Here's a report:
During today's hearing, the charge was formally put to her that between January 30 and March 2 last year she disclosed information relating to security or intelligence contrary to the Official Secrets Act of 1989.
Then after she pleaded not guilty, prosecutor Mark Ellison told the court the case would not go ahead. He said: "The prosecution offer no evidence against the defendant on this indictment as there is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision."http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1155681,00.htmlSo there was no reason given, in court, for dropping the case - and the defence did not actually get started. So I don't think this establishes any legal precedent at all.
It may show that the government thought it would have problems getting past the defence of necessity - that she would say she felt she was acting to prevent loss of life, and the jury would side with her, whatever evidence was shown. It may be that they wanted to make sure the Attorney General's advice was never shown. Their judgement on the reaction of the jury may have been made taking current public opinion into account.
However, there is another case going through the courts, in which the government has succeeded in keeping the advice out of the case. In this case, there was no jury involved, and it is a ruling from a district judge, so I think that might establish a precedent (but I have no legal training, so I don't know).
Lawyers acting for Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, yesterday succeeded in preventing his advice to the government on the legality of the war against Iraq from being revealed in court.
The advice was sought by 14 Greenpeace activists charged with aggravated trespass for chaining themselves to tanks at the Marchwood military port, near Southampton, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They are pleading not guilty at Southampton magistrates court, claiming a defence of "necessity" - that they acted to prevent the loss of life in an illegal war.http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1166925,00.html