IT started with a simple coded telephone call to a journalist and became a legal debate on the importance of confidentiality, the freedom of the press and the very real threat to human life.

Fourteen weeks ago, Suzanne Breen, Northern Editor of the Sunday Tribune, received a coded call from a member of the Real IRA claiming responsibility for the shooting at Massereene Barracks that led to the death of two soldiers.

Now she is at the centre of a controversial legal battle in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is demanding access to her notes and other confidential material.

In the Laganside Court in Belfast last week, the subject was picked apart by a veritable who's who of media experts and those who would have her disclose sensitive information.

A ruling is expected early this week, at which stage Breen will made aware of whether she is legally obliged to disclose the information or not.

The hearing, before Belfast Recorder Tom Burgess, heard not only from the journalist but from Sunday Tribune Editor Nóirín Hegarty, Channel 4's Alex Thomson, former Sunday Times managing editor, Professor Roy Greenslade, Sunday Times columnist Liam Clarke and the award-winning BBC journalist John Ware. The overriding consensus was that sources must, at all costs, be protected and when they are not, lives, in certain circumstances, are undoubtedly put at risk.

"I do not want to be the editor responsible for Suzanne Breen's death and I believe that these terrorists would be a serious threat to her life if she handed over this material," said Hegarty, who oversaw the publishing of the story and subsequent articles.

Ware said that if journalists disclose sources, "there would be a chill that goes from this court to every part of the administration of this country… and we will ultimately be the poorer for it".

More than 5,000 people, including journalists, media personalities and writers signed a petition of support against the application sparked by events which began when Breen was contacted by the RIRA on 8 March.

The conversation was straightforward; the terrorist organisation, using recognised codes, claimed responsibility for the attack on the Massereene Barracks in Antrim on 7 March in which Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar were shot dead while collecting pizzas. Four others were injured.

Breen was subsequently contacted by gardaí, who asked her if she believed the call to be genuine, before asking further questions relating to the accent of the caller and whether or not she would mind if her number was passed on to the PSNI.

A few days later, Breen was contacted by Detective Sergeant Geoff Smith, who asked her if she would provide a witness statement and mobile-phone records.

Breen said she would have to consult with her editor, after which it was decided to decline the request. That, it seemed, was the end of the matter.

But then, on 23 April, she was contacted by the PSNI's Justin Galloway, who asked if she would be willing to come in and talk.

While this meeting never took place, Breen and Nóirín Hegarty later received a letter from Detective Chief Superintendent Derek Williamson.

It referred to the ongoing investigation into the murders of the soldiers and requested the provision of "all notes, records, photographs and other material whether electronic or otherwise (including computers, disks or other such media) relating to claims of responsibility and contact with paramilitary groups in connection with these investigations".

The letter continued: "It will be my intention, should you fail or refuse to cooperate, to seek a court order under Schedule 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the production of this material."

It had begun.

Theoretically, Breen could face up to five years in prison if a court order is granted and she refuses to adhere to it. For now, she remains unaware of what fate the courts will impose on her, but is adamant that she will not reveal sources or information that may identify those sources.

In this regard, she has the backing and support of this newspaper, her colleagues and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) who rallied to the cause outside court last Thursday.

But there is potentially more at stake here than a principle and it is this that formed the crux of testimony.

Target for assassination

"I would make myself an immediate target for assassination," Breen told the court, should she be forced to comply with the will of the PSNI.

"I have been told that my life would be in immediate danger were I to cooperate with the police. I was told 'you know what that means', were I to cooperate."

Breen's defence is objecting to the application on two basic points. Firstly, that journalists have a 'privileged' position in relation to sources and material and, secondly, that she has a basic human right to protect her life.

It is also the view of Breen and her colleagues that their job is not to assist the security services or the state in relation to crime, but merely to report on it.

"Confidentiality and the protection of sources is the lynchpin of journalism. Without that, there would be no investigative journalism. It's a complete absolute," she said.

"It's universally held; it is not something that is personal to me or the Sunday Tribune.

