The High Court has refused to preserve the anonymity of an award-winning policeman blogger who has written about the force and government ministers.

Mr Justice Eady refused an injunction to prevent The Times identifying serving officer “Night Jack”, winner of an Orwell prize for blogging.

The judge said said blogging was “essentially a public rather than a private activity”.

Night Jack’s lawyer said preserving his anonymity was in the public interest.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, said the thousands who communicated via the internet under a cloak of anonymity would be “horrified” to think the law would do nothing to protect their identities if someone carried out the necessary detective work to unmask them.

But the judge ruled any right of privacy on the part of the blogger would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions.

He added: “Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgement a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it.”

The blogger expressed strong opinions on matters of political controversy and had criticised a number of ministers.

The judge said that it had always been apparent that if his employing police authority became aware – as it now had – that one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way, there would be a significant risk of disciplinary action.

Indeed, this was one of the main reasons why Night Jack was keen to maintain his anonymity.

Rejecting the argument that all the blogger’s readers needed to know was that he was a serving police officer, the judge said that it was often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source.

“For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment.

“More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by ‘insiders’, it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is.”

He did not accept that it was part of the court’s function to protect police officers who were, or thought they might be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors.

The public was entitled to know how police officers behaved and the newspaper’s readers were entitled to come to their own conclusions about whether it was desirable for officers to communicate such matters publicly.

Alan
June 16, 2009 at 18:10

“He added:

Anna Raccoon
June 16, 2009 at 18:23

Alan,

How do you know that Polly Toynbee’s real name is Polly Toynbee?

Anna Raccoon
June 16, 2009 at 18:26

Interesting – just checked my spam folder – and apologies to mandyv who has been trapped in there, and who I have just released.

I am being heavily spammed by ‘amateur incest movies’ – are there professional ones???????

Chris
June 16, 2009 at 19:06

Shooting the whistle-blower combines with the envy of a spiteful hack. What NightJack did was in the public interest (in every sense of the phrase).

Ivan
June 16, 2009 at 19:22

Now the Times will reveal the names of all its informers – NOT!

You should read the Register comments on this – the Times gets slammed.

North Northwester
June 16, 2009 at 19:23

OT I know, but I think you might want to publicize this.

http://my-own-doubts.blogspot.com/2009/06/hacking-iranian-government.html

Richard Dale is trying to help the Iranians crash government websites.

I hope you and your readers will take a look and maybe spread the word.

This is one in the server for Amahdidinnerjacket and his girl-hurting pig-fuckers.

Pardon my Spartan.

yvonne
June 16, 2009 at 22:45

I posted a comment on The Times and got the message that they were experiencing large comment volumes but only four comments appear. Perhaps they did not like what I had to say.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece

Old Holborn
June 16, 2009 at 22:49

Got the fucker

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/06/patrick-foster-of-times.html

Saul
June 16, 2009 at 23:49

Try Gloria’s pink ointment.

Alan
June 17, 2009 at 01:01

Anna,

If Polly Tonybee were someone else but was crap at covering their tracks should they enjoy the protection of the law in remaining a pseudonym to make up for their mistakes?

Should Guido be able to stop people broadcasting his real name?

Old Holborn said enough on his blog to be identified via messages he had posted elsewhere. Who is most at fault for this: The person who linked to the website where OH said who he was or OH for being careless?

It seems to me The Times set out to spoil things for him but if Night Jack chose to publish details that could identify the cases he was discussing and thereby identify him surely that is his own mistake and he should accept responsibility for it. The risk to his career was present with or without The Times sticking their oar in.

Was it in the public interest? Not sure. All seems very petty. He had made a pseud0-name for himself by publishing what he had and blogging anonymously is bound to arouse curiosity if not suspicion. If his behaviour is contrary to Police regulations should the freedom of the press only apply to plods who are devious, evil bastards?

He was like Icarus and flew too close to the sun.

Saul
June 17, 2009 at 01:59

Anonymity is all well and good if you are just trying to expose something. However, there is always the temptation to reveal your true self, after all, what is the point of achieving recognition (look how great I am) if you can