Can reporters protect their sources in court? Four countries
Reporters often rely on people who will talk only if their names are kept out of the story. When a court later asks the journalist who that person was, the law has to weigh two public interests: the free flow of information and the fair administration of justice. The balance differs from country to country, and in some places it differs from court to court. This article looks at four systems: the United States, England and Wales, Germany and Canada.
Why the issue reaches court
A journalist can be drawn into proceedings in several ways. A party in a civil case may seek documents or testimony. A prosecutor or defence lawyer may want a reporter to give evidence. Investigators may seek phone records or notes. In each case, journalist source protection is usually framed as a privilege, which means a right to decline that a court can sometimes override. It is rarely an absolute immunity.
The consequences of refusing can be serious. A reporter who defies a court order may be found in contempt of court, which can lead to fines or, in some systems, a period in custody.
United States: a patchwork of state protections
The United States has no federal statute giving reporters a general right to withhold sources. In Branzburg v Hayes (1972), the Supreme Court declined to recognise a First Amendment right for journalists to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury, the panel of citizens that considers whether a prosecution should go ahead. Since then, protection has come mainly from state shield laws and court decisions.
Nearly every state and the District of Columbia offers some form of reporter's privilege. The strength varies widely. Some laws give near-absolute protection, while others apply a qualified test in which a judge weighs the need for the information against the harm to newsgathering. State laws do not bind federal courts, so a reporter facing a federal witness subpoena may have far less protection.
Congress has considered a federal law known as the PRESS Act. The House of Representatives passed it unanimously in January 2024, but it stalled in the Senate and was not enacted. It has since been reintroduced. Meanwhile, in April 2025 the Justice Department replaced a 2022 policy that had limited its use of compulsory process against journalists with rules that allow it under specified safeguards.
England and Wales: a statutory starting point
Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 sets the rule. No court may require a person to disclose the source of information in a publication they are responsible for, and refusing is not contempt, unless disclosure is shown to be necessary in the interests of justice, national security, or the prevention of disorder or crime.
The provision followed a 1980 House of Lords decision, British Steel Corporation v Granada Television, in which journalists were held to have no general immunity. It also reflects Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996), the European Court of Human Rights treated source protection as a basic condition of press freedom.
The statute is not a blanket shield, and courts have ordered disclosure where the test was met. Its reach was examined in the High Court in the dispute between Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney. The court held that newspaper publisher NGN and its journalists could rely on section 10 even though the individuals identified as possible sources had waived their own protection. It also set aside witness summonses issued to journalists.
Germany: a right to refuse to testify
German criminal procedure approaches the issue as a right to refuse to give evidence. Under Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, people who work professionally in the press and broadcasting may decline to testify about who provided information and about the material they were given for publication. The right belongs to the journalist, who decides whether to use it.
The protection is reinforced by limits on searches and seizures at newsrooms. The Federal Constitutional Court has held that investigators cannot raid media premises simply to find the source of a leak. The right is not unlimited, and it may be restricted where a journalist is suspected of involvement in an offence.
Canada: a court-led balancing test
For many years Canadian courts decided these questions case by case, applying a test that weighed the public interest in confidentiality against the need for evidence. Parliament changed this with the Journalistic Sources Protection Act in 2017. It amended the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code.
Under the Act, a journalist may object to disclosing information that could identify a source. The judge must then consider whether the information can be obtained in another way and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in keeping the source confidential. The amendments also require police seeking a warrant or order aimed at a journalist to apply to a superior court judge.
At a glance
| Country | Main source of protection | Can it be overridden? |
|---|---|---|
| United States | State shield laws and case law; no federal statute | Yes, and state laws do not apply in federal court |
| England and Wales | Section 10, Contempt of Court Act 1981 | Yes, if disclosure is necessary on specified grounds |
| Germany | Right to refuse testimony in the Code of Criminal Procedure | Limited, for example where the journalist is suspected of an offence |
| Canada | Canada Evidence Act, as amended in 2017 | Yes, after a judicial balancing test |
What the comparison shows
None of the four systems promises reporters complete secrecy. The differences lie in who carries the burden. In England and Wales and in Canada, the law starts from protection and requires a court to find a reason to depart from it. In Germany the journalist holds a personal right to refuse. In the United States the answer depends heavily on the state, and on whether the case is in a state or federal court.
The relationship between the press and courts therefore turns on legal detail that journalists, lawyers and sources should understand before a promise of confidentiality is made. Anyone involved in a specific case should seek legal advice in the relevant jurisdiction.