---
title: "Assess a journalist’s claim to protect the identity of a source"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assess-a-journalist-s-claim-to-protect-the-identity-of-a-source"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-F20261018-4"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Assess a journalist’s claim to protect the identity of a source

> From the subpoena, notice to produce or question, and the journalist’s notes of the promise made, set out the facts relevant to the privilege (who the informant is in role only, when and how the promise was made, what…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assess-a-journalist-s-claim-to-protect-the-identity-of-a-source  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the subpoena, notice to produce or question, and the journalist’s notes of the promise made, set out the facts relevant to the privilege (who the informant is in role only, when and how the promise was made, what material would identify them) and the matters the court weighs if a party seeks an order to override the privilege, with references to the documents. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the privilege applies, advises the journalist and the media organisation, prepares any objection or response to an application, and makes sure the tool never receives the informant’s identity or anything from which it could be deduced. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the subpoena, notice to produce or question, and the journalist’s notes of the promise made, set out the facts relevant to the privilege (who the informant is in role only, when and how the promise was made, what material would identify them) and the matters the court weighs if a party seeks an order to override the privilege, with references to the documents.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether the privilege applies, advises the journalist and the media organisation, prepares any objection or response to an application, and makes sure the tool never receives the informant’s identity or anything from which it could be deduced.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the input to the tool identifies the informant by role only and contains nothing from which their identity could be deduced.
2. Check the facts of the promise against the journalist’s own notes.
3. Confirm which Evidence Act and forum apply before advising.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 126K (journalist privilege relating to identity of informant)](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126k.html) (checked 2026-10-18)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Journalist and informant identity record](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/defamation-and-media-law/journalist-informant-identity-record.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A working record of a promise not to disclose an informant's identity, using the definitions and the compellability rule in the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) sections 126J and 126K. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/assess-a-journalist-s-claim-to-protect-the-identity-of-a-source/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*