UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄
Journalist Source Confidentiality
and the Section 205 Subpoena
Legal Obligations, Judicial Discretion and the Ethics Defence
under the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
⋄ ⋄ ⋄
Module Code LCR4803
Module Name Media Law
Assignment Assignment 2 — Semester 1
Due Date 3 April 2026
Topic s 205 CPA, Source Confidentiality &
Ethics
Referencing OSCOLA (Oxford)
Institution University of South Africa
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for LCR4803 — University of South Africa
,UNISA | LCR4803 Journalist Source Confidentiality & s 205 CPA
Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Section 1: The Section 205 CPA Subpoena — Nature and Legal Framework 4
2.1 1.1 What Section 205 Provides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 1.2 Requirements for a Valid Section 205 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 1.3 The Journalist’s Legal Obligation Upon Receipt of a Section 205 Subpoena . 5
3 Section 2: Consequences of Non-Compliance with a Section 205 Subpoena 7
3.1 2.1 Contempt of Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 2.2 The Coercive vs Punitive Distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 2.3 Refusal to Answer Specific Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Section 3: Judicial Discretion to Enforce or Decline Disclosure 9
4.1 3.1 The Constitutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 3.2 The Balancing Test: Press Freedom vs the Administration of Justice . . . . . 9
4.3 3.3 Judicial Discretion in the Examination Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 3.4 The Protected Disclosures Act and Its Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 Section 4: Professional Ethical Codes — A Valid Legal Defence? 12
5.1 4.1 The Ethical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2 4.2 Do Ethical Codes Create Legal Privileges? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3 4.3 The Constitutional Route: Section 16 as a Quasi-Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4 4.4 Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.1 4.4.1 The European Court of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.2 4.4.2 United Kingdom: Contempt of Court Act 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.3 4.4.3 United States: First Amendment and Shield Laws . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.4 4.4.4 Comparison Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Section 5: Critical Assessment and the Case for Legislative Reform 16
6.1 5.1 The Legislative Gap and Its Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2 5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3 5.3 The Journalist’s Best Available Defence in the Current Legal Environment . . 16
7 Conclusion 18
Reference List 19
Page 2 of 20
, UNISA | LCR4803 Journalist Source Confidentiality & s 205 CPA
Introduction
The tension between a journalist’s duty to protect sources and the State’s power to compel
disclosure in criminal proceedings is one of the most contested intersections of media law and
criminal procedure in South Africa. When a reporter receives leaked documents from an anony-
mous whistleblower revealing alleged police corruption, and a court subsequently issues a sub-
poena under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) compelling them to
testify and identify that source, multiple fundamental interests collide: the administration of
justice, freedom of the press, the constitutional right to receive information, and the safety of
whistleblowers.
This essay critically assesses the journalist’s legal obligations under section 205 of the CPA,
the consequences of non-compliance, the scope of judicial discretion in enforcing disclosure,
and whether professional ethical codes constitute a valid legal defence against such a sub-
poena. Relevant South African case law, constitutional provisions, comparative jurisprudence,
and academic commentary are integrated throughout.
Page 3 of 20
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄
Journalist Source Confidentiality
and the Section 205 Subpoena
Legal Obligations, Judicial Discretion and the Ethics Defence
under the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
⋄ ⋄ ⋄
Module Code LCR4803
Module Name Media Law
Assignment Assignment 2 — Semester 1
Due Date 3 April 2026
Topic s 205 CPA, Source Confidentiality &
Ethics
Referencing OSCOLA (Oxford)
Institution University of South Africa
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for LCR4803 — University of South Africa
,UNISA | LCR4803 Journalist Source Confidentiality & s 205 CPA
Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Section 1: The Section 205 CPA Subpoena — Nature and Legal Framework 4
2.1 1.1 What Section 205 Provides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 1.2 Requirements for a Valid Section 205 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 1.3 The Journalist’s Legal Obligation Upon Receipt of a Section 205 Subpoena . 5
3 Section 2: Consequences of Non-Compliance with a Section 205 Subpoena 7
3.1 2.1 Contempt of Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 2.2 The Coercive vs Punitive Distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 2.3 Refusal to Answer Specific Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Section 3: Judicial Discretion to Enforce or Decline Disclosure 9
4.1 3.1 The Constitutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 3.2 The Balancing Test: Press Freedom vs the Administration of Justice . . . . . 9
4.3 3.3 Judicial Discretion in the Examination Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 3.4 The Protected Disclosures Act and Its Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 Section 4: Professional Ethical Codes — A Valid Legal Defence? 12
5.1 4.1 The Ethical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2 4.2 Do Ethical Codes Create Legal Privileges? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3 4.3 The Constitutional Route: Section 16 as a Quasi-Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4 4.4 Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.1 4.4.1 The European Court of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.2 4.4.2 United Kingdom: Contempt of Court Act 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.3 4.4.3 United States: First Amendment and Shield Laws . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4.4 4.4.4 Comparison Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Section 5: Critical Assessment and the Case for Legislative Reform 16
6.1 5.1 The Legislative Gap and Its Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2 5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3 5.3 The Journalist’s Best Available Defence in the Current Legal Environment . . 16
7 Conclusion 18
Reference List 19
Page 2 of 20
, UNISA | LCR4803 Journalist Source Confidentiality & s 205 CPA
Introduction
The tension between a journalist’s duty to protect sources and the State’s power to compel
disclosure in criminal proceedings is one of the most contested intersections of media law and
criminal procedure in South Africa. When a reporter receives leaked documents from an anony-
mous whistleblower revealing alleged police corruption, and a court subsequently issues a sub-
poena under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) compelling them to
testify and identify that source, multiple fundamental interests collide: the administration of
justice, freedom of the press, the constitutional right to receive information, and the safety of
whistleblowers.
This essay critically assesses the journalist’s legal obligations under section 205 of the CPA,
the consequences of non-compliance, the scope of judicial discretion in enforcing disclosure,
and whether professional ethical codes constitute a valid legal defence against such a sub-
poena. Relevant South African case law, constitutional provisions, comparative jurisprudence,
and academic commentary are integrated throughout.
Page 3 of 20
