Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina (TSW Broadcasting Ltd) v Independent Television Commission [1994] 2 LRC 414
1994
HL
Lord Templeman
Judicial Review, Media
Lord Templeman said: "Judicial review does not issue merely because a decision maker has made a mistake and it is not permissible to probe the advice received by the decision maker or to require particulars or administer· interrogatories or, as Mr Pollock on behalf of TSW suggested, to cross-examine in order to discover the existence of a mistake by the decision maker or the advisers to the decision makers. An applicant for judicial review must show more than a mistake on the part of the decision maker or his advisers. Where a decision is made in good faith following a proper procedure and as a result of conscientious consideration, an applicant for judicial review is not entitled to relief save on the grounds established by Lord Greene MR in Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 at 229."
1 Citers


 
Official Solicitor v News Group Newspapers [1994] 2 FLR 174
1994
FD
Connell J
Media, Family, Contempt of Court
There had been a conviction of a nurse for multiple murders. The defendant was approached by a third party and published evidence taken from children's proceedings. Held: The defendant was guilty of contempt.
1 Citers


 
In Re R (Wardship: Restrictions on Publication) [1994] Fam 254; [1994] 2 FLR 637; [1994] 3 All ER 658; [1994] 3 WLR 36
1994
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Millett LJ
Children, Media
The parents had separated and the child made a ward of court. The mother had care and control and the father had access. The father abducted the child to Israel but she was recovered. The father was extradited to stand trial here. He sought publicity for his views upon the treatment of fathers by the family courts. In the Family Division, an order was made prohibiting publicity in very wide terms, which would have precluded virtually any reporting of the criminal proceedings. He appealed. Held: The order was varied to permit the reporting of the father's criminal trial. Save by statute reports of proceedings in a court should only be restrained 'where and to the extent that restraint is shown to be necessary for the purpose of protecting the proper administration of justice'. Although publicity about the ward should be as limited as possible, restraining reports of the criminal trial was not necessary 'to enable the judge to do justice in the wardship proceedings'. There was no statutory provision automatically restricting reporting, but section 39 did apply to enable the criminal court to prohibit identification of the ward as the victim of the alleged crime. He had 'the greatest doubt', about the first instance view on its power to restrain reporting of the criminal trial, but if he had he should have left it to the criminal judge to decide whether to do so.
Millett LJ said that apart from the contempt jurisdiction, "the wardship judge has an additional jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of information concerning the ward which is directed at the ward or at those having responsibility for the ward's upbringing, thereby threatening the effective working of the court's jurisdiction; . . this last mentioned jurisdiction is of recent origin. Its source and justification lie in the inherent power of the court to protect the integrity of its own process. There is no jurisdiction in the wardship court to protect its wards from adverse publicity which does not threaten the effective working of the court's jurisdiction merely on the ground that such publicity would be contrary to the interests of the ward or damaging to his welfare".
He drew a distinction between the inherent jurisdiction and the statutory powers under section 39 which 'unlike the wardship jurisdiction' could be used for the sole purpose of protecting children from harmful publicity. The limiting principle of the wardship jurisdiction: "may be expressed more generally by saying that the wardship court has no power to exempt its ward from the general law, or to obtain for its ward rights and privileges not generally available to children who are not wards of court; or by saying that the wardship court can seek to achieve for its ward all that wise parents or guardian acting in concert and exclusively in the interests of the child could achieve, but no more . . Nor can it protect the ward from adverse publicity as such."
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
1 Citers


 
Re H (Minors) (Injunction: Public Interest) [1994] 1 FLR 519
1994


Children, Media
A father with whom children were living was restrained from publicising his sex change in order to protect the children from harassment. The injunction was in contra mundum form.
1 Citers


 
Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd [1994] EMLR 134
1994
ChD
Mr Martin Mann QC
Media, Intellectual Property, Equity
Still photographs had been taken of a forthcoming film, which the producers had taken steps to keep confidential. Held: A chancery judge may grant an injunction to restrain the publication of photographs taken surreptitiously in circumstances such that the photographer is to be taken to have known that the occasion was a private one and that the taking of photographs by outsiders was not permitted.
Mr Martin Mann QC said: "whether or not equity imposes an obligation to keep information confidential depends upon a great many factors often unique to the case in which it is said to do so. However, most cases will have certain common constituents, namely, the existence of a body of information which a plaintiff wishes to keep confidential for the protection of some lawful interest of his, a defendant coming into possession of such information in circumstances in which he actually knows (or is fixed by operation of law with knowledge of) or ought as a reasonable person to know the plaintiff intends to be kept confidential, a detriment actual or potential to the plaintiff from publication, the non-availability of such information to the public and the absence of any public interest in disclosure."
1 Citers



