Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

G. HODGSON, D. WOOLF PRODUCTIONS LTD and NATIONAL UNION of JOURNALISTS CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CO. LTD v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11553/85;11658/85 • ECHR ID: 001-45428

Document date: July 15, 1988

  • Inbound citations: 18
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

G. HODGSON, D. WOOLF PRODUCTIONS LTD and NATIONAL UNION of JOURNALISTS CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CO. LTD v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11553/85;11658/85 • ECHR ID: 001-45428

Document date: July 15, 1988

Cited paragraphs only



Application No. 11553/85

G. Hodgson, D. Woolf Productions Ltd. and

National Union of Journalists

Application No. 11658/85

Channel Four Television Co.  Ltd.

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 15 July 1988)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                           Page

INTRODUCTION .....................................        2 - 3

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................        4 - 5

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ........................        6 - 7

INTRODUCTION

1.      This Report relates to Application No. 11553/85, introduced

under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr.  G. Hodgson, D. Woolf Productions Ltd.

and the National Union of Journalists against the United Kingdom and

Application No. 11658/85, introduced by Channel Four Television Co.

Ltd. against the United Kingdom.  The applications were were

registered on 23 May and 25 July 1985 respectively.

2.      The applicants were represented before the Commission by Mr.

G. Robertson, counsel, Ms.  H. Kitchin, solicitor, National Council for

Civil Liberties (NCCL), Ms.  E. Forgan and Mr.  D. Christopher of

Channel Four Television.

3.      The United Kingdom Government were represented by Messrs.  M.

Wood and J. Grainger, Agents, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

4.      On 9 March 1987 the European Commission of Human Rights

declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 13 of the

Convention concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy under

United Kingdom law in respect of their complaint that an order made

under Section 4 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 interfered with

their rights under Article 10 of the Convention to impart

information.*

5.      The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred

        to it:

        (a)     it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

        undertake together with the representatives of the parties

        an examination of the petition and, if need be, an

        investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

        States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

        after an exchange of views with the Commission;

        (b)     it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties

        concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of

        the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as

        defined in this Convention."

6.      The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 15 July 1988 it adopted this Report

which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to

a brief statement of the facts and the solution reached.

____________

*   This decision is public and can be obtained from the Commission on

request.

7.      The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted:

                MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

                    S. TRECHSEL

                    F. ERMACORA

                    E. BUSUTTIL

                    G. JÖRUNDSSON

                    A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                    A. WEITZEL

                    J. C. SOYER

                    H. G. SCHERMERS

                    H. DANELIUS

                    G. BATLINER

                    H. VANDENBERGHE

               Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

               Sir  Basil HALL

               MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                    C. L. ROZAKIS

               Mrs.  J. LIDDY

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

8.      In 1984 D. Woolf Productions Ltd. entered into a contract with

Channel Four Television to produce a programme entitled "Court Report"

to cover the criminal trial of R. v.  Ponting, an official secrets case

which had attracted wide public interest and was due to commence on 28

January 1985 at the Central Criminal Court, London.  The programme

"Court Report" was to be screened for 25 minutes on every evening of

the trial.  Mr.  G. M. T. Hodgson was engaged to edit the daily court

transcript with the assistance of other members of the National Union

of Journalists and to present the programme.

9.      It was envisaged that each edition of "Court Report" would

consist of studio readings from a transcript of the proceedings which

had been checked for fairness and accuracy and actors were engaged to

avoid any dramatic re-enactment of the proceedings in the courtroom or

any attempt to reproduce the atmosphere of the trial.

10.      At the opening of the case, the trial judge made an Order

under Section 4 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act that a report of any

part of the proceedings in the form proposed by Channel Four be

postponed until after the jury had given its verdict in the case.  The

Order was not opposed by counsel for the prosecution or by counsel for

the defence and the trial judge declined to hear counsel on behalf of

Channel Four Television and D. Woolf Productions Ltd. on the basis

that they had no standing to make an application that the court should

reconsider its ruling.  The judge considered that there was a danger

that the trial of Mr.  Ponting would be prejudiced by contemporaneous

and edited reports of the day's court proceedings in the form

proposed.  He considered that members of the jury should decide the

case on the evidence as it was heard from the witness box and not from

actors on a television programme.

