A judge imposed two indefinite contempt of court orders on newspapers yesterday, preventing them from reporting aspects of an Official Secrets Act trial that dealt with the unauthorised disclosure of a secret document about Iraq.

The permanent reporting restrictions were put in place after Mr Justice Aikens jailed a civil servant and a political researcher for disclosing a letter marked “secret, personal” that recorded a conversation between Tony Blair and President George Bush at a White House meeting on April 16, 2004.

David Keogh, 50, who had been a civil servant for 25 years and was working at the Cabinet Office, was sentenced to six months. Leo O’Connor, 44, a political researcher employed by Anthony Clarke, the former Labour MP for Northampton South, was jailed for three months. Both had been convicted at the Old Bailey on Wednesday.

Mr Justice Aikens said that Keogh, who had made a copy of the secret document faxed from 10 Downing Street to his office, where he worked as a communications and cipher officer, decided he did not like what he read.

“You decided on your own that it was in the best interest of the UK that this letter should be disclosed,” the judge said. “Your reckless and irresponsible action in disclosing this letter . . . could have cost the lives of British citizens. This disclosure was a gross breach of trust of your position as a Crown servant.”

The judge told O’Connor, who slipped a copy of the document into the papers of Mr Clarke, that he, too, had put lives at risk by his actions.

Keogh was ordered to pay £5,000 towards the prosecution costs of £35,000.

After the sentencing, the judge heard arguments about whether it was permitted for newspapers to make reference to material already in the public domain, purporting to reveal what was in the secret document. David Perry, QC, prosecuting counsel, referred to an article in The Times.

Under a ruling made by the judge in July last year, all reference to the contents of the document during the trial was to be heard only in camera, although by then articles had appeared in newspapers claiming to reveal what was in the “highly sensitive” minutes of the White House meeting.

The judge gave a ruling under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, under which newspapers and other media organisations would be banned from making any future reference to articles that had already appeared in the public domain if they purported to reveal material from the in camera sessions.

He said that if a newspaper printed an article linked to what was in the public domain on one page, and wrote an unconnected story about the trial on another, “then so be it”.

Lawyers acting for The Times said that they would consider appealing against this ruling.

Mr Justice Aikens also agreed that a ruling he made during the trial under the Contempt of Court Act, banning the publication of a remark said by Keogh in open court, should be maintained “indefinitely”. The judge said that Keogh’s remark risked prejudicing the administration of justice in the case.

This ruling is also expected to be subject to an appeal by The Times and other newspaper organisations.

— Two police officers, a soldier and a journalist were among five people arrested last night on suspicion of leaking sensitive police information to the media (Fiona Hamilton writes).

The arrests came after a police search of the offices of the Milton Keynes Citizen newspaper.

Times Recommends

• The playboy and the Tory party leader
• Bin Laden's family tree is impenetrable jungle
• Paul McCartney