LEGAL STUDIES Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

LEGAL STUDIES - Essay Example ..†1 Therefore, it was his duty to preserve the information received by him by fax as secret. Being a civil servant, he must have had some experience in making difference between secret information and public one. Geoffrey might be found guilty under subsection 1, Section3 of the Act (1) as being â€Å"A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of—(a)any information, document or other article relating to international relations.† Geoffrey told his wife Jean about the information in the fax without lawful authority, as required by the law. According to Section 7 of the Act For the purposes of this Act, authorized disclosure is defined as â€Å"a disclosure by a Crown servant is made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty.† Geoffrey did not have the necessary authorization to disclose that kind of informa tion and therefore, he should have kept it to himself. On the other hand, Geoffrey might have not known that this information was secret, as the case description speaks about a secret agreement between Government ministers and the United Nations that no exact figures would be given as to the number involved. Therefore, he might raise the defence provided by the Official Secrets Act 1989, in Section 3, subsection (4), which stipulates that: â€Å"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question was such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.† If Geoffrey can prove that he was not aware that the information was confidential and its disclosure would be damaging, he might avoid being held liable for disclosing it. On the other hand, by telling his wife, whom he, of course, knew that is a journalist, it must have occurred to his mind that his wife, as any journalist, might use that information in her own interest and make it public. I believe that Geoffrey, as a Crown servant, should have acted with caution as regards the information and find out if it is secret or not before passing it to other parties. His wife, on the other hand, might be held liable for publishing this information under Section 5 of the Act, within the provisions of which she might fall. Section 5 (2) stipulates that: â€Å"Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.† So, unle ss the disclosure was not damaging, Jean can be held liable under the Act. This is the case of the information passed to Jean by her husband, as he entrusted her that information, in accordance with Subsection 1, Section 5 of the Act. Geoffrey should have warned his wife about the importance of the information and the necessity to keep it secret. This is applicable, unless Geoffrey intentionally told his wife about t