Venables V News Group Newspaper, 2001: 1 All ER 908

The first element, information is confidential, to satisfy whether the information is confidential there are two criteria which is quality of confidence and the information must be outside the public domain (Bunn 2016). To ensure that the information have a quality of confidence, there must be something inherent in the nature of information itself that makes it confidential ( Pearson and Polden 2011 289). Information that are trivial and gossips are not considered as confidential information. Confidential information is normally of a sensitive financial, legal or private nature (Pearson and Polden 2011 290), which consider to be trade secrets, commercially valuable information, personal secrets, images and the identity of an individual (Bunn 2016). The case that support this is the case Venables v News Group Newspaper [2001] 1 All ER 908 this case is a case located in the United Kingdom which focuses on the issue of whether publishing information on the new identity of the claimants who were convicted murderers, was

The court ruled that there was sufficient proof to support that the plaintiffs' lives would be in threat due to the possible publication of their identities to the general public. According to the case, the two murderers' new identities were considered as confidential information and should not be publish in the public domain. Another case that illustrates this first element would be the case Falconer v ABC (1991) 22 IPR 205, this case is an Australian case where it involved a witness protection and ABC threatened to Podcast the witness' new identity and the judge have said that the identity of the witness was confidential for own protection and the court did not put the information into the public