Sunday Times v United Kingdom
An injunction restraining a newspaper from publishing an article about the thalidomide litigation breached article 10, because it was not necessary in a democratic society.
Facts
The Sunday Times planned to publish an article about the development and marketing of the drug thalidomide, which had caused serious birth defects, while negotiations about the settlement of claims against the manufacturer, Distillers, were continuing. The House of Lords granted an injunction restraining publication, on the ground that it would be a contempt of court, because it would prejudge the issue of negligence in the pending litigation.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 10. The court said that the interference was prescribed by law, which requires that the law is adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct, and that it pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society, because the families of the victims and the public had a vital interest in knowing the facts, and the article was written in moderate terms. The decision led to the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights 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.
