Two National newspapers should not be forced to hand police documents from the former MI5 officer David Shayler, the High Court ruled yesterday. Two National newspapers should not be forced to hand police documents from the former MI5 officer David Shayler, the High Court ruled yesterday.
In a decision regarded as a victory for press freedom the court warned against the making of disclosure orders against newspapers.That might “stifle” investigative journalism unless there was “compelling evidence” the orders were in the public interest, said three judges.The Guardian and Observer newspapers were challenging an order made at the Old Bailey in March to hand over the material. Officers from the Metropolitan Police Special Branch had requested the order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.Lord Justice Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Gibbs, ruled that the wide terms of production orders made by an Old Bailey judge “would have a devastating and stifling effect on the proper investigation of the Shayler story”.Quashing the orders, Lord Justice Judge added: “Virtually any journalist who made contact with him, and any newspaper publishing an article based on discussions with Shayler, would have been at risk of a similar application to the present. “To my mind, that would be an unhealthy development, quite disproportionate to any practical advantages of the prosecution process.”Lord Justice Judge said: “Legal proceedings directed towards the seizure of working papers of an individual journalist, or the premises of the newspaper or television programme publishing his or her reports – or the threat of such proceedings – tends to inhibit discussion.”The Special Branch, who are investigating alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act by David Shayler, wanted to seize documents used by the newspapers.Mr Shayler has claimed that MI6 officers were involved in an attempted coup against Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, in which several innocent bystanders were killed.In The Observer case, the Special Branch were demanding notes and documents used in a front page article in February headlined “Two Spies Named in Libya Plot”.The officers also wanted a copy of an e-mail sent by Mr Shayler to The Guardian for publication. Both newspapers fought the orders, arguing they would “strike at the roots” of their independence in a way which was both unlawful and unfair.They also accused the Government of attempting to “suppress or shoot the messenger”.Mr Shayler, now in exile in France, has said he intends to return to Britain at the end of August to face any charges that might be brought against him.The Crown Prosecution Service is now deciding whether to appeal to the House of Lords against today’s ruling, in view of its general importance.. Take Two comprehensive schools.
One is the London Oratory, attended by the Prime Minister’s sons, the high-flying haunt of the middle-classes where 93 per cent of the pupils achieve five good grades at GCSE. The other is Hounslow Manor in west London, where just 17 per cent of the pupils achieve five good grades, where more than one-third are poor enough to qualify for free school meals, and which, if the Prime Minister has his way, could be under threat of closure in the next few years
Take Two comprehensive schools. One is the London Oratory, attended by the Prime Minister’s sons, the high-flying haunt of the middle-classes where 93 per cent of the pupils achieve five good grades at GCSE. The other is Hounslow Manor in west London, where just 17 per cent of the pupils achieve five good grades, where more than one-third are poor enough to qualify for free school meals, and which, if the Prime Minister has his way, could be under threat of closure in the next few years.
Yet, inspectors from Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, have just revealed some startling facts. When they visited the Oratory they judged that 17 per cent of the teaching they saw was very good None of it was excellent. When they visited Hounslow Manor they decided that 23 per cent of the teaching was very good and2 per cent was excellent.Under a new policy announced earlier this year by David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, schools must ensure that 15 per cent of pupils achieve five or more GCSE grades at A* to C over the next three years, irrespective of the pupils’ background – or they will face closure and a “Fresh Start” under new management.Roger Shortt, Hounslow Manor’s head, says that his school is in danger.
Because the turnover of pupils is so high and so many of them speak English as a second language, he fears that this year’s GCSE results will slip below the magic 15 per cent figure. Last year, they went down from 21 per cent to 17 per cent.If Hounslow Manor were to close, the inspection report makes clear, a school which is just as good as the one attended by the Prime Minister’s sons would disappear.The same team of inspectors went to both the Oratory and Hounslow Manor. They pronounced both good and the comments in both reports on teaching, learning and leadership are remarkably similar. At both, inspectors say teaching is “consistently good” – at Hounslow Manor, nearly two-thirds of lessons were thought good or better; at the Oratory, it was just over two-thirds. At the former, there is a “team of dedicated, flexible and innovative teachers; at the latter, “teachers know their pupils well and are always willing to help individuals”.Mr Shortt provides “very good leadership”; the Oratory’s head, John McIntosh, gives “decisive and effective leadership”.For the rest, the inspectors say, both schools have their weaknesses. Hounslow needs to improve performance at A-level; the Oratory must do better in its relationship with parents. The former should improve its personal, social and health education; the latter is not complying with national curriculum requirements for design and technology.So what is the difference? Why do so many pupils at the Oratory achieve well at GCSE while so few do so at Hounslow Manor? The answer is in the first paragraph of the reports – the pupils.
Pupils at the Oratory usually stay there throughout their school career. Those at Hounslow Manor come and go with bewildering speed: two-thirds of the 16-year-olds have joined the school after the age of 11. “Approximately, half the pupils have English as an additional language, but 150 pupils, a very high number, are at the early stages of learning English.” At the Oratory, only nine pupils are in the early stages of learning English. Only 7.9 per cent of pupils at the Oratory are eligible for free school meals – the indicator commonly used as a measure of social deprivation – compared with 35 per cent at Hounslow.Pupils’ attainment when they enter the Oratory is well above the national average. At Hounslow, it is well below and nearly one-third of pupils have special educational needs.Mr Shortt said the insistence that all schools should be asked to get 15 per cent of pupils through five good grades was “nonsense We have an Ofsted report which proves it. If a qualified Ofsted team comes and says a school is doing a good job, that should be it. People need to go to a school and experience its quality rather than making judgements on the basis of statistics.”He also questioned the role of exam league tables which offer only raw results, do not take into account pupils’ backgrounds and fail to measure the progress pupils have made.”The local community see us as a place with a lot of refugees and they look at the league tables and say that is not the place for my child.
