Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church’s Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NIQB 26 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 22 March 2011 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NIQB 26Ref:
TRE8133
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing downDelivered:
22/3/11
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church’s Application [2011] NIQB 26
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEWBY
THE KIRK SESSION OF SANDOWN FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
________
TREACY J
Introduction
1.By this application theKirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church
(“the applicant”) seeks judicial review of an adjudication made by the Council
of the Advertising Standards Authority (“the ASA”) on 3 April 2009.
2.The ASA concluded that some of the text used in a full page advertisement
placed by the applicantin the Belfast News Letter and its associated free sheet
on 1 August 2008, and headlined “the Word of God Against Sodomy” was
homophobic, implying that homosexual people were perverted and an
abomination, and that the advertisement would be likely to cause, and had
caused, serious offence. The advertisement accordingly breached clause 5.1 of
the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (“the
Code”).
3.The ASA rejected a further complaint thatthe advertisement could be read as
an attempt to incite violence against members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender community or supporters of, or participants in, the Belfast
Gay Pride March.
4.The ASA concluded that the advertisement should not appear again in its
current form; told the applicantto take more care in future to avoid causing
serious offence when advertising its opposition to the Gay Pride March, or
inviting readers to a gospel witness; and advised the applicantto seek a view
from the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team (which
2
provides free advice as to the likely compliance of advertising copy with the
CAP Code) before publishing similar advertising in future.
Grounds of Challenge
5.The permitted grounds of the applicant’s challenge are:
“(i) The Authority’s decision was reached in a
procedurally unfair manner in that the applicants
were not provided with a copy of the Independent
Reviewer’s recommendation to the ASA Council,
nor permitted to make representations in relation
to it directly to the ASA Council, which was the
final decision-maker in the process;
(ii) The Authority’s decision is a violation of the
applicants’ rights under Article 9 and/or Article 10
of the European Convention, contrary to section 6
ofthe Human Rights Act 1998, in that it represents
an interference with those rights which is not for a
legitimate aim and/or which is not proportionate;
and
(iii) The Authority breached the applicants’
legitimate expectation, engendered by clause 1.4(i)
of the Committee of Advertising Practice Code, that
it would not adjudicate in a case such as this.”
6.Two further grounds of challenge were rejected at the leave stage including a
challenge that the ASA misdirected itself and took into account an incorrect
view of the applicant’s position on homosexuality. Rejecting this ground
Weatherup J at para.8 of his leave judgment, said:
“[8] The fourth ground concerns the misdirection,
in that it is said that the ASA adopted an incorrect
view of the applicants’ position on homosexuality.
The applicants seek to condemn the activity and
not the individual. However the applicants contend
that the ASA proceeded on the basis that the
advertisement sought to attack the individuals.
There was debate during the leave hearings as to
whether or not the advert was directing its attack
on individuals or whether it was directing its attack
on the activity. It is not the intended meaning as
such that is the issue but rather whether the text
would be likely to occasion serious or widespread
offence. I consider that the ASA properly directed
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
7 cases
-
Core Issues Trust v Transport for London
...correct approach for the court to adopt under the ECHR was that of the High Court in Northern Ireland in the case of Re Sandown Free Presbyterian Church [2011] NIQB 26, where a church was prohibited from publishing a one page advert in a national newspaper condemning homosexuality. As well ......
-
Higgs v Farmor’s School
...781; [2014] 3 WLR 933; [2014] 3 All ER 709, CAKirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church’s Application for Judicial Review, In re [2011] NIQB 26; [2011] NI 242Klein v Slovakia (Application No 72208/01) (2006) 50 EHRR 15, ECtHRKruslin v France (Application No 11801/85) (1990) 12 EHRR 5......
-
Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds: 1805942/2022
...of considering the context when looking at interferences with Convention rights was emphasised in the case of Re Sandown Free Presbyterian Church [2011] NIQB 26. This case was cited by Mr Phillips in his written submissions. The context of this case was that ahead of a Pride event in a chur......
-
R (on the application of Ngole) v University of Sheffield Health and Care Professions Council (Intervener)
...postings (and it could), by contrast the 'religious speech' considered by the High Court in Re Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church's Application for Judicial Review [2011] NIQB 26 was not. There, a church had placed an advertisement in a local publication during the annual Belf......
Get Started for Free