header-logo header-logo

Legal implications for Shilpa and Jade

25 January 2007
Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

Bullied Celebrity Big Brother (BB) contestant Shilpa Shetty could have a claim in law against production company Endemol UK, says a prominent media lawyer.

Shetty, a Bollywood actress, has been unknowingly caught in the eye of a political storm following public outrage over her ill treatment at the hands of co-contestant Jade Goody.

 Media lawyer Mark Stephens, a partner at Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, says: “Having represented many BB contestants in the past, my focus is the fact that because they are paid to appear, they are workers so benefit from all the protections an employee has in the workplace.”

He says that if a secretary walked into Channel 4’s offices and faced bullying and harassment then they would have a cast-iron claim, and there is no reason to distinguish between that and what Shetty was subjected to.
“I think she would have a good claim against Endemol [the makers of BB],” he adds. “Under broadcasting legislation there may be a breach of Channel 4’s obligation to provide appropriate viewing.

“The whole BB process is about disempowerment. I have represented 16 or 17 contestants and everyone talks about their sense of isolation, the key thing is if you’re in an environment you don’t like at any other point in your life you can go home, shut the door and share the burden with your friends and intimates. In BB you’re in a situation where you’re with people you’ve never met before, you can’t escape, and must befriend and then betray them by nominating, and that is counter-cultural to any normal behaviour.”

However, legal commentator B Mahendra says: “I don’t think there are any legal implications at all. It’s not racial discrimination as such, just shouting insults. I don’t think there could be a prosecution, it’s not primarily racist abuse and for a prosecution to proceed there has to be a 50% chance of conviction and it needs to be in the public interest to pursue the case.”

The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed concern over the programme, and is writing to Channel 4 “to remind them of their legal responsibilities as a public broadcaster, under the terms of the Race Relations Amendment Act, to eliminate racial discrimination, promote racial equality and to promote good relations between people from different racial groups”.

Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll