Over the years journalists have been jailed for failing to reveal confidential sources to the court despite being guided by the code of ethics. Journalists should reveal their confidential sources to the court only if the information could harm national security or if disclosure is necessary to prove a defendant's innocence. If a journalist reveals confidential sources without reason, the result will be a breach of confidentiality and a limited flow of information to the journalist. In this essay we will discuss the definition of confidentiality and its ethical considerations. He also faces several counts of contempt of court on confidential grounds. Finally, reform strategies over the years will be examined. These will be supported with relevant cases. Confidentiality means that the person has provided you with information in confidence and trusts you not to reveal it. According to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) it is stated that “where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances”. In the R v Barrass case, the Perth journalist was sentenced to five days in prison and fined $10,000 for refusing to reveal sources following the DPP v Luders case. The judge referred to information essential to establishing the defendant's guilt or innocence and was therefore required to answer the questions. While Australian journalists uphold their ethical obligation to protect their sources to ensure the free flow of information, courts require them to reveal sources when necessary to ensure fair trial, which has led to a contradiction between two parties and the journalist was jailed and fined when they did not provide the information. There was an ongoing battle between the courts and the journalist over...... half the document ......if they refused to reveal the sources due to the confidentiality agreement between the two parts. However, the situation changed over the years, from the introduction of the "newspaper rule" to "protective laws" that protected journalists' sources unless they were needed to conduct a fair trial. The Commission concluded that the continuation of existing summary procedures for dealing with refusal to answer a question violated fundamental doctrines of criminal law and procedure, leading to the perception that justice, while perhaps being done, was not seen as having been done. Journalists now have immunity to protect confidential sources despite there being some circumstances that require them to reveal sources depending on the agreement between the journalist and the source. Breach of confidentiality can result in high damages because the plaintiff could sue you for defamation.