Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Article 10 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Political opinion- Bowman v UK- political leaflets
      - Journalistic freedom- Goodwin v UK- jounalist’s refusal to disclose sources
      - Artistic expression- Muller v Switzerland
      - Commercial Information- Coleman v UK
      - stronger protection for political and journalistic forms of expression
    - - R v Secretary of State for the Home Department- journalists being required to give an undertaking contents of interviews would not be used in a professional capacity restricted freedom of speech (common law freedom, rather than ECHR)
    - - Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ktd v Ireland- the injuction prohibiting information regarding abortion services in Ireland interfered disproportionately with the clinic’s freedom
      - R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Wagstaff- the fact that the inquiry into a murderer was held privately interfered with reception of information and therefore article 10
      - Kennedy v The Charity Commission- there is not a positive duty of disclosure on public authorities. There is not a general right to ‘freedom of information’
- - - - Some statutes prohibit free speech and are designed to protect security of the state: Official Secrets Act 1911 and 1989 which have been used in conjunction with an action for breach of confidence
      - The Observer and Guardian v UK- ‘Spycatcher case’- guy from intelligence services wrote a book. Case is re newspapers disclosing info from the book- the injunction for breach of confidence before the book’s publication in the US was proportionate/necessary as the reasons were sufficient for the aim pursued. After the book was published in the US, the damage had been done and there was no longer an interest in confidentiality so the reputation of the security forced was not a sufficient reason to justify the injunctions
      - Brind and McLaughlin v UK- the ban from leaders of an organisation from being broadcast was proportionate in the interests of national security as there is a margin of appreciation for actions against terrorism
      - Miranda v Secretary of State for Home Dept- partner of a journalist being stopped at Heathrow airport and searched for encrypted storage devices obtained from American Intelligence breached article 10 as schedule 7 of Terrorism Act 2000 was not ‘prescribed by law’ as it had insufficient safeguards and could be used arbitrarily
      - key case: R (Lord Carlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept
        Home Secretary had excluded a dissident Iranian politician, Maryam Rajavi (who was living in Paris), from the UK. She had been invited by Lord Carlile and two other members of the House of Lords to address a meeting in Westminster, but an exclusion order had been upheld. Mrs Rajavi had links to a formerly proscribed organisation and the Home Secretary was concerned that there could be repercussions in relation to general UK-Iranian political relations. Article 10 interests had been engaged. However, with the exception of Lord Toulson, who dissented, the justices held that the interference had been proportionate. Essentially the majority believed that the Article 10 rights engaged were not sufficiently significant to put at risk what Lady Hale called the UK's 'fragile but imperative' relationship with Iran
- - - - Wingrove and Muller were on religious grounds
      - Wide margin of appreciation
      - Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria- a blasphemous film was forfeited in a regional court. The legitimate aim of freedom of religion was proportionate. There is an obligation to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to religious believers and infringe their rights under article 9 without contributing to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs
    - - lower protection for freedom of racist/terrorist speech unless they promote a wider public debate
      - M’Bala M’Bala v France- comedian convicted for causing ‘public insults towards a group based on religion or race’ due to overt anti-semitism was not a breach of article 10. His freedom of expression should not be upheld when his aims were against the spirit of ECHR
      - Jersild v Denmark- Danish current affairs programme interviewed an openly racist group and the journalist was convicted under Danish Penal Code. Convicting them was disproportionate as the jounalist’s motives were to be engaged in critical journalism. Press should publish so they can play ‘public watchdog’.
  - - - Confidentiality of sources can be raised by sources in defence of action against them
    - - financial times v UK had same approach