7/28/2016

ReginavBritishBroadcastingCorporationexparteProlifeAllianceHL15May2003

ReginavBritishBroadcastingCorporationexparteProlife
AllianceHL15May2003
References:[2003]2WLR1403,Times16May03,[2003]UKHL23,Gazette03Jul03,[2004]1AC185,
[2003]UKHRR758,[2003]HRLR26,[2003]ACD65,[2003]EMLR23,[2003]2AllER977,[2003]EMLR23
Links:HouseofLords,Bailii
Coram:LordNichollsofBirkenhead,LordHoffmann,LordMillett,LordScottofFoscote,LordWalkerof
Gestingthorpe
TheAlliancewasapoliticalpartyseekingtoairitspartyelectionbroadcast.Theappellantbroadcasters
declinedtobroadcastthefilmonthegroundsthatitwasoffensive,beingagraphicaldiscussionofthe
processesofabortion.
Held:Freedomofpoliticalspeechisafreedomoftheveryhighestimportance.Article10requiresthat
accesstoanimportantpublicmediumofcommunicationshouldnotberefusedondiscriminatory,arbitrary
orunreasonablegrounds.Priorrestraintisseriouslyinimicaltofreedomofpoliticalcommunication.The
broadcastersweresubjecttorulesrequiringthemequallytomaintainingstandardsofdecency.Thetwo
questionswere:whetherpartybroadcastsarerestrictedastooffensivematerial,andifsowhether,theright
standardhadbeenapplied.TheCourtofAppealfailedtodistinguishthetwoquestions.Thecourtcouldnot
rewritethestandardofdecencyappliedbythestatute,andtheappealsucceeded.(LordScottofFoscote
dissenting)TherightsofotherswithinthemeaningofArticle10(2)neednotbetolimitedtostrictlylegal
rightsthebreachofwhichmightsoundindamagesandiswellcapableofextendingtoarecognitionofthe
senseofoutragethatmightbefeltbyordinarymembersofthepublicwhointheprivacyoftheirhomeshad
switchedonthetelevisionsetandbeenconfrontedbygratuitouslyoffensivematerial.
LordHoffmannsaidthatthepowerofbroadcastingjustifiedrestrictionsfortasteanddecency.Article10was
notengaged:Inthepresentcase,thatprimaryright[underArticle10]wasnotengaged.Therewasnothing
thattheAlliancewaspreventedfromdoing,Itenjoyedthesamefreespeechaseveryothercitizen.Byvirtue
ofitsentitlementtoa[PartyElectionBroadcast]ithadmoreaccesstothehomesofitsfellowcitizensthat
othersingleissuegroupswhichcouldnotaffordtoregisterasapoliticalpartyandputupsixdeposits.
Thereisnohumanrighttouseatelevisionchannel..
However,Article10mightbeinplayifaccesstobroadcastswasunfairlydenied:Thefactthatnoonehasa
righttobroadcastontelevisiondoesnotmeanthatarticle10hasnoapplicationtosuchbroadcasts.Butthe
natureoftherightineachcaseisdifferent.Insteadofbeingarightnottobepreventedfromexpressing
onesopinions,itbecomesarighttofairconsiderationforbeingaffordedtheopportunitytodosoarightnot
tohaveonesaccesstopublicmediadeniedondiscriminatory,arbitraryorunreasonablegrounds.
Statutes:BroadcastingAct19906(1)(a),EuropeanConventiononHumanRights10(2)
Thiscasecites:
AppealfromRegina(Quintavalle,ProlifeAlliance)vBritishBroadcastingCorporationCA(Times19
Mar02,Bailii,[2002]EWCACiv297,[2002]3WLR1080,[2002]2AllER756)
Theapplicanthadstoodforelection,andsincetherewereasufficientnumberofcandidatesforthe
ProLifeAlliance,theysoughtapartypoliticalbroadcast.Thematerialtheyproducedwasrejectedbythe
respondentandothers,asnotcomplying..
CitedBenjamin,VanderpoolandGumbsvTheMinisterofInformationandBroadcastingandThe
AttorneyGeneralforAnguillaPC(Bailii,PC,PC,[2001]1WLR1040,[2001]UKPC8)
http://swarb.co.uk/reginavbritishbroadcastingcorporationexparteprolifealliancehl15may2003/

1/5