Resources - Whistleblowing International Network

Anti-Corruption Action Plan for Asia and the Pacific (2001)

ADB/OCED Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific, Anti-Corruption Action Plan for Asia and the Pacific (30 November 2001)

This plan sets out a range of non-legally binding principles and standards geared towards policy reform which governments of the Asia-Pacific region can commit to in the pursuit of tackling corruption and bribery, with a view to enhancing development, economic growth and social stability. Implementation of this plan envisages the creation of a mechanism whereby progress in achieving intended objectives is measured, and practical assistance is afforded to participating governments on policy reform.

The proposals rest on three pillars: 1) creating transparent and effective public services; 2) strengthening anti-bribery actions and promoting integrity in business operations; 3) enhancing public involvement. Within these pillars are proposals to strengthen corporate accountability, including the protection of employees reporting corruption, and clear objectives to better public participation in anti-corruption activities by strengthening whistleblowing protections.

Read Download

Are Whistleblowing Laws Working? A Global Study of Whistleblower Protection Litigation

Are Whistleblowing Laws Working? A Global Study of Whistleblower Protection Litigation.

Over the course of 2 years Government Accountability Project (GAP) & the International Bar Association (IBA) tracked the records of whistleblower laws in 38 countries to understand the successes and shortcomings of whistleblower protection, following a rise in anti-corruption laws in recent decades.

The report aims to provide a vital framework for legislators to protect whistleblowers in law with recommendations to draft laws that reflect global best practices as well as commit to transparency and education of whistleblower rights.

Read Download

Bilsbrough v Berry Marketing Services (UK, 2019)

Bilsbrough v Berry Marketing Services, ET/1401692/2018 (ET, 5 July 2019)

Decision of the Employment Tribunal in England and Wales confirming that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides additional protection to existing UK whistleblowing rights (found in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 ‘PIDA’). Rights extended to capture situations where employers sanction their workers because they believe the worker is considering making, or is likely to make public interest disclosures (this scenario of an ‘anticipated’ disclosure is not covered in PIDA). The claimant was suspended on the grounds that his employers believed he was researching how to raise concerns to a prescribed regulatory body. The tribunal concluded that not allowing the claimant to assert his rights under the PIDA as a perceived whistleblower would have a chilling effect on free speech and could prompt unscrupulous employers to act swiftly to punish employees and/or workers before the making of the actual disclosure. As this is decision is a first instance ruling it is not binding on higher courts.

Read Download

Bruzas v Saxton (UK, 2018)

Bruzas v Saxton [2018] EWHC 1619 (Fam)

Legal professional privilege and whistleblowing:
Family law case in which a whistleblower from within a law firm disclosed legally privileged material to the court about the conduct of staff in the law firm and one of the parties. Case referred to the president of the family division of the high court to consider content of documents and whether they could be admissible by one of the parties who was effectively seeking to set aside an agreed settlement of the case. Documents found to be inadmissable as they were legally privileged and did not show a prima facie case of fraud. The judge commented that the material fell “well short of being capable of establishing fraud or iniquity that would justify overriding or ignoring the legal professional privilege”.

For case analysis see here. An update on the case can be read here.

Read Download

Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor (UK, 2017)

Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 979

Leading Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case on the ‘public interest’ test to be found in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The respondent, Mr Nurmohamed, made a disclosure to his employers concerning alleged accounting irregularities which had a direct impact on his bonus, and that of another hundred fellow employees. The court considered whether the private interests of the Claimant and his co-workers – but not any wider public interest – could be covered by the new test inserted into the legislation in 2013. It found in the Claimant’s favour. The court provided guidance for considering whether the public interest is engaged emphasising that all the circumstances of each case should be considered and that it is the character of the interest served rather than the number of people sharing it that is most relevant. Factors to be considered include: 1) the number of employees affected 2) the nature of interests affected 3) the nature of the wrongdoing 4) the identity of the wrongdoer.

Read Download

Caught between Conscience and Career

Caught between Conscience and Career: Exposing Abuse without Exposing your Identity (2019)

This survival guide from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) in the US is intended to help and empower conscientious government employees when they encounter wrongdoing in the workplace. It includes guidance on protecting your identity, anonymity and the legal and practical implications of disclosing to the media.

POGO’s website has a dedicated whistleblowing resource guide for federal employee here.

Read Download

Clean as a Whistle Report

Clean as a whistle: a five step guide to better whistleblowing policy and practice (2019)

This major academic study outlines the findings of the largest piece of research on whistleblowing ever undertaken - Whistleblowing While They Work 2: Improbing managerial responses to whistleblowing in pulic and private sector organisations.

