Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The ECHR - Article 10 (Legitimate aims (National security (The Observer…

- - - - UK govt tried to ban book and gain injunction against publishing on basis of national security - was already published in the US and courts said injunction had only been valid up until then - however national security held to be legitimate aim
    - - Broadcasters dubbed him out and had voiceover whenever he spoke on TV - courts held was only a limited infringement of rights - may have been different if there had been no words at all
  - - - Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000 - use of stop power held to be proportionate - but para 2(1) of schedule incompatible with Article 10 as far as it relates to "journalistic material" - safeguards against arbitrary power
      - Stopped and searched at airport - had encrypted information relating to the Snowden case confiscated
  - - - Handyside v UK
      - Muller v Switzerland - exhibition in Switzerland with paintings depicting graphic sexual religious images - no warning outside - judge ordered confiscation and both artist and gallery convicted of obscenity - court found aim was legitimate and was proportionate in line with protecting morals - paintings not destroyed and could apply to have them back
  - - - Claimant convicted of defamation of Austrian Chancellor - court found ban and conviction disproportionate - considered the effect of criminalising statements of opinion - may have been swayed by fact that Chancellor was a public figure
    - - Wingrove v UK - distribution licence refused for film held to offend UK blasphemy laws - allowed - court held was aim of protecting religious rights was legitimate and proportionate - images gratuitous
      - Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria (1994) - similar facts to Wingrove - also allowed - court swayed by fact that would have been shown in heavily Christian area where more likely to cause offence
  - - - Film about group banned on basis that it was peddling racists views - held to be disproportionate - film was making serious point and did not seem to glorify racism
      - Garaudy v France 92003) - Holocaust denial
      - M'Bala M'Bala v France (2015) - comedy?
      - Surek v Turkey (No 1) (1999) - incitement to violence?
- - - - Prescribed by law
      - In interests of a legitimate aim
      - Proportionality
      - Public authority must be successful on all - don't stop there in exam though
  - - - R v SoS Home Dept ex p Simms (1999), per Lord Steyn: "freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy"
  - - - Concerned "The Little Red School Book" - publisher convicted under UK obscenity laws - UK govt argued that the ban was necessary to protect public morals - Strasbourg found for govt - wide margin of appreciation in terms of recognising views of different states
    - - Printed word - Handyside v UK
      - Radio and TV - Pro-Life Alliance v BBC (2004)
      - Actions/behaviour - Percy v DPP (2002)
      - Art/film - Muller v Switzerland (1991)/Wingrove v UK (1997)
  - - - Right to receive information
        
        Open Door Counselling Ltd v Ireland (1992) - provision of information about abortion services
        
        Ban on information about abortion services - Open Door wanted to publish information about services available in the UK - blanket ban held to be disproportionate
        
        R v SoS Health ex p Wagstaff (2000) - public enquiries/accountability
        
        Enquiry into the Shipman case - question of whether it would be held in public - bereaved families claims that to hold it in private would be a violation of their Art 10 rights - court held was appropriate for it to be public, but there was no infringement of rights
- - - - Is there a legal basis for interference with the right?
        
        Accessible?
        
        Clear and sufficiently narrowly prescribed?
  - - - National security
      - Territorial integrity and public safety
      - Prevention of disorder or crime
      - Protection of health or morals
      - Protection of reputation or rights of others
      - Prevention of disclosure of confidential information
      - Maintaining authority and impartiality of judiciary
  - - - Smith and Grady v UK - right to privacy - ban on homosexuals in armed forces
      - Handyside v UK
      - Can often glean pressing need from list of legitimate aims, even though not exactly the same - focus on proportionality
- - - - X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian;Goodwin v UK (1996)/Financial Times & Others v UK (2009) - both held that journalists do not have to disclose their sources as would restrict their freedom of expression
      - Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd (2009) - Ian Brady's hospital records leaked to Daily Mirror - hospital wanted to force them to reveal source - court agreed - swayed by the content and fear of more leaks