ARTICLE 19 and The Hong Kong Journalists Association
information about "the kind of biscuits civil servants had with their tea".? Not surprisingly, the provision became a symbol in Britain of "the stern face of authority set against the people's right to know",10 and was widely regarded across the political spectrum as in need of amendment.
The new act removes from criminal sanction the unauthorized disclosure of the large majority of official information, including information which might embarrass or inconvenience the government. Instead, the OSA 1989 identifies six areas for which it remains a criminal offence to disclose unauthorized information. These are:
(a) Security and intelligence.
(b) Defence.
(c) International relations.
(d) Information from foreign governments and international organizations.
(e) Information useful to criminals.
(f) Interception of communications.
The disclosure of information in areas 1, 4 and 6, moreover, is an absolute offence for which the prosecuting authority "does not have to prove that damage has been done". All other areas require a broad test of damage or harm.
Although long-awaited, the enactment of the OSA 1989 met mixed reviews. The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) remarked that, while the new law was in some ways an improvement on the old, there remained serious doubts about its compatibility with the right to freedom of expression. With some justification the OSA 1989 has been called a rationalization, not a liberalization, of the 1911 Act. In a report on the state of press freedom in Britain, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) argued that although the "mess" of the 1911 Act had been tidied up somewhat, the amended 1989 law actually gives the government powers "beyond the intentions of even 1911's... legislators"."
In particular, the report observes, the creation of a narrower law has made it more enforceable. Now there are clearly delineated areas of official secrecy, laying down unambiguous restrictions on access to "important sections of information where the public has a legitimate interest".12 In other areas, also, the 1911 Act has been tightened. The possibility of a public interest defence, for example, is excluded entirely from the new law, as is the
9
"Official Secrets Act", Section 4.1, in Press Freedom under Attack in Britain, a Special Report of the International Federation of Journalists, Brussels, 1989.
10
Id at 15.
11
12
Id.
Id.
34