In an era when UK judges often ask ‘what does Europe say on this?’, two European court rulings are noteworthy for supporting the protection of journalistic sources.

In the first, the European Court of Human Rights decided a raid by Belgian police to seize computers and journalistic papers from a reporter in order to identify his source breached his right to receive and impart information freely under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The raid’s aim was to flush out any sources within the European Commission’s anti-fraud department.

The court said that in a democratic society a journalist’s right not to reveal sources was not merely a privilege that could be overridden depending on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his sources. On the facts of the case, particularly since police had seized a large quantity of the reporter’s journalistic material, there was insufficient justification to trump his Article 10 rights.

In the second recent case, the Court of Human Rights decided a reporter’s Article 10 rights were breached when he was jailed for 30 days after refusing to comply with an order of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that he reveal his source for an article about arms trafficking.

Arms trafficking convictions were being appealed, and the Dutch court wanted the reporter to reveal his source in the interests of the administration of justice in those proceedings.

But the court emphasised that the protection of a journalist’s sources was one of the basic conditions for freedom of the press, and vital for its watchdog role in a democracy. It noted that the Dutch appeal proceedings were not actually impeded by the journalist’s refusal to disclose the source.

Both rulings will be welcomed by the media, particularly in the aftermath of Mr Justice Eady’s recent order that Channel 4 must hand to Lord Justice Scott Baker, (who is currently presiding over Princess Diana’s inquest) material that is likely to identify, indirectly, two of the broadcaster’s confidential journalistic sources.

Elsewhere, celebrity privacy has made waves.

The Blairs secured undisclosed privacy damages, paid to charity, after the Daily Mail published photographs of them on holiday in Barbados in “secluded and private places”.

And actress Sienna Miller has accepted £37,500 compensation following publication of nude photographs of her in the News of the World and The Sun. This is thought to be the largest payout for photographic invasion of privacy.

Libel also continues to be costly. In a recent case, a High Court judge awarded £165,000 in damages (ouch!) to a Tunisian exile who was accused, in an Arabic satellite TV broadcast, of being an extremist Islamist figure linked to Al-Qaeda. The allegation was untrue; the exile had consistently opposed violence; and the TV station, Al Arabiya, had failed to correct the libel for more than two years.

Meanwhile, contested libel trials appear to be a rare breed these days. Interesting statistics, currently doing the rounds, show there have been only nine libel trials in front of juries at the High Court in London in the last 18 months. Seven of the nine were won by claimants.