Gillick v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 October 1995 |
| Date | 19 October 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Neill, Lord Justice Evans and Lord Justice Millett
Libel - guidelines on whether words capable of being libellous
The words spoken by a participant in a discussion on a live television programme that, "there were at least two reported cases of suicide by girls who were pregnant" after the success of a legal battle in the Court of Appeal in 1984 by a well known campaigner opposed to the availability of contraceptive advice to young girls, were capable of bearing the defamatory meaning that the campaigner was morally responsible for those deaths.
The Court of Appeal so held by a majority, Lord Justice Millett dissenting, when dismissing an appeal by the defendants, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Mrs Susan Pearce, from the decision of Sir Michael Davies, who, sitting as a High Court judge on the trial of a preliminary issue, decided on March 4 in favour of the plaintiff, Mrs Victoria Gillick, that those words were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
On July 27, 1989 the BBC broadcast a live television programme entitled "The Garden Party" in which Mrs Gillick, the presenter Ms Caron Keating, and the second defendant took part. The subject of the discussion was the provision of advice on contraception to young girls.
Mrs Gillick was well known as a campaigner strongly opposed to the availability of such advice, which she believed encouraged young girls to engage in promiscuous sexual activities. Mrs Pearce, a journalist, by contrast strongly supported the availability of such advice, which she believed reduced the incidence of unprotected intercourse and unwanted pregnancies among those who received it.
In 1982 Mrs Gillick had brought legal proceedings to procure the withdrawal of a circular to general practitioners which stated that it was permissible to give contraceptive advice to under-age girls without the consent of their parents. Her action succeeded in the Court of Appeal in 1984 ((1986) AC 112) but failed, by a narrow majority, in the House of Lords in 1985 ((1986) AC 112).
In support of her position, Mrs Gillick had asserted on the programme that the number of under-age pregnancies had reduced after she won the battle in 1984. To that assertion Mrs Pearce responded with the words complained of. Mrs Gillick then brought the present action for libel.
Mr Andrew Caldecott, QC, for the defendants; Mrs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein
...in question are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. They are well known and were helpfully summarised by Neill LJ in Gillick v. British Broadcasting Corporation [1996] E.M.L.R. 267 at page 272. First and foremost, as I have already indicated, one seeks to apply the natural and ordinary......
-
Jameel and another v Wall Street Journal Europe
...to be applied on any such application are clear from a number of Court of Appeal authorities, including, for example, Gillick -v—BBC [1996] EMLR 267 and Mapp (cited above). Mr. Robertson relies primarily upon the distinction that there is no allegation corresponding to paragraph 11 of the a......
-
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...must have in mind guidance of the Court of Appeal. That was given in Skuse v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 278 at 286 and Gillick v BBC [1996] EMLR 267 at 275. It has most recently been summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 (and Gatley on Libel and Slander 11 th ed ......
- R (Gaunt) v Office of Communications (Liberty intervening)
-
Hidden Law‐Making in the Province of Medical Jurisprudence
...whose provisions wereincorporated into the Human and Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.166 Gillick n 157 above.167 Gillick vBBC (1996) EMLR 267 (in which Mrs Gillick succeeded); Gillick vBrook Advisory Centres[2002] EWHC 829 (QB) (in which Mrs Gillick lost).Hidden Law-Making and Medical......