26 May 2000. Thanks to Anonymous.

The Spectator, May 26, 2000

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-General 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 passage 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 consultancy work for the Ministry of Defence. He had retired from the army in 1991 after 25 years of service in the Royal Army Ordnance 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 flimsy as the case against Mr Geraghty. Indeed, it is substantially the same, the main difference 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 Attorney-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 liberalism, in the New York Times painting the government in a repressive light. Lord Williams, the Attorney-General, was probably told that a prosecution against a journalist 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 servants on the one hand and journalists on the other. Naturally any government must take measures to ensure that potentially damaging 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 government 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 officer, 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 revelations about computer surveillance in mainland Britain which even reporting restrictions 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.

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,265478,00.html

The Guardian, May 25, 2000

Retired colonel on secrets charge

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday May 25, 2000

A former army officer awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his work defusing bombs in Northern Ireland was yesterday committed for trial at the Old Bailey on secrets charges.

Nigel Wylde, a retired colonel, who pleaded not guilty, was arrested in December 1988 with Tony Geraghty, a defence journalist who wrote a book describing how army computers secretly monitor the activities of two thirds of the population of Northern Ireland.

His book, The Irish War, was published in October 1988. No attempt has been made to withdraw it. Secrets charges against Mr Geraghty were withdrawn by the attorney general, Lord Williams.

Colonel Wylde, who is on unconditional bail, is charged with making damaging disclosures without authority in his role as a government contractor.

He faces the prospect of a two year jail sentence.

He said yesterday: "I challenge the prosecution to prove there was any damage to national security as a result of the book. The Official Secrets Act is oppressive, violates the presumption of innocence and consequently my human rights."

He added: " It was clearly a political decision to remove the journalist from this case designed to try and reduce the publicity his prosecution would attract".

John Wadham, director of the civil rights group Liberty and Col Wylde's lawyer, said after the hearing: "When Labour was in opposition it opposed this act in principle. Many cabinet ministers voted against it yet they seem happy to use it against my client."

The trial is not likely to take place until early next year - after the Human Rights Act comes into force. The act incorporates the European convention on human rights into English law.

Col Wylde's defence team argues that the Official Secrets Act contravenes the convention by reversing the burden of proof.