Editing ABC trial (section)

==Impact on UK Law==
Aubrey and Campbell had predominantly worked by cross-referencing public sources of information such as open army journals. The case challenged the presumption by UK security services that arbitrary material related to military or security operations could be inherently considered secret, or that synthesising such material could be considered espionage. One exchange in court resulted in a witness claiming that the sign outside their base was a secret, despite being visible from a public road.<ref name=thereg-20150803/> Key witness Col. Johnston admitted under cross-examination that ''“To be frank, I am not certain what is a secret and what isn’t.”''<ref name=thereg-20150803/>

The Official Secrets Act 1911 was largely replaced by the [[Official Secrets Act 1989]], including the "catch-all" Section 2 that Aubrey, Berry and Campbell had been convicted under.<ref name="Commons-Research">{{cite web |author1=Gail Bartlett |author2=Michael Everett |title=The Official Secrets Acts and Official Secrecy |url=https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7422/CBP-7422.pdf |website=Research briefings |publisher=House of Commons Library |access-date=26 June 2024 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20170611102502/https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7422/CBP-7422.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2017 |language=en-gb |format=PDF |date=2 May 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|p=20}} Inclusion of a specific [[public interest]] defence was considered for the 1989 Act, but rejected as it was deemed that protections under Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the [[European Convention of Human Rights]] and other legal safeguards provided sufficient protection.<ref name="Commons-Research"/>{{rp|p=26-27}} Future Governments have generally refrained from authorising prosecutions against journalists under the OSA, treating leaks as an internal problem and not one which should impinge upon freedom of the press.