High court declines to grant Associated Newspapers review of decision to allow anonymous submissions from journalists

The Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, has lost its high court challenge to the Leveson inquiry over anonymous evidence from journalists.

On Friday the high court ruled that it would not grant a judicial review to Associated Newspapers in a bid to stop the Leveson inquiry accepting anonymous submissions from journalists. The application was supported by Telegraph Media Group.

Associated Newspapers wanted the high court to overturn a ruling made my Lord Justice Leveson in November, claiming that it was unlawful and that all tabloid newspapers risked being "reputationally damaged" by "untested" claims from journalists.

The inquiry was set to hear more evidence from rank-and-file journalists next week, including a number of anonymous submissions through the National Union of Journalists, but that has been postponed due to the high court challenge. About 20 journalists have submitted anonymous evidence to the inquiry.

In a written judgment handed down at the high court on Friday, Lord Justice Toulson said: "Judicial review is a means of correcting unlawfulness. It is not for the court to micromanage the conduct of the inquiry by the chairman, least of all in relation to hypothetical situations the likelihood of which appears to the chairman to be remote.

"I would refuse the application for judicial review. For the future, how the chairman deals with individual anonymity requests in the context of his general ruling and protocol will be matters of detailed consideration for him, which should not foreseeably give rise to further requests for judicial interference."

The high court ruled that Lord Justice Leveson had not acted unlawfully by allowing anonymous submissions, which would leave "a gap in the inquiry's work" if they were disallowed.

"I am not persuaded that there is in principle something wrong in allowing a witness to give evidence anonymously through fear of career blight, rather than fear of something worse.

"Fear for a person's future livelihood can be a powerful gag. Nor am I persuaded that the chairman acted unfairly and therefore erred in law in deciding that on balance he should admit such evidence, subject to his considering it of sufficient relevance and being satisfied that the journalist would not give it otherwise than anonymously."

Evidence submitted anonymously by journalists will not name any person or company, Leveson said in his ruling last year.

Friday's judgment said: "Above all, it is of the greatest importance that the inquiry should be, and seen by the public to be, as thorough and balanced as it is practically possible.

"If the chairman is prohibited from admitting the evidence of journalists wanting to give evidence anonymously, there will be a gap in the inquiry's work, although the material (or similar material) is already in a real sense in the public domain."

Associated Newspapers said in a statement: "Associated, supported by the Telegraph, made the application for judicial

review because we felt that there was a hugely important point of principle of fairness at stake.

"It is our view that the decision of the Leveson inquiry to admit anonymous evidence is unfair to all newspapers as it allows unsubstantiated allegations to be made without it being clear which papers they refer to and without it being possible for such allegations to be challenged or investigated.

"Whilst we welcome the fact that the divisional court acknowledges that anonymous evidence gives rise to a risk of prejudice to newspaper organisations, we are disappointed by the decision and are considering an appeal."

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediatheguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mediaguardian