The doctrine of parliamentary privilege covering statements made in parliament did not deny potential libel litigants their right of access to court under Article 6.
The imposition of a fine on a lawyer who criticized in the press a decision of the Constitutional Court was a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
To require a defendant to be able to justify not a diminished version of a damaging assault on a claimant's reputation but the essence of that assault was not a breach of Article 10
Where a defamatory statement was contained in articles concerning important aspects of human health punitive proceedings for libel were a disproportionate interference with press freedom
The implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 had not affected the repetition rule or the conduct rule in libel proceedings in which justification had been pleaded. Neither of these requirements constituted a disproportionate restriction on press freedom.
Statements of a personal nature made in parliament did not attract parliamentary immunity; to raise such an immunity in this context interfered with an individual's right of access to court
Invective which does not pass the bounds of acceptable criticism is part of political life and the suppression of publication of such material is a disproportionate interference with Article 10
The continuation of a limited injunction after the applicant has obtained a successful judgment concerning his rights to freedom of expression in Strasbourg did not amount to a further breach of Article 10.
Allegations of racism constitute statements of opinion not fact and therefore the authors of such allegations should not be required to justify them in defamation proceedings
Competition law prohibition against newspapers making disparaging statements about competitor was a justifiable interference with their freedom of expression
Defamation laws which prevent journalists from disseminating statements made by another person do not interfere with the freedom of the press if the repetition is truly defamatory
The criminalisation of incitement to cultivate drugs resulting in the prosecution of an author of a book about cannabis did not amount to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression.
The lack of legal aid for the conduct of a justification defence in libel proceedings did not breach the defendant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
The rule in Hulton v Jones imposed too great a burden on the publisher to exclude the possibility of mistaken associations being made by their readership and thus breached Article 10.
Lack of legal aid to defend libel proceedings that led to a long and complex trial breached defendants' right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) and constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to free speech under Article 10
The defendant's application to strike out a libel action was dismissed, as the interference with the claimants' rights under Article 6 of the Convention would be more serious if the application was granted than the interference with the defendant's rights under the same Article if the application was refused.
Article 10 does not require a "public figure" defence to defamation actions; Strasbourg looks to the conduct of the publishers rather than the status of the party defamed
Journalists may not claim the protection of Article 10 if their reporting is not aimed at providing accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism
Anticipating the wide impact the Human Rights Act would have in all areas of law, One Crown Office Row started this guide and regular cases analysis in 1998. It is happy to share this resource as a public service.
