swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Media - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Regina v Beck ex parte The Daily Telegraph, Ex parte The Telegraph Plc [1992] 94 CAR 376
1992
Criminal Practice, Media
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Citers
ex parte Godwin [1992] 1 QB 190
1992
CA
Glidewell LJ
Media, Criminal Practice
An order had been made to include provision that "the names and addresses of the defendants shall . . not be revealed or published". The court was now asked whether a criminal court had power under section 39 of the CYP Act to prohibit in terms the publication of the name of the adult defendant. Held: A criminal court had no such power. Glidewell LJ said: "We are persuaded that the arguments for the appellants are correct. In our view section 39 as a matter of law does not empower a court to order in terms that the names of defendants be not published. It may be that on occasions judges who are concerned with making an order of this kind will think that it will be helpful to have some discussion about the identification of particular details and may give advice. Our combined experience is that judges in the Crown Court not infrequently give advice which representatives of the media invariably respect. But we are here concerned with the formality of what may be contained in an order under section 39. In our view, the order itself must be restricted to the terms of section 39(1), either specifically using those terms or using words to the like effect and no more."
and "it is a normal principle of law that defendants in criminal proceedings should be named. Statute has on occasion given the courts power to make an order to the contrary, but only in most exceptional circumstances. Indeed . . it is obvious that a major reason for the principle is that the very fact of being named is itself a powerful part of the deterrent effect of a prosecution. The prospect of being named, in other words, is a deterrent to other people who may be tempted to commit any sort of offence."
Children and Young Persons Act 1988 39
1 Citers
In re W (A Minor) (Wardship: Restrictions on Publication); CA 1992 - [1992] 1 WLR 100
Regina v Bow Street Metroplitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 1992 - [1992] 95 Cr App R 9; [1993] 2 WLR 621
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1992] 1 QB 770
19 Apr 1992
CA
Balcombe LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ
Human Rights, Defamation, Media
In two issues of 'The Sunday Times' newspaper on 17 and 24 September 1989 there appeared articles concerning share deals involving the superannuation fund of the Derbyshire County Council. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed 'Revealed: Socialist tycoons's deals with a Labour chief and 'Bizarre deals of a council leader and the media tycoon': that in the issue of 24 September was headed 'Council share deals under scrutiny.' The council leader was Mr David Melvyn Bookbinder; the 'media tycoon' was Mr Owen Oyston. The articles questioned the propriety of investments made by the council of moneys in its superannuation fund, with Mr. Bookbinder as the prime mover, in three deals with Mr. Oyston or companies controlled by him. Excerpts from the articles giving the flavour of the allegations made will be found in the judgment at first instance [1991] 4 All E.R. 795 to which those interested may refer. The council is the 'administering authority' of its superannuation fund under the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 24) made thereunder." Held: The Court addressed Article 10 in determining whether or not it was necessary and proportionate to allow a local authority the right to sue in defamation for the protection of its own reputation, as opposed to the recognised rights of individual councillors or officers to sue in a personal capacity. Regard should be had to the Convention in resolving uncertainty in the common law, and in determining how it should develop.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
Castells v Spain 11798/85; (1992) 14 EHRR 445; [1992] ECHR 48
23 Apr 1992
ECHR
Human Rights, Media
The conviction of the applicant for publishing in a weekly magazine an article which insulted the government with the penalty of disqualification from public office, violated the applicants freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10. " The court recalls that the freedom of expression, enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (Art. 10-1), constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is 'no democratic society' . . While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to the pre-occupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interference with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of Parliament, like the applicant, called for the closest scrutiny on the part of the court."
The Court described the role of the press, and its duties: ". . . the pre-eminent role of the press in a state governed by the rule of law must not be forgotten. Although it must not overstep various bounds set, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest." and "Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society."
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd; QBD 9-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 09 December 1992; [1992] 1 WLR 1289
HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others Gazette, 09 December 1992
9 Dec 1992
QBD
Beldam LJ
Human Rights, Media, Contempt of Court
A newspaper was held to have been in contempt of court for publishing details of the deliberations of a jury, even though it had not solicited the information. Beldam LJ said of the word 'disclosure': "It is a word wide enough to encompass the revealing of the secrets of the jury room by a juryman to his friend or neighbour as well as the opening up of such knowledge to the public as a whole by someone to whom it has been revealed. And in the light of the background to which we have referred, we see every reason why Parliament should have intended the word 'disclose' to cover both situations. Nor do we regard it as significant that the secrets came into the hands of the newspaper indirectly. The existence of a market for the transcript of interviews with jurors containing prohibited details of their deliberations is as inimical to the interests of justice as the direct solicitation for money which occurred in this case. Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament's purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section."
Beldam LJ pointed out that if disclosures were allowed, jurors may come under pressure to make disclosures: "It was against this background that Parliament enacted section 8 of the Act of 1981. If breaches of the secrecy of the jury room had escalated to a degree that Parliament deemed a statutory sanction to be necessary, then its duty was to define clearly the circumstances in which an offence would be committed so that criminal sanctions were restricted to those offences which, in Lord Diplock's words in Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1994] AC 440, 449: 'involve an interference with the due administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.'" and "Thus, we believe, the law has long recognised the importance of complete freedom of discussion in the jury room. If a juror were to be deterred from expressing his doubt of the accused's guilt because he feared subsequent recrimination or ridicule, the accused might be deprived of a persuasive voice in his favour. So, too, a jury deciding a plaintiff's claim to damages for libel ought not to be exposed to interrogation by the erstwhile defendants or others who share an interest in avoiding liability for, or reducing the consequences of, defamatory publication. We consider that the free, uninhibited and unfettered discussion by the jury in the course of their deliberations is essential to the proper administration of a system of justice which includes trial by jury. The enacted provisions designed to maintain such discussion are confined to soliciting, disclosing or publishing the particular aspects of the discussion in the jury room identified in the section. To that extent only do they restrain freedom expression. There is no restriction, as Mr Pannick [counsel for the newspaper] suggested, on the freedom to express opinions, advance arguments, advocate changes or promote reform on the many aspects of jury trial which have already been the subject of public debate and which are, and remain, proper objects of public concern and interest. In due course the European Court of Human Rights may be called upon to decide whether the measures enacted by Parliament are disproportionate to the restriction imposed on freedom of expression. When it does so, it will surely take full account of Parliament's experience of trial by jury as an instrument of justice in the United Kingdom and its appreciation of the need today to protect the secrecy of the jury room. We were invited to take these factors into account to guide our interpretation of section 8. To the extent that it is permissible for this purpose, we have considered them."
European Convention on Human Rights - Contempt of Court Act 1981 8(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Commission v Belgium C-211/91 [1992] ECR I-6757; [1992] EUECJ C-211/91
16 Dec 1992
ECJ
European, Media
ECJ (Judgment) 1. By prohibiting cable television companies from broadcasting on their networks programmes from radio or television broadcasting stations in other Member States, where the programmes are not transmitted in the language or one of the languages of the Member State in which the station is established, a Member State is in breach of its obligations under Article 59 of the Treaty.
Such a restriction, which is discriminatory in that it is not applicable to services without distinction as regards their origin, cannot be brought within any of the grounds for exemption from the freedom to provide services permitted by Community law, that is to say those laid down in Article 56 of the Treaty.
2. While it is true that a Member State cannot be denied the right to take measures to prevent a provider of services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory from exercising the freedom guaranteed by Article 59 of the Treaty for the purpose of avoiding the professional rules of conduct which would be applicable to him if he were established within that State, it does not follow that it is permissible for a Member State to prohibit altogether the provision of certain services by operators established in other Member States.
[ Bailii ]