R (ProLife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corp
Broadcasters were entitled to refuse to show graphic images of abortion in a party election broadcast, applying statutory standards of taste and decency.
Facts
The ProLife Alliance, a political party opposed to abortion, put up enough candidates in Wales at the 2001 general election to qualify for a party election broadcast. Its proposed broadcast included prolonged and graphic images of aborted foetuses. The BBC and other broadcasters refused to show it, on the ground that it would breach their obligations not to broadcast material that offended against good taste and decency or was likely to be offensive to public feeling. The party argued that the refusal breached its right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the broadcasters had acted lawfully. Parliament had imposed the taste and decency requirements on broadcasters, and the party did not challenge those requirements as such. The question was whether the broadcasters had applied them properly, and the courts should respect their judgment unless it was clearly wrong. Lord Hoffmann discussed the extent to which the courts should defer to the decisions of other branches of government, preferring to speak of the allocation of decision making responsibilities under the separation of powers rather than deference. Lord Scott dissented, saying that the refusal was a clear case of censorship of political speech.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
