Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD (vii) the requirement to permit consultation with a solicitor and the notification of a third party; (viii) the requirement for records to be kept; (ix) the availability of judicial review; the contention of the appellant and of Liberty that judicial review would be ineffective is overstated; judicial review is available if bad faith or collateral purpose is alleged, and also via the principle of legitimate expectation where a breach of the Code of Practice or of the several restrictions listed above is in issue; courts are well used to requiring police officers to justify their actions and to drawing the correct inference if there is material to do so; use of the power for a collateral purpose, such as to investigate a non-terrorism suspected offence, would be likely to become apparent, as it did in the case of section 44 – see para 41(f), (g) and (h) above. (x) the continuous supervision of the Independent Reviewer is of the first importance; it very clearly amounts to an informed, realistic and effective monitoring of the exercise of the powers and it results in highly influential recommendations for both practice and rule change where needed. 109. It is plain that most of these safeguards apply with equal force to an interference with article 10 rights. Mr Kovats submits that, if Schedule 7 is compatible with articles 5, 6 and especially 8, it must also be compatible with article 10. He makes the point that article 8 is of similar structure to article 10 and many factual situations fall within both articles. He illustrates this by reference to a number of Strasbourg decisions where complaints were made of violations of article 8 and 10 and where, having reached a decision in relation to one complaint, the court said that it was not necessary to express a view about the other: see, for example, Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45; Nagla v Latvia; and McVeigh et al v United Kingdom (1981) 5 EHRR 71. In Telegraaf Media Landelijke BV v Netherlands (2012) 34 BHRC 193, one of the complaints concerned the tapping of the applicant journalists’ telephones. Mr Kovats relies on the fact that the court said at para 88 that it was appropriate to consider the matter under articles 8 and 10 “concurrently”. 110. But although there is often an overlap between articles 8 and 10, they are distinct. That is particularly the case where article 10 concerns freedom of journalistic expression. I turn to the particular question of whether the safeguards which were held to be adequate in Beghal must by the same token be considered to be adequate in an article 10 case concerning journalistic material. I accept the submission of Liberty that safeguard (ix) is of very limited value in the context of protecting journalistic material. The availability of judicial review, after the event, cannot cure a breach of article 10 resulting from the disclosure of a confidential source or other confidential material. I develop this point at para 113 below. As the ECtHR put it in Telegraaf Media Nederland (2012) 34 BHCR 193 at para 101: “… review post factum,…..cannot restore the confidentiality of journalistic sources once it is destroyed.”