Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 37


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is it not best if I just read it through?  It
     3        is quite thick.
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS: I was not going to read it all out, but there is
     6        some cross-referencing.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You would like me to read it afterwards would
     9        you?
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  Obviously, I am adopting it all, and
    12        obviously the extremely important bits are the bits
    13        referred to the judgment in the NUM British Coal
    14        Corporation case, which was in June 1996.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.  Off you go then, and I will read the
    17        whole of it in due course in any event.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  So, obviously there is a reference.  The case can
    20        be considered in the light of article 10 of the European
    21        Convention of Human Rights.  So, before we look at the NUM
    22        case the context is, we would argue, of this whole area of
    23        the case, article 10 of the European Convention which the
    24        United Kingdom has adhered to although it has not yet been
    25        enacted into domestic law.  I will not read that article 10
    26        out again, because...  Hang on, I will read it out because
    27        we read out article 4 before, I think it was.
    28
    29        Article 10 says, "1, everyone has the right to freedom of
    30        expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold
    31        opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas
    32        without interference by a public authority and regardless
    33        of frontiers.  The exercise of these freedoms, since it
    34        carries with it duties and responsibilities, maybe subject
    35        to such formalities, conditions or restrictions or
    36        penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary."
    37        Necessary -- we emphasise 'necessary'.  "... in the
    38        democratic society in the interests of national security,
    39        territorial integrity or public safety."
    40
    41        I should not have read all these matters...  "For
    42        prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
    43        health and morals" -- and this is the key one -- "for the
    44        protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
    45        preventing disclosure of information received in confidence
    46        or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
    47        judiciary"
    48
    49        Going on to the Derbyshire v Times Newspaper case, '93,
    50        Lord Keith was involved with the Derbyshire case.  He
    51        interpreted the phrase "necessary in a democratic society"
    52        as requiring the existence of a pressing -- and I emphasise
    53        'pressing' -- social need to justify a restriction on the
    54        right of freedom of speech.  The restriction should be no
    55        more than is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
    56
    57        Sorry, it is difficult to cross-research.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I would like you to do, just sit down
    60        for a moment and let me read it.

Prev Next Index