Journalist Ed Moloney was yesterday given permission to challenge a judge's ruling that he must hand over his notes relating to the murder of Belfast solicitor Mr Pat Finucane in 1989.
Mr Moloney, who is Northern editor of the Sunday Tribune, had been given until yesterday to produce his notes of an interview nine years ago with loyalist Mr William Stobie, who was recently charged with the murder.
In the High Court, Belfast, Mr Justice Kerr extended the handover period until next Tuesday at the same time as he granted Mr Moloney leave to apply for a judicial review of the directive by Crown Court Judge Anthony Hart.
Mr Moloney, who was not in court because of professional commitments, has consistently argued that to hand over his notes would jeopardise his career and be a breach of journalistic ethics.
Granting leave, Mr Justice Kerr said he wished to correct a popular misconception that doing so somehow signified that an applicant was likely to be successful.
"An applicant need only establish that he enjoys an arguable case and the decision to grant leave merely reflects the court's view that that very modest hurdle has been surmounted," he said.
Reviewing the arguments presented by Mr Michael Lavery QC, Mr Justice Kerr said the principal ground appeared to be that Mr Moloney's notes were unlikely to be of any substantial value because the evidence was already known to the Stevens investigation.
He said it had been submitted that the true purpose of the court action against Mr Moloney was to obtain confirmation of evidence police already had in the form of statements and notes provided by former journalist Mr Neil Mulholland, now an information officer with the Northern Ireland Office, and the admissions made by Mr Stobie.
Mr Justice Kerr said that was a difficult proposition, given that access to Mr Moloney's notes had not yet been obtained. He said there was much force in the Crown's argument that a terrorist investigation was not to be confined to production of new or fresh material.
"It is strongly arguable that material which confirms information already obtained may be properly characterised as being of substantial value," said the judge.
The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday.