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.
