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: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Fernando v Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 1 BHRC 104
1996

Fernando J
Media, Commonwealth, Constitutional
(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 participation. Art 14 of the Constitution gave every citizen the freedom of speech and expression including publication”. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka rejected the contention that the right to freedom of information simpliciter is included in the right to freedom of speech and expression. The right to receive information was in Article 10 of the Constitution that “every person is entitled to freedom of thought” which was the corollary of freedom of speech. Held: The freedom of speech of the petitioner, qua participatory listener, was infringed, because the stoppage of the NFEP prevented his participation. He was in the same position as the contributor of a column in Visuvalingam and the plaintiff in Lamont.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber Unreported 15 February 1996
15 Feb 1996
CA

Media
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Independent Television Commission Ex Parte Virgin Television Ltd and Others Times, 17 February 1996
17 Feb 1996
QBD

Media
Enquiries into financial sustainability of applicant for licence were proper.
Broadcasting Act 1990

 
Nankissoon Boodram v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1996] AC 842; (1996) 47 WIR 459
19 Feb 1996
PC
Lord Mustill
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Media
The court considered the effect of prejudicial reporting on a trial: “In a case such as this, the publications either will or will not prove to have been so harmful that when the time for the trial arrives the techniques available to the trial judge for neutralising them will be insufficient to prevent injustice. The proper forum for a complaint about publicity is the trial court, where the judge can assess the circumstances which exist when the defendant is about to be given in charge of the jury, and decide whether measures such as warnings and directions to the jury, peremptory challenge and challenge for cause will enable the jury to reach its verdict with an unclouded mind, or whether exceptionally a temporary or even permanent stay of the prosecution is the only solution.”
1 Citers



 
 Goodwin v The United Kingdom; ECHR 27-Mar-1996 - Times, 28 March 1996; 17488/90; (1996) 22 EHRR 123; [1996] ECHR 16

 
 Regina v West (Rosemary); CACD 3-Apr-1996 - Times, 03 April 1996; 95/7813/S2; [1996] 2 Cr App R 374
 
Attorney General v Blake Times, 23 April 1996; [1997] Ch 84
23 Apr 1996
ChD
Sir Richard Scott VC
Employment, Media
The Crown claimed that in writing a book and authorising its publication, Blake, a former security services employee, was in breach of fiduciary duties he owed to the Crown. Held: Blake was not to be prevented from earning money from the writing of a book. Former members of the intelligence and security services owed a lifelong duty of non-disclosure in respect of secret and confidential information. But the law did not impose a duty which went beyond this.
1 Citers


 
CIA Security International v Signalson and Securitel C-194/94; [1996] EUECJ C-194/94; [1996] ECR I-2201
30 Apr 1996
ECJ

European, Media
1. Under the procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national court to assess the scope of national provisions and the manner in which they are to be applied. Since the national court is best placed to assess, in view of the particularities of the case, the need for a preliminary ruling in order to give its judgment, preliminary questions cannot be regarded as having become redundant as a result of national legislation being replaced by other legislation.
2. A national provision according to which only persons with prior ministerial authorization may operate a security firm does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Directive 83/189, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, in so far as such a provision merely lays down the conditions for the establishment of security firms and contains no specifications defining the characteristics of products.
On the other hand, provisions laying down the procedure for approval of alarm systems and networks which security firms may make available to consumers do constitute such technical regulations in so far as such provisions lay down detailed rules defining in particular the conditions concerning the quality tests and function tests which must be fulfilled in order for an alarm system or network to be approved and marketed in the national territory.
In the case of a rule which provides that the products in question may be marketed only after having being previously approved according to a procedure to be laid down by administrative regulation, classification of such a rule depends on its legal effects under domestic law. If, under domestic law, such a rule merely serves as a basis for enabling administrative regulations containing rules binding on the persons concerned to be adopted, so that by itself it has no legal effect for individuals, the rule does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of the directive. If, however, it obliges the undertakings concerned to apply for prior approval of their equipment, it must be classified as a technical regulation, even if the administrative rules envisaged have not been adopted.
3. Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 83/189, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, under which Member States must notify the Commission of all draft technical regulations covered by the directive and, except in particular urgent cases, suspend their adoption and implementation for specified periods, are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before the national court, which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the directive.
First, by laying down a precise obligation on Member States to notify draft technical regulations before they are adopted, those provisions are unconditional and sufficiently precise in terms of their content. Secondly, an interpretation of the directive to the effect that breach of the obligation to notify constitutes a substantial defect such as to render the technical regulations in question inapplicable to individuals is such as to ensure the effectiveness of the preventive Community control for which the directive made provision in order to ensure that goods can move freely, which is what it was designed to do.
4. Article 30 of the Treaty does not preclude a national provision according to which only persons with prior ministerial authorization may operate a security firm. Since such a provision imposes a condition for the establishment and carrying on of business as a security firm, it does not fall within the scope of Article 30.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ming Pao Newspapers Limited and others v The Attorney General of Hong Kong; PC 20-May-1996 - [1996] UKPC 12; [1996] AC 907
 
Attorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation; Same v Hat Trick Productions Ltd Times, 26 July 1996; [1997] EMLR 76
11 Jun 1996
CA
Auld LJ
Contempt of Court, Media
The mention of a case on a television programme remained a contempt of court, despite the humorous context given to the remarks in the broadcast.
Auld LJ said: "The degree of risk of impact of a publication on a trial and the extent of that impact may both be affected, in differing degrees according to the circumstances, by the nature and form of the publication and how long it occurred before trial. Much depends on the combination of circumstances in the case in question and the court's own assessment of their likely effect at the time of publication. This is essentially a value judgment for the court, albeit that it must be sure of its judgment before it can find that there has been contempt. There is little value in making detailed comparisons with the facts of other cases."
Contempt of Court Act 1981
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others; CA 21-Jun-1996 - Times, 15 July 1996; [1996] EMLR 518; [1997] 1 FCR 556; [1996] 2 FLR 532; [1996] 4 All ER 511; [1996] Fam Law 671; [1996] EWCA Civ 1290; [1997] 1 WLR 131
 
Re Mirror Group Newspapers [1996] EWHC Admin 398; [1997] 1 All ER 456; [1997] EMLR 284
31 Jul 1996
Admn
Schiemann LJ, Smedley J
Contempt of Court, Media
The Attorney General applied to have the defendant and others made subject to proceedings for contempt of court after publishing matters said to be prejudicial to a forthcoming criminal trial.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v United Kingdom C-222/94; [1996] EUECJ C-222/94
10 Sep 1996
ECJ

European, Media
ECJ (Judgment) A Member State fails to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(1) and (2) and 3(2) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities if, in order to determine the satellite broadcasters falling under its jurisdiction, it adopts criteria other than that of establishment, such as transmission or reception of programmes, which lead it to exercise control, prohibited by the Directive, over broadcasts falling under the jurisdiction of another Member State and, with regard to broadcasters which it considers to fall within its jurisdiction, it applies to non-domestic satellite services a regime which is less stringent than that to which domestic satellite services are subject.
The concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive, must be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters. This can be based only on those broadcasters' connection to that State' s legal system, which in substance overlaps with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are established in two different Member States. While a Member State may, under Article 3(1) of the Directive, lay down stricter rules in the areas covered by the Directive, the fact remains that, under Article 2(1), all broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of that Member State or over which it is required to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(1) must comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State.
Directive 89/552
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities (French Republic Intervening) v UK Times, 30 September 1996
30 Sep 1996
ECJ

Media, European
UK unlawfully discriminated against foreign television satellite transmissions.
Broadcasting Act 1990

 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission ex parte Barclay [1996] EWHC Admin 83
4 Oct 1996
Admn

Media, Administrative

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Barclay and Another Times, 11 October 1996
11 Oct 1996
QBD

Media, Administrative
The Commission can only consider a claim of invasion of privacy after a programme has been broadcast.

 
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Mills and Allen Limited [1996] EWHC Admin 109
14 Oct 1996
Admn

Planning, Media

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Barnet v Network Sites Limited [1996] EWHC Admin 188
4 Nov 1996
Admn

Planning, Media
Appeal against conviction for unauthorised advertising hoarding.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 8224
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg C-221/94; [1996] EUECJ C-221/94
7 Nov 1996
ECJ

European, Media
ECJ (Judgment) 1. National provisions simply reproducing the text of Directive 86/361 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment are not sufficient to transpose Directive 91/263 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity. Between Directive 86/361 and Directive 91/263 there are clear differences as a result of which a Member State cannot claim to have implemented the second simply by having transposed the first. Amongst other things, Directive 91/263 constitutes, in relation to Directive 86/361, a further stage for full mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment, has an aim and a scope wider than Directive 86/361, lays down three requirements for terminal equipment which do not appear in the list of the essential requirements set out in Directive 86/361 and introduces a system of EC marking for terminal equipment complying with the requirements of the directive, which was not provided for by Directive 86/361.
2. The fact that a practice is in conformity with the requirements of a directive in the matter of protection can provide no reason for not transposing that directive into national law by means of provisions capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to enable individuals to ascertain their rights and obligations. Similarly, a draft national regulation is not capable of transposing a directive.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Press Complaints Commission and Ian Stewart-Brady (By Next Friend Graeme Edward Kerr) Times, 22 November 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 986; (1996) 9 Admin LR 274
18 Nov 1996
CA

Media, Administrative
Judicial review of a decision of the Press Complaints Commission was not appropriate.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wingrove v The United Kingdom; ECHR 25-Nov-1996 - Times, 05 December 1996; Case 19/1995; [1997] 24 EHRR 1; 17419/90; [1996] ECHR 60; [1996] ECHR 60
 
Regina v Advertising Standards Agency ex parte DSG Retail Limited and ex parte DSG Retail Limited (Trading As Currys) [1996] EWHC Admin 315
4 Dec 1996
Admn

Media

[ Bailii ]
 
James Morford; Paul Bowling; James Morford Limited; Hanslope Limited v Nic Rigby and East Anglian Daily Times Company Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 1178
11 Dec 1996
CA

Media

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Radio Authority ex parte David Neill Bull and Nigel Wright [1996] EWCA Civ 1230; [1998] QB 294; [1996] QB 169
17 Dec 1996
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Media

Broadcasting Act 1990 92(2)(a)(i)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O'Brien Times, 17 January 1997; [1996] EWHC Admin 388
19 Dec 1996
QBD
Latham J
Media, Human Rights, Prisons
A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: "The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives." However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: "There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons." and "I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates' activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including 'the interests of any persons' as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives."
Prison Act 1952 47 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Director General of Telecommunications ex parte British Telecommunications Plc [1996] EWHC Admin 391
20 Dec 1996
Admn

Media

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