The project demonstrates the power of academic engagement in supporting public policy reforms. Its focus is on best practices for whistleblowing procedures, specifically welfare management of employees at risk of victimisation. In context of ground-breaking national whistleblowing legislation passing in Australia, the study outlines out key actions to advance policy reforms both in government and the private sector backed up with impressive qualitative data and analysis.

Further information on WWTW2 can be found here.

Read Download

Council of Europe Recommendations (2014)

CM/Rec(2014)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of whistleblowers (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2014) and explanatory memorandum

Highly influential legal instrument from the Council of Europe which recommends effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers including clear principles and guidance for member States to review and reform national laws.

It is available in French and German here.

Read Download

Embracing Digitalisation: How to use ICT to strengthen Anti-Corruption

Embracing Digitalisation: How to use ICT to strengthen Anti-Corruption - a joint publication commisioned by the Anti-Corruption and Integrity Programme on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008)

Section 4.3 of this publication on leveraging technological developments for anti-corruption provides an overview of whistleblowing platforms including an analysis of the challenges of anonymous reporting and a case study on the Kenyan experience of using a BKMS software based system.

Read Download

Engaging Whistleblowing in Nigeria (2018)

One year of Corruption Anonymous (CORA) Project, Engaging Whistleblowing in Nigeria (2018)

This report followed the proposed implementation of a whistleblowing policy and law in Nigeria in 2016. In consultation with wider civil society, the report explains the consequences and effects of this reform which aimed to help bring an end to corruption in the country. Under the new law, whistleblowers would be protected from retaliatory consequences for disclosures, and may qualify for a reward if fresh information, otherwise unknown to government, is provided.

Three key proposals are made: first, to ensure whistleblowing is underpinned by an ethical, moral and legal basis; second, to guarantee a fail-safe legal framework to protect whistleblowers; third, to amend the Nigerian constitution to emphasise the role the public can play in fighting corruption.

Read Download

European Union Directive on Whistleblower Protection (2019)

DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law

The EU Directive on whistleblower protection is considered the most ambitious whistleblowing protection legal reform project in the world. Its adoption exemplifies the success of impressive civil society cross-border collaboration and campaigning. It has far reaching impact on expanding and levelling the scope of the protections across 27 member states of the European Union.

Each member state must now transpose its provisions into national law to meet its minimum standards. Significant wide-scope national legislation will be required to protect whistleblowers, third parties and facilitators. It also introduces mandatory requirements on handling whistleblowing internally in both public bodies and private businesses.

It is available in the 24 official languages of the EU here.

Read Download

Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ors v Bamieh (UK, 2019)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ors v Bamieh [2019] EWCA Civ 803 (9 May 2019)

This decision from Court of Appeal (England and Wales) provides guidance on the questions employment tribunals must examine when deciding whether they have jurisdiction to entertain whistleblowing claims brought against individual co-workers based outside the UK. The claimant was an international prosecutor employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) who was seconded to work for EULEX Kosovo. In 2014 her contract was not renewed which she believed was due to making protected disclosures. Though it was accepted that there was jurisdiction for a whistleblowing claim against the FCO, the same was not true for a claim against her two co-workers (also seconded to EULEX from FCO) on the basis that there was a closer connection to EU law and Kosovan law, than British law. To this end, the Court held that the strength of connection, not the strength of the protection, was a key question when determining jurisdiction. Lead UK case on jurisdiction see Serco v Lawson (2006) UKHL 3.

Read Download

Guja v Moldova (ECtHR, 2008)

Guja v Moldova, App no 14277/04 (ECtHR,12 February 2008)

A landmark ruling from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression), the restrictions deemed necessary in a democratic society (particularly on grounds of confidentiality) and the disclosure of information to the press. The Applicant, then Head of the Press Department of the Prosecutor’s General Office, had been dismissed for disclosing evidence to the media about political interference in criminal proceedings. The judgment confirmed that in some cases the public interest in the disclosure of information could be so strong as to override a legally imposed duty of confidence. It sets out the key factors to be considered when determining whether such a disclosure could be justified including: the public interest of the relevant information; its authenticity; whether there were alternative means for the disclosure to have been made; the motive of the whistleblower; the severity of the sanction; and the damage caused to the public authority by the disclosure (if any). The court emphasised that they do not all have to be met to gain protection. Having considered these factors, the court agreed that the applicant’s Article 10 rights had been violated and awarded him damages arising out of his dismissal plus costs.

The judgement is offically available in in French. Other translations can be found here.

Read Download

Growing Beyond: a place for integrity (2012)

Growing Beyond: a place for integrity, 12th Global Fraud Survey, Ernst & Young

EY’s series of global surveys highlights organisational efforts to tackle fraud and corruption.