"We chose to become journalists, not to become police officers or detectives… We are not agents of the state."

As witness after witness took the stand, it was these points that were emphasised again and again. This isn't simply a case about Breen; it is a case that, in the words of Alex Thomson, threatened to open the floodgates on journalism and the confidential gathering of crucial information.

Nóirín Hegarty was the first to stress this crucial point, telling the court that Sunday Tribune journalists act under a code of practice, the deviation from which would be deemed a serious offence.

Although insisting that the newspaper is not in the business of giving oxygen to terrorist organisations, she said: "If our journalists were not to abide by these codes of practice, we would lose the integrity and respect that we have.

"We are trusted; our credibility has been arduously won and is very easily lost.

"The journalist owes confidentiality to any source of information; that is the basis on which we get the information.

"We wouldn't have information otherwise, all we would have is official police reports. If we don't have trust, we can't produce serious journalism."

Judge Burgess has already heard the police application in camera, the contents of which remain in a sealed envelope.

While he has previously stated that he is "minded" to grant the PSNI application, he qualified this by stressing he could also change his mind on foot of Breen's evidence.

That evidence, by her and others in support, was striking for anybody with an interest in the role of a free press.

"If you start allowing or entertaining any possibility that the police or the state in any way can break, by the force of a court order, that confidentiality, the damn bursts and none of these very important public interest matters would be reported again in that fashion," Thomson said.

"I don't believe it's an a la carte situation, it's an absolute."

Roy Greenslade, a media commentator with The Guardian newspaper, and a former editor of The Daily Mirror in Britain, added his own considerable weight.

"The profession as a whole take it, as from the earliest stages of one's journalistic life, that you will not break confidentiality because the whole nature of the profession, the nature of journalism, means that you should, at all times, have credibility and trust," he said.

"These two things go together, and any attempts to break that in any way means that you lose both. That then breaks the whole nature of journalism.

"No source," he surmised, "means no story, means no source of any news."

John Ware of the BBC made the point that its documentary on the Omagh bombings helped considerably in raising money for last week's successful civil action by the victims. The programme could not have been made without off-the-record sources and a guarantee of confidentiality.

Lifeblood of journalism

"It is no exaggeration to say that it is the lifeblood of good robust inquiring journalism, and it isn't just seen as such by journalists. I want to make this absolutely clear, it is seen just as importantly by, in my experience, most senior police officers, seen as such by many civil servants and by MPs."

There was also the matter of Breen's safety.

"Were you to give away a paramilitary source, I think your life would be immediately in danger," said Liam Clarke, a columnist with The Sunday Times.

Ware added: "They [the RIRA] would have no hesitation, none at all in my view, in killing her. These guys are the Taliban of the republican movement."

In summary at the end of hearing, barrister Tony McGleenan, acting for the chief constable of the PSNI, submitted that the NUJ code of conduct for journalists "carries no legal force".

As for Breen's right to life, he contended that one's life is not under threat simply because one suspects so.

"The question for the courts here is whether or not you have heard evidence that there is an objective, verifiable, presently continuing risk to the life of the respondent," he said.

The other, perhaps more thorough, reasons and validations for seeking disclosure are impossible to report on given that the police evidence, unlike Breen's, was given in camera. A true 'balance' view of the proceedings is therefore hindered.

However, Arthur Harvey QC, for Breen, argued that journalists enjoy a "privileged" position as does their material, be it confidential or not. The authorities must seek legal sanction to seize it.

"The issue here, I respectfully submit, is whether or not the evidence or the information possessed by this witness would lead to the disclosure of this source and it is disingenuous to suggest that the terms of the order are not to disclose the name of the source."

As for Breen's right to life, he said: "The risk to her life is objectively real and it is immediate.

"It is not right to say that there is no threat and there is no risk. The threat and the risk are real and they are immediate and they will be triggered by a breach of ethics that could be imposed upon her.

"Just because the individual doesn't feel the immediacy of the risk doesn't mean it isn't there."

Judge Burgess is expected to give a written ruling early this week.