Scottish Human Rights Law Group » Media Law

In the matter of Guardian News & Media Ltd & Others sub nom Mohammed Jabar Ahmed & Others v HM Treasury; Mohammed Al-Ghabra v HM Treasury; HM Treasury R (on the application of Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef)

Sarah Smith — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:52:34 +0000

Held that there was sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings challenging a freezing order to justify any curtailment of an individual’s right to respect for his private and family life.

The evidence of the effect of identification on the individual’s private life was not compelling and it was in the public interest for the media to stimulate debate concerning the use of freezing orders on those suspected of terrorist activities.

The case is available to read here.

Interbrew case: Protection of Journalistic Sources

Susan Reddy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:32:51 +0000

The ECHR found that the Article 10 rights of the media- including the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and Reuters- had been breached by the UK’s high court order requiring them to disclose a leaked document to Interbrew, the Belgian brewing company. The media had refused to comply with the order, saying that it would violate their obligation to protect their sources. The ECHR held that the company’s interests were insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalistic sources and order the UK government to pay 160,000 euros plus interest.

To read this case, please click here.

BKM Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation (2009)

Lee Jones — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:06:27 +0000

[2009] EWHC 3151 (Ch)

While clandestine filming undertaken by the BBC with a view to exposing failings in a care home for the elderly might have seriously infringed residents’ rights to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8, it would not give rise to a sufficiently serious infringement of privacy rights to outweigh rights to freedom of expression under art.10. In the circumstances, the public interest had justified the clandestine filming.

Full case available Here

On Article 8, the courts and media responsibility.

Susan Reddy — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:42:00 +0000

a speech by Mr Justice Eady at the University of Hertfordshire on 10th November, 2009

“Seeking to balance competing freedoms can never be easy. Better by far, though, if those decisions are called correctly in newsrooms or editorial offices in the first instance. The courts are making it clear that they require media responsibility. They have given their steer. They should now be the place of last resort.”

That is a proposition upon which we can perhaps all agree. The less opportunities there are for portraying the courts as being in conflict with freedom of the press, the better it will be for all concerned.

To view the full text of this speech, please lick here

Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France App 12268/03 July 2009

Susan Reddy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:36:53 +0000

The Court held that the Art 10 rights of Ici Paris, a French weekly, had been violated when it was ordered to pay 20,000 Euros damages to the singer Johnny Hallyday for invasion of privacy.

The newspaper had referred inter alia to his financial difficulties and extravagant tastes. It had used photos taken from him advertising products and one of him onstage. The Court said that previous disclosures by the singer, including in his autobiography, weakened his previous claim. They thought it was important that the photographic material came from advertising and not through contentious, undercover or intrusive methods.Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France App 12268/03 July 2009.