The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a limited constitutional right to access government documents. In Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, (2010 SCC 23) released on June 17 after an extraordinary 18 months under reserve, the Court held that the scope of s. 2 (b) Charter (freedom of expression) includes a right to access government documents, but only where access is necessary to permit meaningful discussion. The Court did not elaborate on what would constitute “meaningful discussion”, and has left unanswered many other questions about when and how the constitutional right to access government information can be enforced. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: June 2010 (Page 3 of 5)
In this feature we revisit some older posts which are still of current interest. In this three part series, first posted in March 2010, Hugh Tomlinson QC looks at the development of the case law relating to Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights, the development of the right to reputation and its potential implications for domestic law. The first part considers the effect of the “positive obligation” to protect Article 8 rights on disputes between private parties.
Introduction
The approach of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention has undergone a revolution in recent years. Developments are continuing at an increasing pace and are likely to have profound effects on domestic media law. In this series of posts I survey and explain the changes so far and consider likely future developments. Continue reading
The Supreme Court of Canada today handed down its long awaited judgment in Ministry of Public Safety and Security v Criminal Lawyer’s Assocation (2010 SCC 23) dealing with the relationship between freedom of information and freedom of expression. The judgment had been reserved for a remarkable period of 17 months, having been heard on 11 December 2008. The hearing is discussed here on “The Court” blog. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the right to freedom of expression was not engaged. Continue reading
In a reserved judgment handed down today in the case of Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd ([2010] EWHC 1414 (QB)) Mr Justice Tugendhat granted summary judgment to the defendant in respect of libel claims arising out of a review of the claimant’s book “Seven Days in the Art World” by Lynn Barber in the “Daily Telegraph” on 1 November 2008. This result was achieved by the introduction of a novel “threshold of seriousness” into the legal definition of what constitutes a “defamatory” imputation. The consequences are potentially far reaching. Continue reading
The US District Court in San Diego has ruled that the city’s anti-nudity ordinance did not violate the First Amendment Rights of the intended participants in the San Diego Naked Bicycle Ride which was intended to protest against petroleum-based technology. In her brief to the court the organiser Sarah Bush’s lawyer’s contended “The Plaintiff Is Entitled To Strip Naked, Paint Her Body With Political Slogans and Protest Important Public Issues.” This argument was rejected. The judge held that
“Nudity has the potential to amplify that message only because it naturally amplifies any message by attracting attention and publicity. Plaintiff’s message is otherwise old hat. Plaintiff isn’t likely to prevail on her claim that the ordinance violates her rights under the First Amendment.” Continue reading
We have previously posted the judicial responses to the Government’s Consultation on “Controlling Costs in Defamation Proceedings“. The two judges who responded – Lord Neuberger and Chief Costs Judge Hurst – were both opposed to the proposal. We had a post last week by Justin Rushbrooke questioning the whole consultation process on this issue. Continue reading
In an earlier post we suggested that there should be a mature debate on the various issues raised by Libel Reform Campaign. Last week we discussed the burden of proof in libel cases. This week we discuss the idea of a cap on libel damages
Background
The English common law provides only two remedies in a libel case. The primary remedy is financial compensation – “damages” – 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.
News
In a speech at the University of Westminster this week (reported by the Press Gazette Axegrinder blog) London Mayor and former editor Boris Johnson turned his analytical Continue reading
This article was originally published in Solicitors Journal on 8 June 2010 and is reproduced by kind permission
Lord Lester has just introduced a Bill to amend the law of defamation. He says our present laws have a chilling impact on free speech – the life blood of democracy. He sings from the same hymn sheet as the Press who have for the last 9 months launched a vigorous campaign to change our law of defamation. The Bill consists of 22 clauses and 2 schedules and broken into 5 principal parts namely defences; statutory privilege; publication; cause of action and trial by jury. Continue reading
Two media organisations, Associated Newspapers Limited and Times Newspapers Limited, have sought permission to intervene in the case of Spiller v Joseph, which is due to be heard by a the UK Supreme Court on 26 and 27 July 2010. The Court’s “Case Details” are to be found here. We reported on the granting of permission in this case and its listing. In October 2009 the Court of Appeal ([2009] EWCA Civ 1075) struck out the defence of fair comment holding that although the Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