Journalist's ban on silence was lawful
Even a member of the media can be ordered to remain silent when questioned as a witness. The Federal Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and dismissed the appeal of a television journalist who had been investigating the Lucerne police scandal.
In 2013, SRF1's Rundschau broadcast video footage showing a violent Lucerne police officer arresting a suspected burglar. Because it was suspected that a person subject to official secrecy had leaked the footage to television, the Lucerne public prosecutor's office launched an investigation against persons unknown.
As part of the investigation, a journalist was summoned as a witness. The public prosecutor's office prohibited him from reporting on the criminal investigation, the interrogation and the information he received during the interrogation or informing third parties until the preliminary proceedings had been concluded. He was also ordered to hand over the video to the public prosecutor's office to secure the material.
The journalist lodged an appeal against the orders of the public prosecutor's office and also criticized the fact that, contrary to his request, the interrogation had taken place without a lawyer. Like the lower court, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it had accepted it. This is evident from the decision published on Wednesday.
No special rule for media people
The court notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that witnesses must remain silent. There is no special regulation for members of the media.
The confidentiality order was intended to prevent the establishment of the truth from being compromised. The public prosecutor's office had justified it by arguing that any publication of information from the investigation proceedings or of information that the witness learned during the interrogation could alert the alleged perpetrators.
Like the lower court, the Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the public prosecutor's office had issued the gag order for understandable reasons. It only concerned the preliminary investigation into the breach of official secrecy in relation to the video recordings and did not prevent the journalist from researching and reporting on the police affair. His professional activity was not hindered. (SDA)
