record exchanges take place between politicians or civil ser- vants on the one hand and journalists on the other. Naturally any government must take measures to ensure that potentially damag- ing secrets are not published but, as I have said, Mr Wylde's alleged disclosures do not fall into that category. The government apparently wants to terrify other defence sources so that the media are deprived of what little military information they have.
This more or less guarantees that, if the trial goes ahead, the media will line up behind Mr Wylde. The government could not have chosen a more unlikely adversary. Mr Wylde is not a communist subversive, or even a controversial whistle-blower in the mould of the renegade spy David Shayler. He is a thoroughly decent man who served his country for 25 years, risked his life on numerous occasions and was awarded a medal for bravery. Even if he had done something that he should not have, any gov- ernment should think twice before being seen to hammer such a person. The politics of the affair seem elephantine.
Moreover, a trial would be bound to throw up issues that would be embarrassing to the government. The MOD police almost certainly acted ultra vires in swooping on Mr Wylde's house in Esher on 3 December 1998, as they also probably did in raiding Mr Geraghty's house in Herefordshire on the same morning. No longer a serving offi- cer, Mr Wylde does not obviously fall within the permitted jurisdiction of the MOD police; and, even if he did, notice should have been given to the Metropolitan Police commissioner before the raid, which it was not. Equally embarrassing might be revela- tions about computer surveillance in main- land Britain which even reporting restric- tions in court could hardly silence. The stuff 'in Tony Geraghty's book would appear to be the tip of the iceberg.
Lord Williams may not have very acute political antennae. He is relying on the bad advice of senior spooks who want to make an example of Mr Wylde. In a way, one hopes the case does come to court, for it would allow some very important issues to be aired. But, in the cause of justice as well as self-preservation, some switched-on soul in Downing Street would be wise to call an end to this charade very soon.
Idid not write last week about the report of the Press Complaints Commission into the share dealings of Piers Morgan. It went about as far as it could on the available evidence in censuring the Mirror's editor, and provided every justification for sacking him. However, Trinity Mirror, the paper's owner, has declined to do so, apparently believing that Mr Morgan is indispensable. But the case is not yet ended, since the Department of Trade and Industry's own inquiries continue. Meanwhile we have to ask who are the main beneficiaries of his survival, apart from Mr Morgan and his family. At the top of my list comes the government. We have a glimpse into the feelings of Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secre- tary, in the writings of my esteemed col- league Roy Greenslade, known to readers of this column as Mr Campbell-Greenslade. The media sage has taken the view that Mr Morgan was naughty but not culpable. We know that Mr Campbell lunched with Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Trinity Mirror, a couple of months ago. It is a fair bet that he took the naughty but not culpable line. Mr Morgan has been weakened and his weakness suits the government. He was always 'on message'; now he may be the mes- senger. Last Thursday, the Mirror carnal, four short paragraphs about John Prescott s union-subsidised flat. The paper reported' correctly — that a Labour-dominated cool' mittee had overruled Elizabeth Fain, th,e, parliamentary commissioner, who had sal° that Mr Prescott should have declared the flat. Mr Prescott nonetheless complained to the Mirror, which published a short correc- tion emphasising that the Commons comirot" tee had not ordered him to declare the flat. Actually, no correction was called for. Moor sources say that previous grumbles on the part of Mr Prescott were ignored by Mr MCI gan. This time, in his enfeebled state, he readily capitulated, giving the government exactly what it wanted.
Previous page
