Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 26


     
     1
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, by the Sunday Times case, my Lord, most
     3        people mean the distillers case which the Sunday Times took
     4        to Europe.  That was a contempt case.
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:   Under number?
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If anyone can give me any reference to it so
     9        I can look at it if need be I would be grateful.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Under number 4.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Wait a minute.  Which page are you on now?
    14
    15   MS. STEEL:   844.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:   No 4, freedom of expression, article 10, (A) says:
    20        Freedom of expression is an essential foundation of a
    21        democratic society, and applies not only to information and
    22        ideas which are favourably received but also to those which
    23        offend, shock or disturb.  The exceptions permitted by
    24        article 10(2) are to be interpreted narrowly and
    25        established convincingly.
    26
    27        (B), regard must be had to the preeminent role of the
    28        press, and we would say that that also applies to the right
    29        of the -- or the public having a right to distribute
    30        publicly information critical of corporations which have,
    31        or bodies which have, an effect over people's lives --
    32        sorry, regards must be had to the preeminent role of the
    33        press in a State governed by the rule of law to impart
    34        information and ideas on matters of public interest which
    35        the public has a right to know.  At the same time the press
    36        must not overstep the boundaries said to be inter alia by
    37        the protection of the reputation of others.
    38
    39        Actually, I do not know what this next bit is.  'In trust
    40        cases...'  Because the applicant was relating rumours and
    41        information given by others about police brutality it was
    42        unreasonable for the national authorities to require him to
    43        establish the truth of his statements.  And we would say in
    44        relation to that, that whilst this case is obviously
    45        stronger than rumour it is clear that all the allegations
    46        made in the London Greenpeace fact sheet had been widely
    47        made by other organisations and individuals prior to their
    48        being gathered together in the London Greenpeace
    49        fact sheet, and therefore it should equally apply that it
    50        is unreasonable for us to be required to establish the
    51        truth of all the statements in the fact sheet.
    52
    53        We probably should have made this application at the start
    54        and we could have saved a lot of calling of evidence and so
    55        on, but anyway we are making it now.
    56
    57        The circumstances of the case show that the applicant (A)
    58        was to encourage a public investigation into complaints of
    59        police brutality not to defame the Reykjavik police force,
    60        and so bore on a matter of serious public concern.

Prev Next Index