The public interest defence advanced by Associated Newspapers Limited (“ANL”) comes in three different flavours, none more satisfying than the previous ones. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Paul Wragg (Page 2 of 4)
Having read through the Defence which was recently filed by Associated Newspapers Ltd (“ANL”) in the case brought by Meghan Markle I was surprised to see it describe aspects of the Duchess of Sussex’s claim as ‘confused and incoherent’ (para 17) and other parts as ‘irrelevant’. Continue reading
In June 2019, Brian Cathcart and Paddy French published a report which accused Andrew Norfolk and The Times of an anti-Muslim bias in its reporting. They mention three articles specifically. Of these, two resulted in complaints to IPSO, both of which were upheld. In the first, Tower Hamlets v The Times, the newspaper was ‘ordered’ to publish a summary of the adjudication. Continue reading
Judges have their role to play, and Parliamentarians theirs, and “it is for the public to judge whether what I have done is right or wrong”, says Lord Peter Hain. Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do. Continue reading
This critique follows on from my previous post, in which I responded to Paul Wragg’s criticism of the manner in which the judge in Richard v BBC dealt with the first stage of the claim – whether Richard had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in respect of the information broadcast about him. Continue reading
In a recent post on Inforrm, my good friend Dr Paul Wragg sets out a detailed argument critiquing the High Court’s recent decision in Cliff Richard’s successful privacy claim against the BBC (Richard v BBC). Wragg takes the view that the reasoning of Mann J in the case is deficient in a number of respects, and that his disposal of the case is unsatisfactory. Continue reading
There are three reasons why I think the case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC is wrongly decided. Firstly, it seems to me that whilst a wrong has been done to Sir Cliff, this was committed by the police when it, or someone within it, disclosed information to the BBC that Sir Cliff was being investigated as part of Operation Yewtree (it must be stressed that the CPS announced on 16 June 2016 that no charges would be made against Sir Cliff and that, as was said in court, ‘he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law’). Continue reading
The BBC and the Guardian are being sued for breach of confidence for their part in the ‘Paradise Papers’ affair in which some 6.8 million documents were stolen (but not by the defendants) from Appleby Global Group LLC, a law firm operating outside the UK. Continue reading
Something incredible is happening in modern politics. The shackles of propriety, diplomacy, and discretion have been released. Politicians are speaking their minds. This has not resulted, as so many commentators tell us it has, in statesmen ‘telling it like it is’. Instead, political debate is awash with vacuous, bewildering, abrasive guff. Continue reading
This post follows Paul Wragg’s piece on this blog discussing the recent Supreme Court decision determining that the applicant had no right to anonymity after being named in open court by a witness in a high profile criminal case in Oxford. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