03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) informant is a confidential relationship so that disclosure of the identity of an informant constitutes a breach of the obligation of confidentiality. The appellant relied on passages from An informer v A Chief Constable [2012] EWCA Civ 197 and Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No:2) [1998] UKHL 6. [39] The court accepted that there had not been a breach of any Article 2 rights but focussed on the issue concerning what were in effect republication of allegations that the appellant was an informer. [40] The court dealt with the issue in the following way: "[20] We considered that the only substantive issue in this appeal concerned the republication of allegations that the appellant was an informer on the basis that such republication would constitute a breach of confidence and misuse of private information … [21] The aspect of the claim appears to have received only modest attention in the submissions of the parties and in the judgment. It has been argued more fully before us. It is accepted by both parties that the truth or falsity of the information is irrelevant in considering whether there has been a breach of the duty of confidence in respect of which interim measures should be granted. If the allegation is untrue there is clearly no public interest in asserting it. [22] The first question is whether or not such information gives rise to a duty of confidence. We are satisfied that quite independently of the Human Rights Act 1998 a duty of confidence arises where information of this nature comes to the knowledge of another person. The issue was discussed in the House of Lords in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No:2) [1998] UKHL 6. The House noted and accepted the evidence of Sir Robert Armstrong that the confidence of informers who relied on their identity and activities being kept confidential would be damaged if publication of that information were not prevented. Accordingly, there was a considerable public interest in preventing disclosure of their identities. [23] That public interest has in our view been given statutory support by the provisions of Section 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That section deals with the authorisation of covert human intelligence sources, colloquially referred to as informers. The fact that the source is covert is, of course, part of description and by virtue of Section 29(5) those responsible for the source have an obligation to ensure that there is a person with day to day responsibility for the source's security and welfare. [24] We are satisfied, therefore, that a person acting as a covert human intelligence source or informer has a reasonable expectation that his confidential relationship will not be disclosed. It is well recognised that many informers have criminal backgrounds and belong to a criminal social environment. Their motives for giving information to the police may be ambiguous or mixed (see An Informer v A Chief Constable [2012] EWCA Civ 197 per Toulson LJ at para 61). Those features do not, however, diminish the reasons for protecting the confidentiality of the relationship which are firstly, to secure the welfare of the informer and secondly to encourage the supply of information to the police by people who are unlikely to come forward unless they can be confident that their confidentiality will be protected. We do not accept, therefore, that it is in the public interest that investigative journalism should be free in all cases to reveal the full nature of the criminal activity of someone acting as an informer." [41] In the circumstances the court imposed an interim injunction preventing the publication, distribution or transmitting of any information by any means that suggested that the plaintiff provided information to the state authorities about any criminal activities. [42] Of course the facts of this case are significantly different from those in AB. The allegations were more detailed and specific than the general accusation that the person was a "tout" in this case. They were published in a national newspaper. Thus, the posting complained of here is of a different scale and www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 9/17