Site icon swarb.co.uk

Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla: PC 14 Feb 2001

PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this interfered with their constitutioinal and human rights to freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination.
Held: The motive in closing the programme was relevant in deciding whether there was a contravention of section 11. It wanted to stop criticism of the state lottery. Mr Benjamin had no primary right to broadcast. But he did have a right not to have his access to the medium denied on politically discriminatory grounds. There had been a contravention of his rights to freedom of speech and expression protected by section 11 of the Constitution.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nolan, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 1040, [2001] UKPC 8

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Statutes:

Constitution of Anguilla 1 8 10 11 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Attorney General v Payne 1982
. .
CitedRegina v Greater London Council ex Parte Blackburn 1976
The making of an order of prohibition was postponed to allow the defendant Council to take certain action. . .
CitedMinister of Home Affairs v Fisher PC 1979
Respect must be paid to the language which has been used in a constitutional statute and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language. It is quite consistent with this, and with the recognition that rules of interpretation . .
CitedAttorney-General v Momodou Jobe PC 26-Mar-1984
(Gambia) A constitution, and in particular that part of it which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the state are to be entitled, is to be given a generous and purposive construction. In the construction . .
CitedLingens v Austria ECHR 8-Jul-1986
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, . .
CitedOberschlick v Austria ECHR 23-May-1991
A journalist was convicted by a court which regarded itself as bound by the opinion of the court of appeal which had remitted his case to the lower court for trial after it had been dismissed by that court. The judge who presided over the court of . .
CitedInformationsverein Lentia Etal v Austria ECHR 1-Dec-1993
A prohibition on the setting up and operating of a broadcasting station is capable of being violation.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedRangarajan v Jagjivan Ram 30-Mar-1989
(Supreme Court of India) Democracy is a government by the people via open discussion. The democratic form of government itself demands of its citizens an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the community. The public discussion . .
CitedFernando v Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation 1996
(Sri Lanka) Broadcasts were planned including discussion by experts and listeners. Mr Fernando had participated in these discussions. After criticisms of the government the service came to an end and the broadcasts included little listener . .
CitedCable and Wireless (Dominica) Limited v Marpin Telecoms and Broadcasting Company Limited PC 30-Oct-2000
(Dominica) The importance of telecommunications in today’s society meant that it would be an infringement of the right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the constitution to grant a monopoly right to provide such services within a nation. . .
CitedOlivier v Buttigieg PC 1967
(Malta) Following the condemnation by the Archbishop of Malta of a weekly newspaper the ‘Voice of Malta’, the entry into hospitals and branches of his department of newspapers condemned by the church authorities was ‘strictly forbidden’.
Held: . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedGeorge Worme Grenada Today Limited v The Commissioner of Police PC 29-Jan-2004
PC (Grenada) The defendant was editor of a newspaper which carried a story severely defamatory of the prime minister. He was convicted of criminal libel, and appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
CitedObserver Publications Limited v Campbell ‘Mickey’ Matthew The Commissioner of Police and The Attorney General PC 19-Mar-2001
PC (Antigua and Barbuda) The claimant complained of the delay by the respondents in processing their request for a licence to run a radio station. It appealed refusal of constitutional redress and thta its right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.163276

Exit mobile version