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.
