ITN to fight order to reveal sources

Ultimately the couple could face prison if they continue to defy the inquiry, and Mr Thomson said he was ready to go to jail to defend the right to protect journalistic sources.

The inquiry was later faced with another journalist unprepared to name his sources - this time IRA members. The journalist refuses on professional grounds but is also understood to have told the inquiry he fears for his safety if he does name names.

Mr Thomson and Ms Ferguson have 14 days to change their minds, but Mr Thomson said the principle that a journalist did not betray his sources was ‘‘absolutely fundamental’’.

He added: ‘‘It cannot be compromised and if it means serving a prison sentence to defend that principle, then that is precisely what I shall do.’’

Ms Ferguson, who now works for the BBC in Belfast, said she had given her word to the soldiers not to identify them and she was not prepared to go back on it.

‘‘An agreement is an agreement, a promise is a promise and that is all there is to it,’’ she said.

ITN announced immediately after the ruling that it would launch an appeal.

The journalists interviewed five soldiers who were in Derry on Bloody Sunday - January 30 1972 - for a series of reports in 1997 which added to the pressure for a fresh inquiry into the Army’s killing of 13 civilians on a civil rights march.

They were called to give evidence to the inquiry in Derry this week and refused to name their sources, although one of the five soldiers has since identified himself to the inquiry.

The order that they should - which they again defied - was made in a ruling by Lord Saville today following lengthy legal argument.

He had made a similar ruling in 1999 that ITN should reveal the names of the soldiers ‘‘if it cannot be obtained by other means’’.

Lord Saville said in his latest ruling there was now little prospect of either the soldiers coming forward or the inquiry itself discovering their identities.

He said what the soldiers could tell the inquiry outweighed the importance of protecting sources.

What the soldiers had said to the news organisation was ‘‘tantalisingly incomplete’’ and it was ‘‘vital’’ for the inquiry to investigate fully what they had to say.

In the circumstances, he said, the two journalists should be ordered to identify the soldiers to the inquiry and ITN ordered to produce all relevant material in its possession which it was presently withholding.

Lord Saville added: ‘‘Both the journalists concerned and ITN doubtless appreciate that should they fail to comply with these orders, the tribunal will be left with no option but to certify to the High Court that, in the view of the tribunal, that failure amounts to contempt of the tribunal.’’

The journalists were asked to enter the witness box individually and to write down the names of the soldiers, which both refused to do.

Ms Ferguson said to Lord Saville: ‘‘I am afraid I do not feel I can do that because I made an agreement to those soldiers that I would not reveal their identity and I really do not want to be persuaded to change that agreement I had with them.’’

Mr Thomson said: ‘‘In order to do what you are suggesting, I would have to very publicly declare myself as a person who makes a promise, and then breaks it - a person who ultimately cannot be trusted, both as a human being and as a journalist.

‘‘That is an impossible position to be put in.’’

There was a clear principle which extended not only to Channel 4 News but to investigative journalism and its future as a whole, he said.

‘‘If that principle needs to be defended by ultimately serving a prison sentence or whatever is required, then that is going to have to be done.’’

Later the inquiry took evidence from Derry-born journalist Kieran Gill - now resident in Australia.

Mr Gill, who covered Bloody Sunday for the now defunct Irish Press, said he was not prepared to name his sources - it was simply ‘‘adherence to journalism’s code of ethics’’.

He said in his statement to the inquiry that not every contact wanted to be named and once an assurance was given, it was ‘‘an individual and personal duty to stand by that assurance, as well as a professional one, no matter how many years have passed since the assurance was given’’.

He is understood to have given supplementary statement to the inquiry expressing concerns for his safety if he names the IRA men.

Lord Saville asked if there was any material which could be made available which would help the inquiry ‘‘assess what, if any, risk there is to Mr Gill’’ before a decision on his refusal to name sources is made.

The inquiry adjourned until Thursday.