‘If Thy Right Eye Offend Thee, Pluck it Out’: R v BBC, ex p ProLife Alliance
| Author | Andrew Geddis |
| Date | 01 November 2003 |
| Published date | 01 November 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2230.2003.06606005.x |
‘If Thy Right Eye Offend Thee, Pluck it Out’:
RvBBC, ex p ProLife Alliance
Andrew Geddis
Introduction
In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex p Prolife Alliance,
1
the House of Lords
allowed an appeal by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) against an
earlier Court of Appeal ruling that the BBC—as well as the independent
broadcasters—acted unlawfully in refusing to screen a proposed party election
broadcast (PEB) on behalf of the Prolife Alliance prior to the 2001 general
election.
2
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, I raised some questions as to
the reasoning employed therein, as well as the conclusion it reached.
3
The release
of the Lords’ reasoning reveals a majority of that body found at least some of this
criticism was warranted.
4
This article first reviews the various judgments issued by
the Appellate Committee. It then considers some wider comments made by Lord
Hoffman on the issue of how the European Convention on Human Rights should
be applied to the case. Finally, I venture a few thoughts on what consequences the
decision may have for the general issue of how the UK currently regulates political
broadcasting.
The background to the appeal
The particulars leading to the Lords’ hearing the Prolife Alliance case are
recounted in my earlier treatment of the Court of Appeal’s decision,
5
as well as in
the judgments of Lord Hoffman and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe.
6
To recount
these in brief; prior to a general election, UK broadcasters distribute airtime to
qualifying political parties for the purpose of screening PEBs.
7
Given the
otherwise extremely tight restrictions on the direct use of the broadcast media for
political ends—the screening of ‘any advertisement which is inserted by or on
behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature,’ or
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Otago, New Zealand.
2R (on the application of Prolife Alliance) vBritish Broadcasting Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ
297; [2002] 2 All ER 756 (CA).
3 A. Geddis, ‘What Future For Political Advertising On The United Kingdom’s Television
Screens?’ [2002] PL 615. See also J. Rowbottom, ‘Freedom of Expression in Election Campaigns’
(2002) 152 New Law Journal 679.
4 See n 1 above, at paras. 15 (per Lord Nicholls, with Lord Millet concurring); 50– 51 (per Lord
Hoffman); 137 (per Lord Walker).
5 See Geddis, n 3 above, 617– 620.
6 See n 1 above, at paras 23– 46; 101–115.
7 Independent broadcasters are required to provide such time by the Broadcasting Act 1990, s 36(1).
The BBC is under no express legal obligation to do so, but provides the time as a part of its
general obligation to provide a ‘public service for disseminating information, education and
entertainment.’ See Agreement with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, Cm 3152 (1996),
at para 3(2)(a) (BBC Agreement); putting into effect the BBC’s obligations under the Royal
Charter for the Continuance of The British Broadcasting Corporation, Cm 3248 (1996).
rThe Modern Law Review Limited 2003 (MLR 66:6, November). Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 885
To continue reading
Request your trial