11.      Before the Commission the applicants submitted that the

restraint imposed upon them by the judge's Order constituted an

interference with their right to impart information under Article 10

para. 1 of the Convention.  This complaint was declared inadmissible

by the Commission in a decision of 9 March 1987.

12.      They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention

that they had no effective remedy under United Kingdom law in respect

of their complaint of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.  They

pointed out that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides no right to

oppose or appeal an Order made in the Crown Court under Section 4 (2)

and since the applicants were not parties to the trial, they had no

standing to make representations to the trial judge.  Nor was it open

to them under United Kingdom law to apply to the High Court for

judicial review of such an Order.

13.      On 2 December 1985 the Commission decided to join both

applications, in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure,

and to bring the applications to the notice of the respondent

Government and invite them to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the complaints.  The observations of the

Government were received on 8 April 1986 and the applicants'

observations in reply were received on 3 July 1986.

14.      On 3 December 1986 the Commission decided to hold a hearing

on the admissibility and merits of the applications.  This hearing was

held in Strasbourg on 9 March 1987, the applicants being represented

by Mr.  G. Robertson, counsel, Ms.  H. Kitchin, solicitor, NCCL and Ms.

E. Forgan and Mr.  D. Christopher of Channel Four Television.  The

Government were represented by Mr.  J. Grainger, Agent, Mr.  N. Bratza,

counsel, and Mr.  P. Rodney, Adviser, Lord Chancellor's Department.

15.      Following the hearing the Commission declared admissible on

the same date the applicants' complaint under Article 13 of the

Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

16.     Following the decision on the admissibility of the applicants'

complaint under Article 13 of the Convention the Commission placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement, in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the

Convention, and invited the parties to submit any proposals they

wished to make.

17.    In accordance with the usual practice the parties forwarded

their views on the question of a friendly setlement to the Commission.

Subsequently a meeting took place in London on 18 March 1988 between

the representatives of the parties and the Secretary of the Commission

accompanied by a member of the Secretariat.  At the meeting, an

exchange of views took place between the parties as to the basis of a

possible friendly settlement of the case.

18.     On 7 July 1988 the Government's Agent, Mr.  M. C. Wood,

addressed the following letter to the Commission:

        "I have the honour to refer to the recent discussions

        concerning a friendly setlement of the above applications.

        The Government now propose a friendly settlement on the

        following basis:

        1.      The Government have tabled an amendment to the Criminal

        Justice Bill which, inter alia, provides that any person

        aggrieved may, with leave, appeal to the Court of Appeal

        against an order under section 4 or 11 of the Contempt of

        Court Act 1981 made in relation to a trial on indictment.  A

        copy of the Clause, which was introduced on 16 June 1988, is

        enclosed, together with a copy of the Solicitor General's

        statement in the House of Commons introducing the amendment.

        It is now intended that ... the time limit for the appeal

        should be fourteen days, with the usual possibility of

        applying for leave to appeal out of time.

        2.      The Government will pay a proportion (75%) of the

        legal costs which have been actually incurred, necessarily

        incurred and are reasonable as to quantum."

19.     On 8 July 1988 Mr.  D. Christopher of Channel Four

Television sent the following letter to the Commission:

        "I refer to the letter that Mr.  M. C. Wood of the Foreign and

        Commonwealth Office wrote to you yesterday and am pleased to

        confirm that Channel 4 is happy to accept the proposal

        therein contained by way of friendly settlement."

20.     On 11 July 1988 Mr.  P. Hunt, Legal Officer, National Council

for Civil Liberties, sent a telex to the Commission stating inter

alia:

        "I have received a copy letter dated 7 July 1988 from Michael

        Wood to Mr.  Krüger in Application No. 11553/85 (Hodgson,

        Woolf and the NUJ).  I am instructed that the applicants

        agree to settle this matter on the terms found in Mr.  Wood's

        letter of 7 July to Mr.  Krüger. ..."

21.     At its session on 15 July 1988 the Commission found from the

above letters that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of a

settlement.  The Commission further found that, having regard to

Article 28 (b) of the Convention and the proposed amendment to the

Criminal Justice Bill providing inter alia for an appeal to the Court

of Appeal against an Order made under Section 4 of the Contempt of

Court Act 1981, a friendly settlement of the application had been

secured on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the

Convention.

        For these reasons the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission

       (H. C. KRÜGER)                          (C. A. NØRGAARD)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255