The Government has dropped its proposed CFA Amendment Order, following the calling of the General Election. Leader of the House Harriet Harman is reported to have told Labour MP Tom Watson yesterday that “You can be reassured following your reading of the order paper that that will not be moved today. So it might be on the order paper now but it’s not going anywhere.” Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: April 2010 (Page 4 of 4)
In the last part of this four part post, Jonathan Coad considers the PCC from the perspective of the “person in the street”, looks at a survey of public opinion and makes recommendations for the future.
Recently I got into a taxi and had this remarkable conversation with the cabby. When he learnt that I was a media lawyer, the first thing he said (wholly unprompted) was how outrageous he thought it was that he would read a story that covered say a whole page, and the correction was only the small fraction of the size. He then went on to say that he thought the newspapers should be required to publish an apology/retraction which was at least the size of the offending article. Continue reading
The right to freedom of expression in Article 10(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights includes freedom to receive information and ideas. Until recently, the supposed right to “receive” information under this provision carried very little weight in domestic law. However, last week this all changed with the decision of the Court of Appeal in A v Independent News & Media Limited & Ors ([2010] EWCA 343).
The case related to the access by the media to the hearings of the Court of Protection and concerned the story of a remarkable man, known as “A”, now aged 30, who while being blind and suffering acute learning difficulties was also in possession of astonishing musical gifts. This had allowed him to chart a career as a successful professional musician. Continue reading
The Inforrm blog is now two months old. We have had 90 posts from a dozen contributors. In March we had over 10,000 page views – from 4 continents. After the United Kingdom our biggest readership is in the United States, New Zealand and Europe – with occasional readers across the rest of the world. We are grateful to all those who have been reading our posts and making the occasional comment.
Thank you to those bloggers who have drawn Inforrm to the attention of their readers – Steven Price’s excellent Media Law Journal blog from New Zealand and the sometimes slumbering but recently re-awakened MediaPal@LSE – as well as the UKSC Blog and Human Rights in Ireland. We have also been picked up by Lawbore – the law students’ guide and by the South African Freedom of Expression Institute blog. You can also follow us on Twitter.
In the third 
part of this four part post, Jonathan Coad considers the Issue of Prominence – the Litmus Test of Independence and Fairness
Paragraph 1 of the Code is by far the most commonly relied on provision by complainants to the PCC. It concerns accuracy, which is perhaps the most important value we need in newspapers if they are legitimately to participate in our constitutional process. Sub paragraph (i) sets out the duty on the press to take care not to publish inaccurate material. Sub paragraph (ii) is the PCC’s sole sanction for breaches of sub paragraph (i).
On 30 March 2010, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) handed down judgment in the case of Petrenco v Moldova. By a majority of 6:1 the Court held that the failure of the applicant’s domestic defamation claim was a breach of the positive obligation of the respondent State to protect the applicant’s Article 8 right to reputation. The applicant was awarded “just satisfaction” of €1,200 for non-pecuniary damage.
The case is important for three reasons. First, it provides a useful summary of the approach of the Court to issues of reputation and freedom of expression. Continue reading
In this regular feature we draw attention to the last week’s law and media news and next week’s upcoming events. If readers have any news or events which they would like to draw attention to please add them by way of comments on this post. We are particularly interested in forthcoming events which readers are interested in publicising.
News
The biggest news of the week is undoubtedly Simon Singh’s victory in his high profile libel dispute with the British Chiropractic Association. We have already commented on the decison of the Court of Appeal. There has been substantial coverage of this case in both the press and on the blogosphere. We will deal with this in a separate post.
In the second part of this four part post, Jonathan Coad considers the question of bias and the Press Complaints Commission and how it measures up to its own standards of being “fast, free and fair”.
You are walking down the street and a burly policeman jumps on you and beats you up for no reason. You take exception to this and make a complaint against the policeman. Imagine being told that your assailant has insisted that your complaint of assault is to be adjudicated by a body set up and funded by the police, where the relevant law has been written by the police and where nearly half of the adjudicating panel are serving police officers, most of whom themselves have a well documented record for such crimes. The same body also campaigns for ever greater liberty for the police to act in a way which infringes the rights of the individual without legal liability. So it is with complaints to the PCC.
In this four part post, Jonathan Coad considers the nature and future of the Press Complaints Commission. The material in this post forms his submission to the committee currently undertaking a “Governance Review” of the PCC.
In his book “The Insider” Piers Morgan (who edited both the News of the World and the Mirror) told us that the press was becoming progressively more powerful and aggressive. In his evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee on 25 September 2003, Max Clifford stated that “Paul Dacre is virtually a law unto himself.” In a 2007 speech, Judge Loucaides, then a judge of the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECHR”) set out the problem from a 21st Century perspective:-
“One should not lose sight of the fact that the mass media are nowadays commercial enterprises with uncontrolled and virtually unlimited strength, interested more in profitable, flashy news than in disseminating proper information to the public, in controlling government abuse or in fulfilling other idealistic objectives. And although they may be achieving such objectives incidentally, accidentally or occasionally, even deliberately, they should be subject to certain restraint out of respect for the truth and for the dignity of individuals. […] Furthermore they should remain legally accountable to the persons concerned for any false defamatory allegations. Like any power, the mass media cannot be accountable only to themselves. A contrary position would lead to arbitrariness and impunity, which undermine democracy itself.”
The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in the high profile appeal in British Chiropractic Association v Singh ([2010] EWCA Civ 350). The case concerned an action for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (“BCA”), in respect of an article by Mr Singh in The Guardian. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