‘Tech companies such as Facebook and Google could be regulated in the same way as the mobile phone and broadband industry, the head of media regulator Ofcom was expected to say on Tuesday.’
The Guardian, 17th September 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The trial of an alleged mastermind of the Hatton Garden heist has been delayed until next year following a new blockbuster film release about the robbery.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd September 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘It’s the film that’s had cinema-goers reaching for a tissue. The deeply moving tale of a critically ill child whose parents refused to allow him to have a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs.’
Daily Telegraph
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A pilot Practice Direction 36J comes into force on 1 October 2018 to allow certain lawyers to attend family proceedings in the Family Court and Family Division of the High Court with a view to reporting on proceedings. These persons are colloquially described as ‘legal bloggers’. The pilot will run for nine months and concludes on 30 June 2019.’
Family Law, 27th August 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘After months of liaison with the Family Procedure Rules Committee our proposal to permit legal bloggers into family court hearings is going to be piloted. The pilot will launch on 1 October and run for 9 months until 30 June 2018, so it’s no change until then. The pilot will allow practising lawyers, academic lawyers and those under the umbrella of an an educational charity (like us). We’re keeners, so we’ve already submitted our details to the President of the Family Division so that we are on the ‘approved list’ of educational charities who can send lawyers to court (four weeks notice is required but this only needs to be done once).’
Transparency Project, 22nd August 2018
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘A senior ITN executive has said it is inevitable that British court proceedings will be televised and has called for the government to allow greater use of cameras in court.’
The Guardian, 21st August 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The BBC has called on the UK government to open a review of current laws governing the reporting of criminal investigations after deciding not to pursue an appeal against a recent privacy ruling in a case between it and the entertainer Sir Cliff Richard.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The BBC today admitted that the way it reported the police raid on the home of Sir Cliff Richard will make it hard to persuade the Court of Appeal that the High Court was wrong to award the singer heavy damages last month for breach of privacy. Announcing that it will not seek leave to appeal the judgment in Sir Cliff Richard OBE v British Broadcasting Corporation the BBC called on the government to clarify the balance between the rights to privacy and free expression.’
Law Society's Gazette, 15th August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The BBC will not challenge a ruling over its coverage of a police raid at Sir Cliff Richard’s home in 2014 at the Court of Appeal.’
BBC News, 15th August 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Kellogg’s said it was disappointed by a ruling that banned its TV advert to appear between children’s programmes, despite it being for a “healthier” product. Ads for food giants KFC and Kellogg’s have been banned for promoting junk food to children, one outside a school and the other during a television cartoon programme.’
Daily Telegraph, 8th August 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The BBC’s Panorama broke broadcasting rules by mistakenly revealing the first name of a teenager who was meant to be anonymous, TV watchdog Ofcom has said.’
BBC News, 6th August 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1780 is a dispute between the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, and the eye-wateringly rich former son-in-law of Berne Ecclestone about coverage of the latter by the former. Simply googling the claimant’s name and seeing the Mail Online headines gives some idea of why he might find that coverage less than flattering. It is, in short, a dispute where most people would like both sides to lose.Happily, thanks to the Court of the Appeal, they have. Both sides now have to fund a reference to the CJEU about the compatibility of section 32(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (still alive and kicking for these purposes) with Directive 95/46/EC, and the considerable delay built into that process. The reference was made because the Court split two to one (Sir Terence Etherton MR and Macfarlane LJ against Sharp LJ) on whether the stay mechanism imposed by section 32(4) was consistent with Article 9 of the Directive (freedom of expression rights) and Article 22 (effective remedy rights). At first instance, Popplewell J had found the provision to be a permissible implementation of the Directive.’
Panopticon, 6th August 2018
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Statements which, considered in isolation, do not cause or are not likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation cannot be aggregated for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim in England and Wales, a High Court judge has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Statements which, considered in isolation, do not cause or are not likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation cannot be aggregated for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim in England and Wales, a High Court judge has ruled.
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘There is an old joke, in which a man is driving through the countryside, lost. He stops his car in a small village to ask a local for directions. The local responds by saying: ‘you want to get where? Oh, to get there, I wouldn’t start from here.’’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The BBC has agreed to pay Sir Cliff Richard £850,000 within 14 days to cover his legal costs, following his privacy case against the corporation.’
BBC News, 26th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Sir Cliff’s case against the BBC (Sir Cliff Richard OBE v (1) The British Broadcasting Corporation (2) Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ) following the raid on his home in August 2014 was billed as of “enormous importance” in relation to whether the media are able to identify a suspect pre-charge, as well as having “massive implications” for the reporting of early phases of police investigations. The first trial of its kind in this country, this article considers the ramifications of this High Court decision on the press reporting of those subject to police investigation.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘When he emerged from court on Wednesday after a judge ruled in his favour in one of the most carefully watched media law cases of the year, Sir Cliff Richard declared himself delighted at what he saw as a vital victory over the BBC. But while there is no doubt that the decision is a blow to the corporation, the case sets a wider precedent, too – and one that experts say could have a substantial impact on the future media coverage of criminal cases.’
The Guardian, 18th July 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The delicate balance between a person’s right to privacy and someone else’s right to freedom of expression were set at odds when they were enshrined in the Human Rights Act, brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Government in 1998.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025