Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J0411-1 |
| Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1979] EWCA Civ J0411-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Eveleigh and
Sir Stanlet Rees
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Divisional Court)
MR. H. WOOLF and MR. D. LATHAM (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Respondent).
MR. A.T. HOOLAHAN, Q.C., MR R. WALKER and MR. H. SALES (instructed by the Solicitor, B.B.C.) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Appellant).
Although this case is concerned with the British Broadcasting Corporation, it cannot properly be understood unless you know something of the Exclusive Brethren; and in particular of those of the Brethren who adhere to the teachings of an American, one James Taylor, junior. So I must tell something of their activities as disclosed in the papers before the court; though it must be taken with reserve as these activities have not been proved in evidence.
The Exclusive Brethren are a Christian religious sect. They read the Bible. They sing hymns. They say prayers. They meet together for religious worship. In buildings with blank walls and no windows. They keep themselves very much to themselves. They hold to a doctrine which separates evil from good. They carry it so far that, in their eyes, everyone who is not one of them is evil. So that, even in a-single family, any one of the family who belongs to the Exclusive Brethren must separate himself from those who do not. He must dissociate himself from them because they are evil. He must not talk to them or have meals with them. When a whole family join the Exclusive Brethren, they must have nothing to do with their neighbours; because they are evil. Everyone is evil who does not belong to the Exclusive Brethren. They apply this doctrine so strictly that it has caused much distress and unhappiness among deeply religious people. Families have been split assunder. Husband from wife. Children from parents. Never seeing friends or relatives. Such distress that it is said that in Andover it led to two deaths which the coroner described as murder and suicide.
This sect claims to be a charitable body and to have allthe privileges and exemptions which attach to charities. It gave the Charity Commissioners so much anxiety that in 1975-6 under their statutory powers (contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Charities Act 1960) they asked Mr. Hugh Francis, Q.C. to hold an inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren and to report on it. It is open to the Charity Commissioners to publish his report but they have not done so yet. The report is, I gather, very critical of the Exclusive Brethren.
The sect also claims to be relieved from payment of rates. They rely on the exemption granted in section 39 of the General Rate Act 1967 to "places of public religious worship". We had to consider that exemption in the case of the Mormon Church (more fully the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). A Mormon temple was held not to qualify for relief but their chapels did, see Henning's case (1962) 1 Weekly Law Reports 1091, (1964) Appeal Cases 420.
On the 26th September, 1976 the B.B.C. showed a television broadcast entitled "Anno Domini-Brethren". We have been supplied with a transcript of it. It was all about the Exclusive Brethren. It was extremely hostile to, and critical of, them. It has been described by their solicitors as "defamatory, inaccurate, biased, unfairly prejudicial and wholly unjustified in its attack on the Brethren and the pro-Taylorites". It included an interview with Mr. Hugh Francis, Q.C. in which he expressed the view that "doctrine of separation from evil as interpreted and applied under the teachings of James Taylor Junior was detrimental to the true interests of the community".
It also included a statement by a lady who said: "An awful lot of Exclusive Brethren meeting houses up and downthe country have applied for, and do get, rate relief. Now, one of the conditions of this beneficence is that the doors must be open to all members of the public for services on meeting days. Veil, they aren't at all - they'll keep you out. Now that means really that they're not entitled to the rate rebate that a lot of them are getting".
In the course of the broadcast, the spokesman said: "We have given the Brethren the right co reply - they haven't chosen to exercise this. And, in the meantime, the tragedies go on".
After that broadcast the Exclusive Brethren commenced an action in July 1977 by a writ 1977 R. No. 2718 entitled " Rule and Others v. Charity Commissioners and Francis" in which they claimed an injunction against Mr. Francis. They brought into question the entire validity and status of his Report; and sought specific relief in respect of the publication of the Report or any material derived from it. In addition there are a number of other actions pending in the High Court which relate to charitable trusts connected with the Exclusive Brethren.
