A court case where a journalist was asked by a judge to reveal his sources has ended with the defendant – a detective – being cleared of leaking information about the 1996 Manchester bomb.

An 11-day Crown Court trial heard how Det Chief Insp Gordon Mutch was alleged to have been disappointed that senior officers failed to press ahead and agree to the arrest a prime suspect behind the IRA bombing.

The prosecution alleged he leaked the information to the newspaper – but was cleared by jury this week of misconduct in a public office, a charge he had denied, after three hours of deliberations.

The court was told that DCI Mutch met crime reporter Steve Panter and gave him information gathered during the investigation to bolster Panter’s own inquiry into the bombing, information that was passed on in a 1999 front page article telling how officers were sure they knew who the suspect was but were “bitterly frustrated” he couldn’t be arrested because of “insufficient evidence”.

DCI Mutch denied passing on information to Panter.

Steve Panter, now deputy news editor, told Manchester Crown Court he was not prepared to divulge information which could impinge on his sources.

Read his editor’s fears about the possible consequences here.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 states: “No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”

But he was warned by the judge that he was potentially liable to serious penalty if he refused to answer any question surrounding the events which led to him receiving the sensitive material.

David Perry, prosecuting, had cross-examined Panter in court over a meeting he had with Mr Mutch and said he would have to ask him about how he obtained the sensitive file.

Panter explained that he was “not sure” he could answer the questions.

He did admit that the sensitive information had been handed to him in order to research the story but refused to say if he knew the name of the person who handed him the file.

The Contempt of Court Act recognises the public interest of allowing journalists to protect their sources – but courts in the past have ordered disclosure where they have considered it necessary.

However, in this case the jury had already been told this was not a case concerning freedom of the press, but one about the public duty of a police officer.

MEN editor Paul Horrocks said afterwards: “We are pleased with the jury’s verdict, which has now brought to a close this police officer’s nightmare.

“We are also delighted the jury had no hesitation in accepting our journalist’s evidence.

“We absolutely reject criticism of the paper’s decision to publish the identity of the prime suspect in the bombing and we fully support Mr Panter’s right to protect his source.”