Daily Grind v Press Regulation Commission - Essay Example

? MOOT PROBLEM MOOT PROBLEM: “Daily Grind (Respondent) v Press Regulation Commission (Appellant)” My lord, it is basically a case and a matter of logic to support the daily Grind in the statement made above. Especially on the issue of in-cooperating the relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence into our domestic law. Firstly, let’s consider the facts behind this case; the press regulation commission is appealing to the judgment made by the high court judge; Templeton-Smythe J. judge Templeton-Smythe had ruled in favour of my client; the Daily Grind, after my client went to court to challenge the fine that the Press Regulation Commission had imposed owing to the paper’s publication. The judge argued on the art 10 of the HRA and overlooked the domestic law; the press regulation act 2012, while deciding the above case. The Daily Grind had been fined after the press regulation commission accused the paper for violating section 2 of the press regulation act 2012 which states “publication by the press of article relating to the private lives of individuals is hereby prohibited”. This was after my client had published an article citing the prime minister as a “sexual maniac” who is not legible to lead this country and should even quit politics for good. Though the press regulation act of 2012 bars the publication of articles relating to people’s private lives, section 2b gives some provisions where the above restrictions does not hold. This if: “it is strictly necessary to publish the material relating to the individual’s live in order for criticism of their performance in public office to be made good.” Judge Templeton-Smythe J was right to give more weight to the HRA, than to our domestic legislation in this issue. For instance, if we allowed local authorities to impose regulations that to some extend limit the international laws on human rights we would just be declaring our country a non-partisan in international treaties at large. In the above stated publication, the Daily Grind was merely expressing its freedom of expression as stated in the article 10 of the convention rights which states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and receive and impact information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 1 Application of the relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence in the domestic law Though there seems some contradiction of the domestic law and the Human Rights art 10, there has been cases in the past where the two has been harmonized to apply the art 10 in the domestic law. For example, in Manchester city v. Pinnock the Supreme Court came up with a formula to deal with relevant Strasbourg jurisprudences as Karinne and Fiona writes: Where, however, there is a clear and constant line of decisions whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook a point of principle, we consider that it would be wrong for this court not to take that line (p.26)2. Judge Templeton-Smythe in delivering his verdict argued that the Daily Grind has a right to express its opinion as the provisions of the art 10 of the human rights act. Although in another perspective the Daily Grind the may appear to have invoked the premier’s privacy, there was much logic in the publication. For instance, the publications were based on substantial truth as some of the prime minister’s Lovers at the university are cited to have regular contacts with him up-to-date. The Daily Grind in this case is also entitled to a qualified privilege as per the British law. In a much similar case, in1999, Britain’s highest court defended a news paper against a former prime minister of Ireland as Perry Keller states: The courts have extended this principle to develop a new form of qualified privilege. In a case involving allegations published in a British news paper about Mr. Reynolds, a former Prime minister of Ireland, Britain’s highest court decided in 1999 that qualified privilege also extends to media reports of important matters of public interest provided good journalistic practices were used in investigating and reporting the information. 3 In this case careful considerations were made that involved the formation of a committee to investigate the underlying facts before awarding defense based on qualified privilege. This committee ascertained qualified privilege based on the following facts 1. The news paper was found to have had a legal and moral responsibility in publishing the contents in question. 2. The public in general was considerably interested in receiving the information in question 3. And finally, “the nature, status and source of the material and the circumstances of its publication must have been as to justify the protection of such privilege in the absence of malice”4 The same argument can be applicable in this case. After a closer investigation into the Daily Grid’s statements one comes to the realization that the paper had a public responsibility to inform the public on the hidden doubtable mannerisms of the prime minister. Secondly, the public was definitely interested in the materials in question as the country’s top leader would definitely be a role model to many young people5. Finally, the source of this information was credible as the paper had very detail statistics of the number of lovers whom the Premier cheated on while in University. By accusing the Daily Grind of violating the press regulations act of 2012 would just be an attempt to deprive my client of the rights he is entitled to by the art 106. For example in Michael Marlow