Early in February 1978 the B.B.C. proposed to repeat the showing of their programme "Anno Domini-Brethren". It was announced in "The Radio Times" of Thursday, the 9th February, 1978. It said that the programme would be repeated on Sunday, 19th February, 1978. This gave rise to intense activity by the solicitors for the Exclusive Brethren and by the Treasury Solicitor. They asked that the repeat programme should not take place. They suggested that it would be a contempt of the High Court proceedings. There were telephone conversations and letters in rapid succession. Mr. Hugh Francis askedthat his contribution should not be included in the repeat programme. The B.B.C. agreed to his request entirely on a "without prejudice" basis, but refused to withdraw the rest of the programme. On the 14th February, 1978 the Solicitor for the B.B.C. wrote to the Treasury Solicitor that: "After giving the matter full consideration, I have been obliged to advise the Corporation that the transmission of the above programme will not constitute a contempt of the proceedings" in the High Court.
That matter however - contempt of the High Court - was never resolved. It was because someone was told that there was to be on Friday, 10th March, 1978 a hearing before the Local Valuation Court at Andover. It appears that there was at Andover a meeting room of the local assembly of the Exclusive Brethren. The trustees of the meeting room had made a proposal in writing to the Valuation Officer that their meeting room should be granted relief from rates, on the ground that it was a "place of public religious worship". The Local Authority and its Valuation Officer had both objected to the proposal. Their objections were treated as an appeal to the Local Valuation Court. So the Chairman had arranged for the court to be convened on Friday, 10th March, 1978 to hear the appeal.
The London solicitors of the Exclusive Brethren got to know of that rating case on Wednesday, 15th February, 1978. They immediately wrote to the B.B.C. asserting that the repeat programme - on Sunday, 19th February - would be a contempt of the Local Valuation Court. They said:
"In these circumstances even if there were no question of contempt in respect of the various High Court proceedings,the repetition of the broadcast represents a wholly improper and unwarranted canvassing in public of issues which are to come before a Court consisting of a panel of persons unlikely to have legal qualifications and the hearing is to take place in 3 weeks' time. Only the complete cancellation of the proposed broadcast will avoid the risk of grave prejudice to the Appellants in the Andover proceedings and to the Brethren in general and the risk of the Corporation committing a serious contempt".
Those solicitors on Thursday, 16th February, put the matter urgently before the Attorney-General. He seems to have been persuaded that the showing of the programme would be a contempt. His assistant took immediate steps to apply for an injunction against the B.B.C. One of his assistant solicitors swore an affidavit saying:
"To the best of my knowledge and belief the members of local Valuation Courts are not legally qualified and as the programme will be broadcast in the Andover area there is every possibility that it may be seen by one or more of the members of the Court and they may be influenced accordingly".
Everything was done in a great hurry. On Friday morning the 17th February two writs were issued. One by the Attorney-General against the B.B.C. for contempt in respect of the proceedings before the Local Valuation Court at Andover. The other by two of the Exclusive Brethren against the B.B.C. for contempt in respect of the High Court proceedings and also the Local Valuation Court at Andover. On the same Friday morning they went to the Judge in Chambers. He referred it to the Divisional Court. They heard it at once. The only issue debated was whether the Local Valuation Court at Andover wasor was not an "inferior court" within Order 52, rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The B.B.C., without making any admissions, said that, if it was, they would not proceed to show the programme on the air at all. The court held that it was such an "inferior court". See the report in (1978) 1 Weekly Law Reports 477 So the B.6.C. did not transmit the programme. It was all decided on that one day, Friday, 17th February - because of the programme on the Sunday. It is a pity that it all had to be done so quickly.
There was really no need for it. Because, as it turned out, there never was a hearing of the Local Valuation Court. The Exclusive Brethren were granted rate relief on their hall at Andover without any hearing at all. On that very Thursday, 16th February, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peach Grey & Company v Sommers
...... 557C–E , 559A , 560G–561A ). . Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting Corporation [ 1981 ] ......
- Hosking v Runting
-
Kelly v O'Neill
...... 3ED 161–162 BELLITTI V CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP 1974 44 DLR (3d) 407 R V CUTHBERTSON 1981 AC ... be of short duration, in this case ten days and in general terms not more than four to six weeks. In determining the ...One of those, Attorney General v. Tonks [1939] NZLR 533 , was a case where ...In Bellitti v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [1974] 44 DLR (3d) 407 , the Ontario High Court ......
-
Hillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd
...... (1) Where any of the land specified in a general vesting declaration has become vested in an acquiring ... statute: Central Electricity Board -v- Halifax Corporation [1963] AC 785 ("the CEB case") and West Riding County ...In Attorney-General -v- BBC [1981] AC 303 , the House of Lords ......