In 2012, the report stated that the 2010 Frank-Dodd legislation in the US, which offers financial rewards to whistleblowers from regulators, had been cited by prosecutors as leading to an increase in the quality and quantity of whistleblowing reports.

In the 2014, the survey – which consulted with over 2,700 executives across 59 countries – revealed that 45% of businesses did not have whistleblower hotlines in place. The report emphasised the need to have clear escalation procedures to determine the response to whistleblower complaints.

In 2016, the report combined data from 2825 individuals across 62 countries. It was found that 55% of companies had whistleblowing hotlines in place but highlighted that there remained problems for the use of internal reporting mechanisms.

In 2018, the report consulted with 2550 executives over 55 countries with a majority of respondents stating they had implemented whistleblowing hotlines.

Read Download

Harvard Open Forum Series: Global Corruption and Whistleblowing in Europe and the U.S. (2020)

Democracy's Tripwire: Global Corruption and Whistleblowing in Europe and the U.S. (2020)

This is an article by Professor Allison Stranger in the Harvard Open Forum Series discussing whistleblowing protection from a political theory perspective. Stranger examines the history and context of civil society whistleblowing experts collaborating internationally, which led to the establishment of WIN, including reference to WIN's inaugural conference in September 2019 which brought together 80 practitioners from 25 countries.

Read Download

Heinisch v Germany (ECtHR, 2011)

Heinisch v Germany, App no 28274/08 (ECtHR, 21 October 2011)

Leading European Court of Human Rights case on the rights of employees to disclose public interest information and the protection provided by Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). The applicant, a geriatric nurse in a predominantly state-owned care home, was dismissed after bringing a criminal complaint alleging deficiencies in the standard of care provided by her employer. The court considered the balancing act required in considering sometimes competing ‘rights’ of the parties. In particular looking at the public interest in the protection of the elderly as against the public trust in the provision of services as well as the commercial interests and success of the company operating those services. The Court found that the Applicant’s dismissal infringed her Article 10 rights and set out criteria to assist with the process of determining proportionality when free speech rights are interfered with on allegedly legitimate legal grounds. The factors to be considered included examining the extent of the public interest involved in the disclosed information; the authenticity of the information disclosed; the damage to the employer in the disclosure; the motive of the employee; whether there were other means for the disclosure to be made; and the severity of the sanction.

Read Download

Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd (UK, 2019)

Ibrahim v HCA International Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 2007

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case looking at the public interest test in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Previous ruling in Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 979 followed. The appellant, Mr Ibrahim, a translator in a hospital, claimed he had been dismissed for complaining to management that he had been defamed – a complaint that had not been upheld by the employer following an investigation. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the employment tribunal to consider whether the claimant reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest. Both the subjective and objective belief in the public interest are vital ingredients to satisfy the test; crucially it also cast doubt on whether someone complaining of personal defamation can ever overcome this hurdle.

Read Download

Improving the Protection of Whistleblowers all over Europe (2019)

Draft resolution and report was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights at the Council of Europe on 24 June 2019.

It outlines powerful supplementary recommendations to improve upon the provisions of the EU Directive on whistleblowing. These include the establishment of a network of national independent authorities and legal support funds for whistleblowers, the right of asylum for whistleblowers and the fostering of the civil society 'ecosytem.'

The explanatory memorandum also provides a concise outline of the relevant 'acquis' of the Council of Europe and the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The report is available in French.

Read Download

Internal Whistleblowing Channels and the role of Trade Unions

Guide: Internal Whistleblowing Channels and the role of Trade Unions (2020)

This is Guide from Eurocadres written by Dr. Vigjilenca Abazi outlines internal whistleblowing channels that can be used by trade unions and employers.

The Guide provides a pathway to ensure the successful implementation of the EU Whistleblower Directive at an institutional level. It explains both the legal requirements and the practical steps for national policy-makers and employers working toward ensuring adequate internal reporting channels. The guide also offers clear steps trade unions can take for an active role during the transposition of the EU Whistleblower Directive and in the whistleblowing process.

The guide was originally published in English, but is being made available in French, Spanish, Italian, German and Polish, see here.

Read Download

International Best Practices in Whistleblowing Policies

This publication from the Government Accountability Project entitled ‘International Best Practices in Whistleblowing Policies’ provides a checklist of 20 requirements of any whistleblower protection law.

From scope of coverage to personal accountability for whistleblower reprisals, each minimum standard is accompanied by a compilation of examples of best practices taken from national statute and intergovernmental organisational policies.

