ID of anonymous blogger revealed

An anonymous policeman blogger who has targeted the force and Government ministers was unmasked today after the High Court ruled against keeping his identity secret.

Refusing a temporary injunction to prevent a newspaper from identifying the serving detective constable - who goes by the name of Night Jack - Justice Eady said that "blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity".

Today, the blogger was named as Richard Horton, 45, who serves with Lancashire Constabulary.

Justice Eady also ruled that any right of privacy on the part of the blogger would be likely to be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer had been making such contributions.

Mr Horton's counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, submitted that there was a public interest in preserving the anonymity of bloggers.

He said that the thousands who communicated via the internet under a cloak of anonymity would be "horrified" to think that the law would do nothing to protect their identities if someone carried out the necessary detective work to unmask them.

While acknowledging that might be true, the judge said that there was still a need to demonstrate that there would be a legally enforceable right to maintain anonymity, in the absence of a genuine breach of confidence.

The mere fact that Night Jack wished to remain anonymous did not mean either that he had a reasonable expectation of doing so.

He added: "Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it."

He said that Night Jack's blog mostly dealt with his police work and his opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.

The blogger expressed strong opinions on matters of political controversy and had criticised a number of ministers.

The judge said that it had always been apparent that if his employing police authority became aware - as it now had - that one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way, there would be a significant risk of disciplinary action.

Indeed, this was one of the main reasons why Night Jack was keen to maintain his anonymity.

Lancashire Constabulary told said that "(Mr Horton) has been spoken to regarding his professional behaviour and, in line with disciplinary procedures, has been issued with a written warning."

Rejecting the argument that all the blogger's readers needed to know was that he was a serving police officer, the judge said that it was often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source.

"For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment.

"More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by 'insiders', it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is."

He did not accept that it was part of the court's function to protect police officers who were, or thought they might be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors.

The public was entitled to know how police officers behaved and the newspaper's readers were entitled to come to their own conclusions about whether it was desirable for officers to communicate such matters publicly.