header-logo header-logo

24 April 2008 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7318 / Categories: Features , Local government , Media , Public
printer mail-detail

A necessary evil?

Does banning political adverts on television breach freedom of expression laws? Neil Parpworth reports

Section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003) prohibits political advertising on the television. In the recent case of R (on the application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15, [2008] All ER (D) 155 (Mar) the House of Lords was required to determine a leapfrog appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court in which that court had refused to declare the provision incompatible with Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention): (see [2006] EWHC 3069 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 30 (Dec)).

It should be noted, in passing, that the appellants did not pursue an alternative claim before the Divisional Court to the effect that the provisions containing the prohibition should be “read down” under s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) since it was common ground that the wording of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll