R v Secretarty of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind, 1991 , [1991] UKHL 4
Citation:R v Secretarty of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind, 1991 , [1991] UKHL 4
Rule of thumb:Do people with extremist or minority views, particularly political parties, have a right to be published in state media? No, the state media only has to report mainstream news and mainstream political ideologies.
Background facts:
The basic facts of this case were that there were some political groups with extremist views which the BBC did not afford the opportunity to put their views across on their platform under the Broadcasting Act. Brind was a journalist interested in this area and sought to argue that to have absolute no platform under the broadcasting act provision was an extreme measures – when some organisations were completely deplatformed altogether was a disproportionate measure, albeit it was accepted that they did not deserve equal exposure.
Judgment:
The Court at this stage also held that the European Convention of Human Rights was not a part of the domestic law to be interpreted by the Courts – at this stage legislation could only be reviewed on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness and a violation of British fundamental rights, or via the traditional methods of administrative as outlined in various cases, which were not argued. The Court held as an academic point that these measures were necessary to prevent the spread of extremist views and intimidation, and were not disproportionate – they did this on the basis that they did not believe that the UK Executive and Parliament would intend to legislate in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘A less emotive but, subject to one qualification, reliable test is to ask, ‘Could a decision-maker acting reasonably have reached this decision?’ The qualification is that the supervising court must bear in mind that it is not sitting on appeal, but satisfying itself as to whether the decision-maker has acted within the bounds of his discretion. For that reason it is ‘fallacious for those seeking to quash administrative acts and decisions to call in aid decisions of a Court of Appeal reversing a judge’s finding, it may be on a question of what is reasonable. To say what is reasonable was the judge’s task in the first place and the duty of the Court of Appeal, after giving due weight to the judge’s opinion, is to say whether they agree with him. In judicial review, on the other hand, the task of the High Court is as described above, and the task of the Court of Appeal and, when necessary, this House is to decide whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction’, Lord Lowry
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.