Read Download

Irish National Whistleblowing Protection Law (2014)

The Protected Disclosure Act 2014 No.14 of 2014

Considered the strongest national whistleblowing legislation in Europe. The PDA was passed in the Republic Ireland in 2014. Its provisions surpassed the previous leading law - the Public Interest Disclosure Act in the UK - with significant protections. It expanded the scope of wrongdoings to including misuse of public funds and introducing third party protections - section 13 provides for an action in ‘tort’ (civil law) for others who suffer detrimental treatment such as family members. There is no requirement for the whistleblower to be acting in good faith, but the law was later amended to include a public interest test when disclosing trade secrets.

A staturory review of the legislation was undertaken in 2018 can be found here.

Read Download

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth (UK, 2018)

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case on what an employment tribunal needs to consider when determining what constitutes a disclosure of information for the purposes for the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). The appellant, Ms Kilraine, claimed she was dismissed by her employer because she had raised concerns internally about having been bullied and harassed, and about a safeguarding incident, both of which she alleged had not been adequately addressed. The Court of Appeal analysed the distinction between ‘allegations’ and ‘information’ opining that the two were not mutually exclusive before concluding that the appellant’s disclosures were mere allegations and did not amount to a ‘disclosure of information’ for the purposes of PIDA. The Court went on to stress that a disclosure must contain sufficient factual content and specificity for it to qualify as ‘information’ under the law.

Read Download

Matúz v Hungary (ECtHR, 2015)

Matúz v Hungary, App no 73571/10 (ECtHR, 21 January 2015)

European Court of Human Rights case considering ‘public’ disclosure of information and the protection provided under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of Expression). Case of Guja v. Moldova, No. 14277/04 (2008) followed. The applicant, a journalist working for a state-run television company, raised concerns in a book he authored (having first gone internally) about censorship practices at this station and was consequently dismissed from his position. The dismissal was found by the Court to be a breach of the claimant’s Article 10 rights as the information in the book had already been leaked by the time it was published and the claimant had originally tried to remedy the situation internally.

This judgment clarifies that where disclosures are made public, this must be done as a ‘last resort’ if Article 10 protection is sought.

Read Download

Open Government Guide

The Transparency & Accountablity Initiative's Open Government Guide

This 442 page interactive guide sets out practical and actionable recommendations to advance transparency, accountability and participation in government. Each topic is authored by a leading expert organisation in that field, including a chapter on whistleblowing protections contributed by WIN (see page 73.)

Its ‘illustrative commitments’ are phased from taking initial steps (review whistleblowing laws) to undertaking more advanced innovation (establish a public fund to support whistleblowers) and accompanied by comprehensive outlines of the relevant standards, guidance, and tools available.

It is also availabe in Spanish.

Read Download

Perugia Principles for Journalists

The Perguia Principles for Journalists: Working with Whistleblowers in the Digital Age (2018)

This publication from Blueprint for Free Speech provides the latest update on both source and whistleblower protections. It provides 12 concise principles for journalists facing working with whistleblowers in an age of complex digital systems from big data to mass surveillance. It sets out the principles as ethical obligations – with practical tips for their implementation.

It has been published in Russian, Greek, Spanish and German.

Read Download

Protecting Sources and Whistleblowers in a Digital Age

This report from the Institute of Advance Legal Studies summarises a research initiative which demonstrates the profound concerns of investigative journalists, media organisations, NGOs and lawyers for growing technological and legal vulnerabilities and weakening protections for confidential sources including whistleblowers.

It sets out 10 recommendations for policy action including a strong case to strengthen whistleblowing protection in light of the importance of public interest journalism.

Read Download

Protection of Whistleblowers (2006)

Seventh General Activity Report of GRECO (2006), Including a section on “Protection of Whistleblowers”

This report by GRECO discusses the issues participating countries have come across in trying to construct robust whistleblowing mechanisms and laws intended to encourage the reporting of corruption. The report emphasises the issues to be considered when devising protections, including whether a specific whistleblowing law should be enacted; the effectiveness of a good faith provisions; and repercussions for whistleblowers who disclose confidential information. The value in ensuring whistleblowers are protected from subtle types of retribution for making reports; the provision of confidential advisers to support them in this process; and the desire for laws to not have any contradictions which indirectly deter whistleblowing, were highlighted.

Public Concern at Work (now Protect) – partners of WIN – contributed to the production of this report.

