The High Court has ordered that applicants in an investigation into Independent News and Media PLC receive a redacted copy of the inspectors’ first interim report. Only 20 specified paragraphs are to be provided; all others must be excluded.
Mr Justice Kelly, President of the High Court, made the order on 30 July 2019. The report had been delivered to the court in April, and a copy had already been provided to the Director of Corporate Enforcement, who was entitled to receive it as of right under the Companies Act 2014.
The inspectors were appointed in September 2018 to investigate the company’s affairs. Their work covered four areas: the interrogation of company data, the Newstalk acquisition/APN transaction, the Independent Review Process and alleged market abuse. The court said most applicants were concerned with the data interrogation issue.
The judgment said that backup tapes were removed from the company’s premises in 2014 and taken outside the jurisdiction for months of data interrogation. The operation was allegedly directed by then chairman Leslie Buckley as part of a cost-cutting measure. The judgment said other board members were apparently unaware at the time, and that external individuals with business links to Mr Buckley and others had access to the data. It also recorded concerns about searches involving 19 people, including journalists, and possible access to material covered by journalistic privilege. These were matters under investigation; the inspectors had made no findings.
The Director and inspectors opposed disclosure. The inspectors said the report mainly recorded progress and future work, but also referred directly and indirectly to evidence. They said confidentiality commitments had helped them obtain cooperation and warned that disclosure could risk material reaching the public.
Mr Justice Kelly said the applicants had statutory grounds to seek the report, but no absolute right to receive it. He accepted that disclosure of evidential material could hinder the inspection or undermine confidentiality commitments. He concluded that non-evidential parts could be disclosed without interfering with oversight of the inspectors’ work.
The court directed that paragraphs 1–10, 19–33, 38–40 and 79 be furnished to the applicants. All other paragraphs are excluded. The order does not disclose the full interim report or make findings on the matters being investigated.