R v Radio Authority, ex parte Bull
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1995 |
| Date | 04 July 1995 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice McCullough
Broadcasting - control of advertising - Amnesty International has political objects
The Radio Authority had not acted unreasonably or misinterpreted the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 in deciding that Amnesty International was a body whose objects were mainly of a political nature which, therefore, could not be advertised on commercial radio.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing an application brought by David Bull and Nigel Wright for and on behalf of Amnesty International (British Section) (AI(BS)) for judicial review of a decision of the Radio Authority that radio advertising by AI(BS) was unacceptable under section 92(2)(a)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and under rule 8(a) of the Radio Authority Advertising Code.
Section 92(2)(a) provides that a licensed authority must not include: "(i) Any advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature. (ii) Any advertisement which is directed towards a political end."
The practice note to rule 8(a) of the code drawn up by the authority pursuant to section 93 of the Act provides: "the term `political' here is used in a wider sense than `party political'. The prohibition includes for example, issue campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action by local or national government."
Mr Nigel Pleming, QC, Mr Peter Duffy and Mr Sean Wilken for the applicant; Mr David Pannick, QC and Ms Dinah Rose for the authority.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY said that the applicants submitted that the authority misconstrued the provisions of section 92. The phrase "whose objects are wholly of mainly of a political nature" was not defined in the Act and, because section 92(2)(a)(i) potentially restricted the fundamental freedom of speech or communication recognised by English common law and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be carefully construed so as to minimise its impact.
Mr Pleming did not challenge the legality of section 92(2) but he did submit that if it was interpreted restrictively and in accordance with article 10 it became clear that the practice note went too far. He submitted that the phrase in the statute referred to objects which principally, not incidentally, were aimed at, or the majority of which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Director-General of Water Services, ex parte Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
-
Colgan v IRTC
... ... COLGAN v. INDEPENDENT RADIO TELEVISION COMMISSION JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN ... 3.1 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.3 R V PENTONVILLE PRISON EX-PARTE CHENG 1973 AC 931 MURPHY V INDEPENDENT RADIO & TELEVISION ION 1997 2 ILRM 467 R V RADIO AUTHORITY EX-PARTE BULL 1995 3 WLR 572 MCGOVERN V AG 1982 CH 321 ... ...
-
JR 47’s Application
... ... : see R –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 692. This doctrine is expressed with particular clarity ... are graphically illustrated in R –v- Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B [1995] 1 WLR 898, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to ... and its evolution can be traced through decisions such as R –v- Radio Authority, ex parte Bull [1998] QB 294 (at p. 209 especially). [36] The ... ...
-
R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
...that the principles summarised above were consistently preserved and given effect: see R v Radio Authority, Ex p Bull [1996] QB 169, [1998] QB 294. The 2003 Act is a very comprehensive measure, running to over 400 sections and 19 schedules. Chapter 4 of Part 3 contains regulatory provisio......