In October 2012, an article entitled "Visiting a dealer" appeared in the Basler Zeitung. The journalist reported on a visit to the home of "Roland", who had been dealing weed and hashish for ten years. He earned 12,000 francs a year from it.
Based on the article, the Basel-Stadt public prosecutor's office initiated criminal proceedings against unknown persons for qualified narcotics offenses. The author, who was summoned as a witness, invoked the right of journalists to refuse to testify.
Qualified case
The Basel Court of Appeal ruled last June that she did not have to disclose her source. However, the Federal Supreme Court has now upheld the public prosecutor's appeal. The judges in Lausanne pointed out that the statutory right to protection of sources does not apply to journalists without restriction.
The right to refuse to testify does not apply in particular if it is a matter of investigating a serious criminal offense, which is the case with a qualified narcotics offense. This is the case for trafficking in soft drugs such as hashish if the annual profit exceeds CHF 10,000, which is the case here.
The obligation to disclose the identity of "Roland" was also proportionate in view of the specific circumstances. The lower court's consideration that "Roland" could dismiss his statements in the article as bragging in criminal proceedings and that nothing could be proven against him anyway was irrelevant.
Advertising platform for "Roland"
The interest in solving the crime should be classified as great, especially as "Roland" was part of a large-scale sales organization according to his own statements. On the other hand, there was no significant public interest in the report in question. According to the court, this would be the case, for example, if the dealer's statement were to cause serious
had uncovered abuses in politics, business or public administration. In this case, however, it was solely about the portrayal of the Basel cannabis scene.
"Roland" had been given a platform to trivialize his drug business and present it as a quasi "normal" trade. The article offered free advertising for a permanent delinquent and could even be understood as an invitation to do the same as "Roland" and easily earn additional income, according to the ruling of January 31, 2014. (SDA)