The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to be based on the resondent’s policies. The respondent had previously allowed an advertisement by an organisation campaining for gays. It was suggested thet the Mayor had improperly intervened to prevent the advertisement being accepted.
Held: The respondent’s policy met the requirement for legal certainty, and was prescribed by law. As a public body, subject to the equality duty, TfL was under a positive obligation to protect the rights of gays. In my judgment, this was a legitimate aim under Article 10(2).
‘TfL’s decision was justified and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. Therefore the refusal was not a breach of the Trust’s rights under Article 10(1). The fact that TfL had applied its Advertising Policy inconsistently and partially and refused the Trust a right to respond was outweighed by the countervailing factors, described above, which made it proportionate to refuse to display the advertisement.’
Judges:
Lang DBE J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 651 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 1161, [2013] PTSR 1161
Links:
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998 7, European Convention on Human Rights 34, Greater London Authority Act 1999 154, Equality Act 2010 149 12(1)
Citing:
Cited – Casado Coca v Spain ECHR 24-Feb-1994
The right to freedom of expression is not personal to the individual and is capable of being enjoyed by corporate legal persons, and commercial advertising, such as that of the claimants, is protected by Article 10(1). However, the control of . .
Cited – Regina 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: . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Handyside 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 . .
Cited – Muller And Others v Switzerland ECHR 24-May-1988
The Court considered a complaint that Article 10 had been infringed by the applicant’s conviction of an offence of publishing obscene items, consisting of paintings which were said ‘mostly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Wingrove v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1996
The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of . .
Cited – Murphy v Ireland ECHR 10-Jul-2003
A pastor attached to an evangelical protestant centre based in Dublin wished to broadcast an advertisement during the week before Easter 1995, but the broadcast was stopped by the Independent Radio and Television Commission because section 10(3) of . .
Cited – Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Nov-1991
The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book.
Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is . .
Cited – Otto Preminger Institute v Austria ECHR 1994
In the context of religious opinions and beliefs it was pointed out that there is under article 10 an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others ‘and thus an infringement of their rights’. The Court . .
Cited – Jersild v Denmark ECHR 20-Oct-1994
A journalist was wrongly convicted himself of spreading racial hatred by quoting racists in his material.
Held: Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. The safeguards to be afforded to the press are . .
Cited – VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland ECHR 28-Jun-2001
The applicant association dedicated itself to the protection of animals, from animal experiments and industrial animal production. In reaction to television commercials broadcast by the meat industry it prepared a TV advertisement contrasting the . .
Cited – Giniewski v France ECHR 31-Jan-2006
The applicant had been convicted of public defamation towards the Christian community on the basis of an article suggesting that Catholicism contained the seeds of the Holocaust.
Held: While the article may have shocked and offended, it was a . .
Cited – Vajnai v Hungary ECHR 2010
The applicant wore a red star which was proscribed because of its association with communism.
Held: ‘a legal system which applies restrictions on human rights in order to satisfy the dictates of public feeling – real or imaginary – cannot be . .
Cited – X v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Dec-1974
Commission – Inadmissible – Article 8 of the Convention : Right to respect for correspondence. Detention after conviction. Complaint not pursued
Article 9 of the Convention : Buddhist prisoner not permitted to send out material for . .
Cited – Arrowsmith v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Oct-1978
(Commission) Article 9 is apt to include a belief such as pacifism, which could be a philosophy. However, Miss Arrowsmith distributed leaflets to soldiers, urging them to decline service in Northern Ireland. This was dictated by her pacifist views. . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Human Rights, Local Government
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.471961