s 89 Defences to liability under section 88
(1) P is not guilty of an offence under section 88(1) if, at the time when he disclosed the information, it was not likely that its disclosure would endanger the safety of any person. (2) D is not guilty of an offence under section 88(2) if— (a) D disclosed the information with the agreement of P, and (b) at the time when D disclosed the information, it was not likely that its disclosure would endanger the safety of any person. (3) D is not guilty of an offence under section 88(2) if he disclosed the information for the purposes of safeguarding national security or for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime. (4) D is not guilty of an offence under section 88(2) if— (a) at the time when he disclosed the information, he was a protection provider or involved in the making of arrangements under section 82(1) or in the implementation, variation or cancellation of such arrangements, and (b) he disclosed the information for the purposes of the making, implementation, variation or cancellation of such arrangements. (5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which a person who discloses information as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) of section 88 is not guilty in England and Wales ... of an offence under that subsection. (6) The Scottish Ministers may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which a person who discloses information as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) of section 88 is not guilty in Scotland of an offence under that subsection. (6A) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which a person who discloses information as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) of section 88 is not guilty in Northern Ireland of an offence under that subsection. (7) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to a defence under or by virtue of this section, the court or jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.