Read Download

R v Robert Norman (UK, 2016)

R v Robert Norman [2016] EWCA Crim 1564 (20 October 2016)

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case involving the protection of journalist sources and the interplay of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression). Facts arising out of the phone hacking scandal[1], involving the voluntary disclosure of information about journalists’ sources by newspaper owners to the Metropolitan Police in London. Arguably the newspaper owners were co-operating with the police in order to avoid or reduce their own culpability arising out of the behaviour of some journalists in obtaining information for tabloid press stories, including payment of money to sources for that information. This disclosure led to the criminal prosecution of numerous public officials, in this case a prison officer at High Security prison HMP Belmarsh. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants case that the way in which his identity had been disclosed to the police was an abuse of process as the police had merely acted on information provided voluntarily by the newspaper owners. The appellant claimed that he had an individual right to confidentiality as a source under article 10 but this was also rejected by the court, primarily on the basis that his confidentiality as a source was tainted by the corrupt payments he received. Case highlights the urgent need for specific law on source protection in the UK (for more discussion on this issue see the IALS report ‘Protecting Sources and Whistleblowers in a Digital Age’ here). Case also discusses the UK offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

[1] See Leveson Inquiry, for more on phone hacking scandals and for the background to the police operations Weeting and Eleveden which resulted in numerous criminal prosecutions of public officials.

Read Download

Ramsay v Walker Snack Foods Ltd (UK, 2004)

Ramsay v Walker Snack Foods Ltd, UKEAT/0601/03/MAA (EAT, 13 February 2004)

Leading case in the UK on when and how an employer can protect the whistleblower’s identity when looking at serious allegations and the potential dismissal of an accused. In this case, three employees were dismissed having stolen money in crisp packets (inserted as part of a sales promotion). Case illustrates how the court has approached the competing interests of the accused’s right to a fair trial and the protection of the identity of the whistleblower. Further key case of Linfood Cash & Carry Ltd v Thomson [1989] IRLR 235 also referred to which established guidelines on how to maintain a balance between protecting the identity of the whistleblower and providing a fair hearing for the employee. These are also outlined in the Walkers case, confirming that even if these guidelines were not followed completely, an employer could still be reasonable in dismissing an employee based on anonymised statements from whistleblowers.

Note that these cases arise out of facts showing that the whistleblowers were too fearful of reprisals to be named. Precautions undertaken by the employer to protect identity included only having one person with whom all of the witnesses engaged (thus reducing the chance of identity being disclosed), limiting the availability of the witness evidence to those referred to in that evidence (where there are multiple individuals accused of wrongdoing), and redacting statements to reduce the chance that identity would be discovered.

Read Download

Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (2009)

OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (2009)

Report focusing on combatting bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. Recommendations include that member countries should ensure companies adequately deal with reports of bribery received from external auditors, and to consider such persons being mandated in law to supply information to independent authorities, including regulators. Legal protections for auditors who report reasonably and in good faith is further recommended. Companies should also ensure appropriate channels are in place for individuals to report suspected wrongdoing and to act upon receipt of these disclosures. In respect to international cooperation, governments are encouraged to investigate allegations of bribery passed to them by international organisations.

Read Download

Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (2012+)

Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, 2012 Global Fraud Study.

This series of reports from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners analyse the related costs and trends of occupational fraud globally.

The 2012 report finds that 5% of co revenues are lost to occupational fraud with inside information (tips or whistleblowers) being the most likely way to uncover the fraud. Senior longstanding members of staff were the highest risk to businesses for this type of fraud. 10% of the organisations surveyed and targeted by this type of fraud had reward systems in place for whistleblowers.

The 2014 report found that 40% of insider fraud was uncovered by tips or whistleblowers and organisations with hotlines were more likely to catch the fraud. Those in senior positions stole more assets. Just over 14% of tips were anonymous.

The 2016 report found that whistleblowers were most likely to report fraud to their direct supervisors (20.6% of cases), and to company executives in 18%. At the time, Southern Asia had the biggest proportion of organisations offering rewards to whistleblowers with 20.3% of respondents operating such schemes.

The 2018 report finds that where companies had hotlines the fraud was more likely to be detected by an insider tip (whistleblower). 12% of the organisations surveyed offered rewards to whistleblowers. The trend in reporting such cases to the authorities had declined, due, in many cases, to the fear of bad publicity.

Read Download

Rubins v Latvia (ECtHR, 2015)

Rubins v Latvia, App no 79040/12 (ECtHR, 1 June 2015)

This European Court of Human Rights judgment emphasises the importance of domestic courts when confronted with a whistleblowing claim, looking into the public interest element and the veracity of the allegations in question. The applicant, a university professor, expressed concerns in an email to management about shortcomings in the way the university was being run citing, among others, a State Audit Office report. He was subsequently dismissed having been accused by his employers of blackmail and making defamatory statements about them. In finding this sanction violated the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court affirmed the need for employers to allow their workers to express legitimate concerns of the leadership without facing detriment for doing so.

Non-official translations of this judgment in other languages can be found here.

