Judgment from the trial judge, Mr. Justice Moses, in the trial of David Shayler, the former MI5 officer was delivered today. The judgment followed four days of legal argument. The issue considered by the court was the extent to which the Official Secrets Act complies with the Human Rights Act - a key area for the case as a whole.

David Shayler faces charges under section 1(1) and Section 4(1) of the Official Secrets Act. Mr Justice Moses decided that these sections of the Official Secrets Act 1989

"do not permit a defendant to raise a defence that his disclosure was necessary in the public interest to avert damage to life or limb or serious damage to property"

The only disclosure permitted to an employee of the secret services would be to obtain permission from the secret services themselves or to disclose to another official.

Following the ruling David Shayler has decided to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeal. The trial itself will be postponed until the autumn.

John Wadham, one of his legal team, said today:

"We fought long and hard for the Human Rights Act. Parliament by passing that Act gave the courts a tool to prevent injustice but if judges are too cautious about using it human rights in this country will suffer a real step backwards. What we are asking the courts to allow is the same defence as Tony Blair, Jack Straw and other Cabinet ministers voted for when the Official Secrets Act was on its way through Parliament."

David Shayler said today:

"The implications of this decision are enormous. If this judgment is correct, the security services can take comfort from the fact that they are immune from whistle-blowing.

We hope that the court of appeal will restore to me, the opportunity to run a defence concerning the illegality and malpractice of the intelligence services. We feel the courts should at least have allowed evidence which indicates that the oversight and disclosure systems do not work, this issue was not addressed in the judgment. If the HRA has no bearing here, then we can only conclude that it is simply more bureaucratic window-dressing to hide the fact that Britons have fewer rights over their government than citizens elsewhere in the west.

I still have every faith that any jury I go before will see that justice is done."