SECTION 2 OF THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT OF 1911, PASSED WHEN WAR WITH GERMANY APPEARED IMMINENT, IS THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ARE SOUGHT IN MATTERS INVOLVING THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. SECTION 2 IS SO BROAD IN ITS DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, THAT IT HAS BEEN SAID TO MAKE IT A CRIME, WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF DEFENSE, TO REPORT THE NUMBER OF CUPS OF TEA CONSUMED PER WEEK IN A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. THE FRANKS COMMITTEE (A COMMITTEE ON LAW REFORM) HAS RECOMMENDED THAT SECTION 2 BE REPLACED BY A SEPARATE STATUTE KNOWN AS THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS TO PROTECT HIGHLY SECRET INFORMATION IN THE AREAS OF SECURITY, INTELLIGENCE, DEFENSE, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER SPECIFIC ACTS VIOLATED THE STATUTE WOULD BE LIMITED WHERE THE CONTENT OF THE MATERIAL AT ISSUE IS CONCERNED. THE APPARATUS OF CONTROL WOULD REMAIN FIRMLY IN OFFICIAL HANDS, AND THE RELEASE OF AN ACCESS TO INFORMATION WOULD DEPEND UPON OFFICIAL JUDGMENTS. HOWEVER, ALLEGATIONS OF UNDUE SECRECY WOULD CONTINUE, AND PUBLIC MISGIVINGS WOULD NOT BE RELIEVED BY ASSURANCES OF THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS. WHILE AN ENACTMENT OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATUTE SIMILAR TO THAT PASSED IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT, IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE MEASURE AIMED AT INCREASING ACCESS TO OFFICIAL INFORMATION, AND WOULD INDICATE THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION WAS ON THE GOVERNMENT. FURTHER, IT WOULD BE BE LEFT TO THE COURTS, AS AN OBJECTIVE THIRD PARTY, TO DETERMINE IF THE INFORMATION AT ISSUE FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORIES SPECIFIED BY LAW. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)