Read Download

Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resource Limited (2018)

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resource Limited (Law Society Intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 (5 September 2018)

Court of Appeal decision (England and Wales) on the question of whether litigation privilege attached to documents created by law and accountancy firms when investigating allegations of fraud, corruption and financial wrongdoing, some of which were raised by a whistleblowing complaint. The Serious Fraud Office ‘SFO’ (an arm of the criminal justice system in the UK, with a remit to investigate and prosecute crimes involving serious or complex fraud, domestic and overseas bribery and corruption) was seeking access to the investigation documents and this was being resisted by the Respondent mining company. Long and detailed consideration of the legal principles applying to legal privilege in the UK.

Confirmed that legal privilege is split into two categories, namely, litigation privilege and legal advice privilege. Consideration of the SFO’s self-reporting scheme, which allows for plea bargaining in exchange for co-operative behaviour, including full disclosure of investigatory documents and a waiver of legal privilege. Here, while the company said it was going to co-operate, it never actually did and was successful in arguing that all of the documents prepared in investigating the alleged fraud and corruption were created in contemplation of litigation and covered by litigation privilege. Note this was an early case following the introduction of the Bribery Act in the UK and the court pointed out that the company failed to co-operate with the SFO, thereby increasing the risk of harsher penalties upon conviction.

Risk of all investigations being cloaked in legal privilege - note that here there had been press coverage of the whistleblower’s disclosure and the company anticipated a ‘dawn raid’ by the SFO which it then said was evidence that it contemplated litigation from the outset. In the event, matters became protracted and negotiations around self-reporting took 2 to 3 years, allowing the company to internally investigate through legally privileged third parties. Harder line approach required from prosecuting authorities on these issues from the outset to avoid similar outcome in future.

Read Download

Serbian National Whistleblowing Protection Law (2014)

Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers (2014)

Read Download

Speak Up_ Empowering Citizens Against Corruption (2015)

Speak Up_ Empowering Citizens Against Corruption, Transparency International (2015)

This report from Transparency International draws on the findings of a 2013 study in which 114,000 people ranging from a 107 countries were asked for their views on corruption. The research revealed a widespread public feeling of a lack of accountability, transparency and integrity across public institutions, and with this, an appetite to bring about change. The importance of whistleblowers in shining light on corrupt practices is acknowledged, pointing out that at the time of the report, only 4 out of 27 EU states had whistleblowing protections that were regarded as advanced. A shocking unwillingness to report is also revealed with 74% of those who witnessed or experienced corruption in Europe saying they did not report it. The report emphasises the need to improve whistleblowing protections worldwide, referencing TI’s successful campaigning work in countries to bring about developments in the law – including in Ireland in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

Read Download

The Bribery Act 2010 – MOJ Guidance (2011)

Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing (section 9 of the Bribery Act 2010), Ministry of Justice (2011).

UK Ministry of Justice guidance on The Bribery Act 2010, published as the Act came into force to help organisations understand the legislation and deal with the risks of bribery. The aim was to offer clarity on how the law would operate given that wholly new offences were being introduced including offering or receiving bribes, bribery of foreign public officials and of failure to prevent a bribe being paid on an organisation’s behalf. The Act also includes a full defence if an organisation proves that despite a particular case of bribery it nevertheless had adequate procedures in place to prevent persons associated with it from bribing. The guidance provides high level procedural guidance, confirms the need for ‘speak up’ or whistleblowing procedures for the reporting of bribery, and emphasises the need for bespoke training to those involved in administering such mechanisms.

Read Download

The Tshwane Principles

The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (Tshwane Principles)

These 50 principles provide highly persuasive standards relevant to balancing the public’s right to information with a state's needs around keeping some information secret for legitimate national security purposes. The principles include guidance on the punishment of whistleblowers who disclosure classified information of high public interest.

Drafted by 17 organisations, 5 academic centres in consultation of 50 experts from more than 70 countries, they are a shining example of the effectiveness of cross-border civil society cooperation.

It is available in Arabic, Japanese, Spanish, German, French, and Portuguese.

Read Download

The UK Whistleblowing Commission Report (2013)

Report of the UK independent Whistleblowing Commission which looked at UK law and practice on whistleblowing and made recommendations for change. The Commission comprised industry and academic experts and was supported by the UK’s leading whistleblowing charity, Protect - formally Public Concern at Work. It sought evidence through a public consultation process, surveys with industry, and academic evidence of the experiences of whistleblowers.

The 25 recommendations include detailed provisions to amend the UK legal framework, the Public Interest Disclosure Act (‘PIDA’), as well as a Code of Practice providing practical guidance to organisations, workers and their representatives for raising, handling, training and reviewing whistleblowing in the workplace.

The Code of Practice can be found here.

