Decision – Star China Media Limited (fairness and privacy)
| Published date | 08 March 2021 |
Sanction 139(20) Star China MediaLimited
1
Sanction: Decisionby Ofcom
Sanction: to be imposed onStar China Media Limited
For material broadcast on CCTV Newson 27 August 2013 and 14 July 20141.
Ofcom’s Sanction Decision against: Star China Media Limited(“SCML” or the “Licensee”) in
respect of its service CCTV News (previously
TLCS000575BA/22).
For: Breaches of the OfcomBroadcasting Code (the “Code”) 3:
Rule 7.1: “Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair
treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes”;
and,
Rule 8.1: “Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in
connection with obtaining material included in programmes,
must be warranted”.
DecisionTo impose a financial penalty (payable to HM Paymaster
General) of£100,000(one hundred thousand pounds).
1Ofcom’s Adjudication published on 6 July 2020 in issue 406 of the Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin.
2 Ofcom revoked the Licence on 4 February 2021 under section 238(4) of the Communications Act 2003 and
Condition 28(2)(a) of the Licence on the basis that SCML had ceased to provide the CGTN service and, in the
circumstances, it was appropriate to revoke the Licence. The reasons for Ofcom’s decision are set out in the
Notice of Revocation.
3The version of the Code which was in force at the time of the broadcast took effect on 21 March 2013. While
the Code has been updated since this issueof the Code, Sections Seven and Eight of the Code were not
amended.
Sanction 139(20) Star China MediaLimited
2
Executive Summary
1.CCTV Newswas renamed as China Global Television Network (CGTN) on 31 December 2016, and
the service continued to operate under the same licence. The lice nce for the provision of the
CGTN servicewas held by Star China Media Limited (“SCML” or “the Licensee”) until 4 February
2021when the Licence was revokedby Ofcom. The service was broadcast by satellite in the UK.
The Licenseedid not holdany other broadcasting licences.
2.On 27 August 2013 CCTV Newsbroadcast the news programme China 24 which reported on the
arrestof Mr Peter Humphreyfor a criminal offence and on 14 July 2014 it broadcast News Hour
which reported on his indictment. The programmes included footage of Mr Humphreyas he
apologised for having committed the offence.
3.Mr Humphrey complained to Ofcom in November 2018 about unfair treatment and
unwarranted infringement of privacy in connection with the obtaining of material included in the
programmes and the programmes as broadcast by CCTV Newson 27 August 2013 and 14 July
2014.
Ofcom’s Adjudication
4.In Ofcom's Adjudication (“the Adjudication”) published on 6 July 2020 in issue 406of the
Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin, Ofcomfound that the programmes had br eached Rules 7.1
and 8.1of the Code.
5.The Adjudication set out specifically the reasoning as to whyOfcom upheld the complaint of
unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in con nection with the obtaining of
material included in the programmes and the programmes as broadcast.
6.Ofcom put the Licensee on noticein the Adjudication that it considered thesebreaches to be
serious, and that it would consider them for the imposition o f a statutory sanction.
Licencerevocation
7.On 4 February 2021, Ofcom revoked the Licence under section 238(4) of the Communications
ceased to provide the CGTN service and, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to revoke the
Licence.4
8.By virtue of section 346(3) of the 2003 Act, Ofcom has the power to impose a penalty relating to
breaches of the Code during the period in which a Licensee hel d a broadcasting licence
notwithstanding the fact that the Licencehas been revokedand the CGTN service isno longer
broadcasting.5
The Sanction Decision
9.In accordance withOfcom’s Procedures for the consideration of statutory sanct ions in breaches
of broadcast licences (the “Sanctions Procedures”) 6, Ofcom considered whether the Code
breaches wereserious, deliberate, repeated or reckless so as to warrant the imposition of a
sanction on the Licensee in this case. Having taken account of the Licensee’s representation s
Ofcom has reached a decisionthat a sanction is warranted for the reasonsset out in paragraphs
57 to 71 below.
4The reasons for Ofcom’s decision are set out in the Notice of Revocation.
5 By virtue of Section 346(3) of the 2003 Act, a person’s liability to have a penalty imposed under section 237
of the 2003 Act in respect of acts or omissions of that person occurring while the holder of a Broadcasting Act
licence is not affected by that Broadcasting Act licence having ceased (for any reason) to be in force before the
imposition of the penalty.
6The Sanctions Procedures.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations