Supreme Court rules against the BBC
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected an attempt by the BBC to lift a court order granting anonymity to a convicted sex offender who has been deported to his country of origin.
The order, made under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, prohibited the publication or broadcast of anything that would identify the man. In A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25, the BBC argued that it had Art 10 rights to name the man concerned. The case also concerned the fact media organisations had not been notified of the s 11 order application and did not attend the hearing.
The man, who had a conviction for abusing his step-child, argued that his life would be in danger if he was identified due to anger against his sexual offences.
Lord Reed, giving the lead judgment, said the s 11 order was “not incompatible with the Convention rights of the BBC".
“The interference with its freedom of expression was necessary to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, since its publication of A's identity in connection with the proposed deportation would have completely undermined the judicial review proceedings. In these circumstances, where the publication of A's identity in connection with the proceedings might well have rendered those proceedings pointless, the interference with the BBC's Art 10 rights was unavoidable if the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, within the meaning of Art 10(2), were to be maintained.
“Put shortly, the order had to be made if the court was to do its job, notwithstanding the resulting restriction upon the BBC's capacity to do its job.”
He cited Lord Rodger’s observation in In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1; [2010] 2 AC 697, that the media do not have the right to publish information at the known potential cost of an individual being killed or maimed.
He said the BBC was able to apply promptly for recall of the order, and its application was heard two days after the order was made.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