Read Download

The UK Whistleblowing Commission Code of Practice

This Code of Practice provides practical guidance for reviewing workplace whistleblowing arrangements. It was developed by an Independent Whistleblowing Commission set up by the UK whistleblowing charity Protect (formally Public Concern at Work) in 2013.

It sets out 8 recommendations on raising, handling, training and reviewing whistleblowing in the workplace including key principles of any written policies and procedures.

The full report of the whistleblowing commission can be read here.

Read Download

Tillack v Belguim (ECtHR, 2007)

Tillack v Belguim App no 20477/05 (ECtHR, 27 November 2007)

This European Court of Human Rights judgment deals with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression) and the protection of journalistic sources. The applicant was a journalist who reported on allegations of irregularities in the European institutions, and on internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Following a complaint by OLAF, the applicants home and workplace were raided and searched with significant seizure of property. It had been alleged that the information had been obtained following the payment of a bribe. The Court reiterated that the press played an essential role in a democratic society and that the protection of journalistic sources was a basic condition for press freedom. The searches in question had amounted to interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression even though the interference had been provided for in the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasised that a journalist’s right not to reveal her or his sources could not be considered a mere privilege to be granted or taken away depending on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their sources, but was part and parcel of the right to information, to be treated with the utmost caution. The court took into account the fact that a large amount of property had been seized and that the allegations of bribery were based on vague rumours.

Key quote from the judgment: ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest.’

Read Download

Totem Project

Online digital security training for activists and journalists

Totem is an online platform that helps journalists and activists use digital security and privacy tools and
tactics more effectively in their work.

In collaboration with a global network of human rights activists and journalists, Totem courses and interactive materials are maintained with support from trainers who have developed some of the most effective training resources.

To quickly enroll in one of the digital security courses, go to the Totem online platform.

UN Report on the Protection of Whistleblowers and Sources

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the UN General Assembly addressing the protection of whistleblowers and sources (2015).

This report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye, addresses the protection of sources of information and whistle-blowers. It reviews national and international law, practice and norms, highlighting the central importance of whistleblowers disclosing information to the public to give right to that information and public participation in political affairs.

It makes several highly persuasive recommendations including the adoption and revision of national legal frameworks protecting whistleblowers and the establishment of personal liability for those who retaliate against sources and whistleblowers. Essential reading for any advocate looking to leverage human rights to advance whistleblowing protections.

It is available in French, Russian and Spanish.

Read Download

UNODC Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons

This comprehensive guide outlines the critical importance of whistleblowing protections in tackling corruption globally.

It sets out the keys elements of ‘good practices’ in whistleblowing protections - from revising national legal frameworks and institutional arrangements to the provision of individual help and advice and cross-country cooperation.

Available in French, Spanish, English and Arabic.

Read Download

UNESCO Briefing - Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age

Part of UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom, this research report analyses international regulatory norms and regional instruments of human rights, highlighting the synergies between journalist source protections and whistleblowing.

It charts the trend of derogation of such rights in the digital era – from mass-surveillance to anti-terrorism - setting out an 11-point assessment tool for measuring effectiveness of legal source protections. It also provides a model universal framework which is useful to advocate for protections at a national level - Principle 11 explicity recognises that complementary whistleblowing legislation strengthens source protection laws.

Read Download

Whistleblowing & Integrity: a new perspective (2000)

Whistleblowing & Integrity: a new perspective, Public Concern at Work

This early paper by UK whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work (now ‘Protect’) outlines the pivotal role whistleblowing plays in the fight against corruption. It outlines the three options that individuals have when they are concerned about serious corruption or wrongdoing: staying silent, raising concerns internally and raising concerns externally to the authorities or the media. The paper explains why robust internal whistleblowing mechanisms are essential, explaining that staying silent can, among other things, harm a responsible employers’ interests whilst voicing concerns externally to the media could create unjustified adverse publicity causing unnecessary damage and disruption to an organisation. The damage caused by a culture of silence is illustrated. The essentials of good whistleblowing arrangements are set out including: zero tolerance to corruption, assurance against reprisals, external options and access to independent advice.

Read Download

Whistleblowing and Democratic Values (2011)

This academic ebook is a compilation of conference papers from the International Whistleblowing Research Network. Each chapter highlights an aspect the intersection between democratic values and whistleblowing in a wide range of topics including theoretical socio-political analysis of 'speaking up;' organisational culture; codes and measures to prevent workplace retaliation; the role of the ombuds system; analysis of the Bribery Act 2010 and the success of civil society campaigning for regulatory reforms in the UK.

The IWRN is run by the Whistleblowing Research Network. Further papers presented during their 2017 conference in Oslo and can be read here.