 
 HM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others; HL 4-Feb-1994 - Gazette, 02 March 1994; Independent, 09 February 1994; Times, 04 February 1994; [1994] 2 AC 238; [1994] UKHL 1; [1994] 1 All ER 556; [1994] COD 275; [1994] 2 WLR 277; (1994) 99 Cr App R 131

 
 R (Mrs) v Central Independent Television Plc; CA 17-Feb-1994 - Independent, 17 February 1994; [1994] Fam 192; [1994] 2 FLR 151; [1994] 3 All ER 641

 
 Casado Coca v Spain; ECHR 24-Feb-1994 - Times, 01 April 1994; [1994] ECHR 8; 15450/89; (1994) 18 EHRR 1
 
In Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Restraint of Publication) Times, 25 April 1994; [1994] 1 Fam 254
25 Apr 1994
CA
Millett LJ
Children, Media
In a criminal case involving a ward of court, the judge in the criminal case may restrict the reporting without leaving it for the wardship Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court in cases involving the care and upbringing of children over whose welfare the court is exercising a supervisory role is " . . . theoretically unlimited. But in practice its exercise is limited by the nature and source of the jurisdiction itself, which is historically derived from the protective jurisdiction of the Crown as parens patriae"
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
1 Citers


 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte BBC Independent, 26 May 1994; Times, 26 May 1994
26 May 1994
QBD

Media
A researcher has no locus to complain to Broadcasting Complaints Commission. A complainant had to establish that he had a direct interest in the programme contents, not mere unfairness.

 
Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Goodwin and Crook Ind Summary, 05 September 1994; Gazette, 26 October 1994; Times, 16 August 1994
16 Aug 1994
CACD

Criminal Practice, Media
Judge may take representations in his sole discretion before making an order providing for the naming or non naming of a party by newspapers.
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39


 
 Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria; ECHR 20-Sep-1994 - 13470/87; (1994) 19 EHRR 34; [1994] ECHR 26

 
 Jersild v Denmark; ECHR 20-Oct-1994 - Times, 20 October 1994; (1994) 19 EHRR 1; [1994] ECHR 33; 15890/89

 
 Ortscheit v Eurim-Pharm; ECJ 10-Nov-1994 - C-320/93; [1994] EUECJ C-320/93; [1994] ECR I-5243

 
 Regina v The Radio Authority, ex Parte Guardian Media Group Plc; QBD 11-Nov-1994 - Times, 11 November 1994
 
Associated Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom 24770/94; [1994] ECHR 58
30 Nov 1994
ECHR
Mm A Weizel P
Human Rights, Contempt of Court, Media
The newspaper said that a finding against it of contempt of court for publishing material derived from a jury's deliberations infringed its rights of free speech. Held. The complaint was declared inadmissible. "The Commission agrees with the applicants that the fines imposed in the present case amounted to an interference with the applicants' freedom of expression, and also agrees that the interference was 'prescribed by law'. In connection with the question whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Commission finds, as indeed the applicants accept, that the aim was to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It would add that the term 'judiciary' comprises the entire machinery of justice, including the proper functioning of the jury system (cf., Euro. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 34, para. 55). It is an important element of that system that jurors should express themselves freely in the jury room without fear of outside disclosure of their views and opinions. To this extent the law may also serve to protect the rights of individual jurors themselves.
. . In connection with the legislation as such [the 1981 Act], the Commission notes that the jury system in the United Kingdom is founded on the premise that jurors will express themselves freely in the jury room in the knowledge that what they say will not be used outside. If a juror thought that what he said could subsequently be made public, it is possible that he would bear in mind the future use to which his words might be put, and not just the case in hand. The unlimited prohibition on disclosure is then seen to be an inevitable protection for jurors and can therefore be regarded as 'necessary' in a democratic society which has decided to retain this particular form of jury trial.",br />The Commission added that it was not called on to assess the compatibility of section 8 with article 10 in circumstances involving a conviction for research into jury methods as such, and stated: "The present case relates rather to revelations of the jury's deliberations in one specific case of considerable public interest, including statements by the jurors concerned about the opinions and attitudes of other members of the jury. The applicants were well aware that the information they published was sensitive, and should have been aware that its disclosure could put other individual jurors in an invidious position.
The Commission finds, in the circumstances of the present case, that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression did not take the State beyond the margin of appreciation which it enjoyed."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ HUDOC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd Gazette, 15 February 1995; Ind Summary, 20 February 1995; Times, 16 December 1994; [1995] EMLR 16
16 Dec 1994
CA

Intellectual Property, Media, Judicial Review, Information
The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.
Broadcasting Act 1990 143
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.