V. United Kingdom [2000]7, the applicant had published a book about the cultivation and production of Cannabis Sativa. Though this was contrary to Drugs Act of 1971, the defense argued that the book was never made to incite the public over the outlawed drug, but it merely contained the general information which could be available for the public anywhere else. Though if convicted of the crime would have earned the applicant several years in jail, his argument over the violation of art. 10, which mandated him to express his opinions made the jury contemplate over the judgment and finally the judge sentenced him to only one year in prison. Although the case in hand is not about drugs, I would challenge the right honourable Justice to consider my client’s rights as provided by the art 10 I mentioned before. My plea to apply the rights of our citizens as per the art 10, is not only honouring our constitution, but also the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR). As the Human rights watch writes: Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right essential to individual self-fulfillment as well as the effective functioning of a democratic society. It is specifically guaranteed by article 19 of the international covenant on civil and rights (ICCPR), and in similar language by article 10 of the European convention for the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedom (ECHR)8. Therefore, I beg to challenge this to honour international legislations, especially the HRA art 10, and be an example to the rest of the world since UK is a key player at the global scene. Now that our country in influential on international matters we must remember that the whole world is watching us and any decision violating international laws will not be taken with ease around the globe. My Lord, allow me to bring to the knowledge of this court some adverse effects of, not applying the art 10 in this case, to the journalism world. Any punishment over this issue can make informers of the press hesitate in providing crucial information that would have been of great importance to the public. As it was argued in the case of Goodwin v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 1239. The sitting judge in this case claimed: Protection of journalistic source is one of the basic conditions for the press freedom. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest10. The art 10 should be applied here in order to encourage the press and their allies to be vigilant in informing the public of any gross misconduct of anybody holding a public office. In conclusion, my Lord consider the application of the HRA art 10 into our domestic law before making any judgement; 1. The seriousness of the allegation: it is quite evident that the Press Regulation Commission is merely misusing the newly enacted Press Regulation Act of 2012 without substantial evidence to deprive my client of his legitimate rights that he qualifies for as per the HRA. 2. The nature of the information in question11: letting the prime minister scot-free would just be leading other national figures in the world to take advantage of their domestic laws to deprive their citizens their rights as per the art 10. 3. Verification of the information12: the Daily Grind did not merely print about the prime minister’s love affairs but actually researched on the matter to give very detailed information. Therefore, I would strongly call upon this court to disregard this appeal as I have proven beyond reasonable doubt why the HRA should be prioritized over our local legislation on this matter. I have also provided the facts behind the publication in question and more over the morals of any civil servant cannot be scrutinized if the prime minister was left scot-free. Further more, I have explained why the HRA act should be applied in our domestic law as Britain is a global leader and bridge of the international law will not be taken lightly by other countries. Bibliography Paul A. & Bryan G. Human Rights and the Courts: Bringing Justice Home (waterside press: London 1999). Perry Keller. Media Law in Britain. n.d. < http://www.britishcouncil.org/china-society-publications-media.pdf>. Accessed 22 February 2012. Karinne C. & Fiona R. thematic analysis: Human rights. N.d. http://www.cslr.org.uk/index?option=com_journal&task=article&mode=pdf&format=raw&id=134. Accessed 7 March 2012 Vivienne Harpwood. Principles of Tort Law. (Routledge: London 2000). Michael Marlow V. United Kingdom [2000]. ECHR 42015/98(HL). Ursula Smartt. Media law for journalist. (Sage publishers: New York 2006). Daniel Doherty. Defamation and Qualified Privilege. (2005). http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Defamation%20and%20Qualified%20Privilege.htm. Accessed 22 February 2012. Helen Fenwick, Gavin Philipson, Roger M. Judicial Reasoning Under The UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007). Human Rights Watch. Albania the cost of speech: violation of media freedom in Albania. (human rights watch: Zurich).p. 24. Goodwin v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 123 . George M., Imogen C., Clare F., Pauline L., Zoe O., & Rachel C. Foundations for the LPC 2007-2008. (Oxford University Press: Oxford 2007).P.458. The University of Winchester. Qualified Privilege- An Important Defence Against Libel Actions. [2009]. http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=228. Accessed 22 February 2012. Liberty .Your rights: the liberty guide to human rights. [2012] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/qualified-privilege.html. Accessed 22 February 2012. Read More