Read Download

Whistleblowing for Change (2008)

Whistleblowing for Change: The Social and Economic Costs and Benefits of Leaking and Whistleblowing (2008)

This detailed study examines whistleblowing and leaking in eight countries. It asks whistleblowing experts from civil society key questions regarding whistleblowing definitions, and the parameters of protections during the period of cross border collaboration and campaigning for the EU Directive on whistleblowing. The author also interviewed whistleblowers, asking them to detail their individual experiences, as well as other key actors including investigative journalists, compliance professionals and lawyers.

Read Download

Whistleblowing in European companies: Industrial relations for successful implementation of reporting channels (2021)

Whistleblowing in European companies: Industrial relations for successful implementation of reporting channels (2021)

This Research Report offers reflections on the project ‘Whistleblowing in European companies: Industrial relations for successful implementation of reporting channels’ conducted by Eurocadres and Dr Vigjilenca Abazi, Maastricht University within the period of March 2020 – October 2021, funded by the European Commission.

In light of the apporaching deadline for EU Member States to transpose the EU Whistleblowing Directive, this project focuses on the establishment of adequate internal reporting channels.

Thereport present the findings of the project, elaborates on some of the necessary changes in the implementation of the project arising due to COVID-19 challenges and offers reflections on what lays ahead for organisations implementing the EU Whistleblower Directive. The report draws significantly from the analysis provided in the published Guide in June 2021 ‘Speak, Listen, Whistle Up: Guide for the EU Whistleblower Directive Internal Reporting Channels and the Role of Trade Unions’ within the remit of the same project.

Read Download

Whistleblowing in the Security Sector

Whistleblowing in the Security Sector by Benjamin S.Buckland and Aidan Wills (2013)

This chapter on whistleblowing in the security sector provides an overview of whistleblowing procedures and protection in security sector organisations such as the police, security and intelligence agencies and the armed forces.

It argues for the development legal and institutional frameworks which promote and protect disclosure of public interest information and this is possible whilst also ensuring classified information is handled properly.

This is an except from the book Protection of Whistleblowers available in Serbian here.

Read Download

Whistleblower Protections at the United Nations (2021)

Whistleblower Protections at the United Nations (2021)

A research paper on whistleblower policies and protection against retaliation at the United Nations and recommendations for reform by Transparency International and Government Accountability Project.

The background paper, produced by Transparency International, found that fear of retaliation was one of the greatest deterrents for staff at the UN when it comes to reporting misconduct. The research also points towards fragmented and unclear whistleblower policies, a “top down” culture and the jurisdiction that the UN works under, resulting in a lack of access to independent arbitration, as other issues facing potential whistleblowers.

Recommendations for improvement include strengthening key provisions of the internal whistleblower protection policies and improving the workings of the oversight offices.

Read Download

Whistleblowing to Combat Corruption (2000)

OECD Labour/Management Programme, Whistleblowing to Combat Corruption (2000)

This paper followed an OECD meeting considering whistleblowing and how it may assist the fight against corruption. It posed three fundamental questions: whether whistleblowing is desirable; whether it should be encouraged; and the extent to which the interests of governments, unions, businesses and the wider public align on this issue. Participants agreed that across Europe clearer signals on whistleblowing were needed, with cultural problems proving a barrier to this. For example in Italy, the closest term to ‘whistleblower’ translated at the time, to ‘the repented’. The business and labour sectors agreed that robust internal whistleblowing mechanisms were essential. The UK’s whistleblowing legislation was referred to. It was agreed that whistleblowing was a vital issue for the OECD to address, and further research on the practicalities of whistleblowing was suggested.

Public Concern at Work (now Protect) – partners of WIN – contributed to the production of this report.

Read Download

Working with Whistleblowers: A Guide for Journalists

This 2017 guide outlines critical tools for journalists to navigate the complexities of working with whistleblowers.

Developed by one of the most established and reliable centres of expertise on whistleblowing in the world – the Government Accountability Project – it draws on over 40 years experience of working ‘on the ground’ with whistleblowers and hopes to awaken awareness for the special care required when using their disclosures.

More resources from the Government Accountablity Project can be found here.

Read Download

Xnet, a case study (2019)

The article sets out Xnet’s work to develop democracy in the digital information age and to combat corruption in Spain. Xnet’s practical approach to develop and promote digital tools to allow people to securely report wrongdoing and actively participate in the fight against corruption in Spain was backed up by their legal advocacy to enshrine digital rights in law.

Xnet has kicked off the EU transposition process by being the first NGO to formally register a draft national whistleblower protection law that meets international best practice and ticks all the boxes of the EU Directive.

This article was featured in Issue 9 of the European Public Mosaic (EPuM) Open Journal on Public Service which focuses on institutional integrity.

Read Download