Can I put it a different way? I think a good public interest defence has to recognise that some of what people are doing in news media could be described as risk management, which is why I say it is case by case. If you take the example of the Daily Telegraph, and the disk about MPs' expenses, if you were offered that disk, you must have had to consider two possibilities. One was that it had simply been stolen, or secondly, that it might have involved the bribery of a public official. If you're proposing to buy it, you might be compounding the offence.
The risk management there -- and at least two newspapers turned it down, on presumably that basis. However, the Telegraph didn't and I think they were justified in what they did, because of the disclosures they made which Parliament was exactly planning not to make.
So it's a matter of -- it needs to recognise risk management to some degree, obviously not an infinite degree.