Application No. 11553/85
G. Hodgson, D. Woolf Productions Ltd. and
National Union of Journalists
Application No. 11658/85
Channel Four Television Co. Ltd.
against
the UNITED KINGDOM
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 15 July 1988)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2 - 3
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................... 4 - 5
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ........................ 6 - 7
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to Application No. 11553/85, introduced
under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. G. Hodgson, D. Woolf Productions Ltd.
and the National Union of Journalists against the United Kingdom and
Application No. 11658/85, introduced by Channel Four Television Co.
Ltd. against the United Kingdom. The applications were were
registered on 23 May and 25 July 1985 respectively.
2. The applicants were represented before the Commission by Mr.
G. Robertson, counsel, Ms. H. Kitchin, solicitor, National Council for
Civil Liberties (NCCL), Ms. E. Forgan and Mr. D. Christopher of
Channel Four Television.
3. The United Kingdom Government were represented by Messrs. M.
Wood and J. Grainger, Agents, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
4. On 9 March 1987 the European Commission of Human Rights
declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 13 of the
Convention concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy under
United Kingdom law in respect of their complaint that an order made
under Section 4 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 interfered with
their rights under Article 10 of the Convention to impart
information.*
5. The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred
to it:
(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,
undertake together with the representatives of the parties
an examination of the petition and, if need be, an
investigation, for the effective conduct of which the
States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,
after an exchange of views with the Commission;
(b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties
concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of
the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as
defined in this Convention."
6. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly
settlement of the case and on 15 July 1988 it adopted this Report
which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to
a brief statement of the facts and the solution reached.
____________
* This decision is public and can be obtained from the Commission on
request.
7. The following members of the Commission were present when the
Report was adopted:
MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C. L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
8. In 1984 D. Woolf Productions Ltd. entered into a contract with
Channel Four Television to produce a programme entitled "Court Report"
to cover the criminal trial of R. v. Ponting, an official secrets case
which had attracted wide public interest and was due to commence on 28
January 1985 at the Central Criminal Court, London. The programme
"Court Report" was to be screened for 25 minutes on every evening of
the trial. Mr. G. M. T. Hodgson was engaged to edit the daily court
transcript with the assistance of other members of the National Union
of Journalists and to present the programme.
9. It was envisaged that each edition of "Court Report" would
consist of studio readings from a transcript of the proceedings which
had been checked for fairness and accuracy and actors were engaged to
avoid any dramatic re-enactment of the proceedings in the courtroom or
any attempt to reproduce the atmosphere of the trial.
10. At the opening of the case, the trial judge made an Order
under Section 4 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act that a report of any
part of the proceedings in the form proposed by Channel Four be
postponed until after the jury had given its verdict in the case. The
Order was not opposed by counsel for the prosecution or by counsel for
the defence and the trial judge declined to hear counsel on behalf of
Channel Four Television and D. Woolf Productions Ltd. on the basis
that they had no standing to make an application that the court should
reconsider its ruling. The judge considered that there was a danger
that the trial of Mr. Ponting would be prejudiced by contemporaneous
and edited reports of the day's court proceedings in the form
proposed. He considered that members of the jury should decide the
case on the evidence as it was heard from the witness box and not from
actors on a television programme.
11. Before the Commission the applicants submitted that the
restraint imposed upon them by the judge's Order constituted an
interference with their right to impart information under Article 10
para. 1 of the Convention. This complaint was declared inadmissible
by the Commission in a decision of 9 March 1987.
12. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention
that they had no effective remedy under United Kingdom law in respect
of their complaint of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. They
pointed out that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides no right to
oppose or appeal an Order made in the Crown Court under Section 4 (2)
and since the applicants were not parties to the trial, they had no
standing to make representations to the trial judge. Nor was it open
to them under United Kingdom law to apply to the High Court for
judicial review of such an Order.
13. On 2 December 1985 the Commission decided to join both
applications, in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure,
and to bring the applications to the notice of the respondent
Government and invite them to submit written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the complaints. The observations of the
Government were received on 8 April 1986 and the applicants'
observations in reply were received on 3 July 1986.
14. On 3 December 1986 the Commission decided to hold a hearing
on the admissibility and merits of the applications. This hearing was
held in Strasbourg on 9 March 1987, the applicants being represented
by Mr. G. Robertson, counsel, Ms. H. Kitchin, solicitor, NCCL and Ms.
E. Forgan and Mr. D. Christopher of Channel Four Television. The
Government were represented by Mr. J. Grainger, Agent, Mr. N. Bratza,
counsel, and Mr. P. Rodney, Adviser, Lord Chancellor's Department.
15. Following the hearing the Commission declared admissible on
the same date the applicants' complaint under Article 13 of the
Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
16. Following the decision on the admissibility of the applicants'
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention the Commission placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement, in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the
Convention, and invited the parties to submit any proposals they
wished to make.
17. In accordance with the usual practice the parties forwarded
their views on the question of a friendly setlement to the Commission.
Subsequently a meeting took place in London on 18 March 1988 between
the representatives of the parties and the Secretary of the Commission
accompanied by a member of the Secretariat. At the meeting, an
exchange of views took place between the parties as to the basis of a
possible friendly settlement of the case.
18. On 7 July 1988 the Government's Agent, Mr. M. C. Wood,
addressed the following letter to the Commission:
"I have the honour to refer to the recent discussions
concerning a friendly setlement of the above applications.
The Government now propose a friendly settlement on the
following basis:
1. The Government have tabled an amendment to the Criminal
Justice Bill which, inter alia, provides that any person
aggrieved may, with leave, appeal to the Court of Appeal
against an order under section 4 or 11 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981 made in relation to a trial on indictment. A
copy of the Clause, which was introduced on 16 June 1988, is
enclosed, together with a copy of the Solicitor General's
statement in the House of Commons introducing the amendment.
It is now intended that ... the time limit for the appeal
should be fourteen days, with the usual possibility of
applying for leave to appeal out of time.
2. The Government will pay a proportion (75%) of the
legal costs which have been actually incurred, necessarily
incurred and are reasonable as to quantum."
19. On 8 July 1988 Mr. D. Christopher of Channel Four
Television sent the following letter to the Commission:
"I refer to the letter that Mr. M. C. Wood of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office wrote to you yesterday and am pleased to
confirm that Channel 4 is happy to accept the proposal
therein contained by way of friendly settlement."
20. On 11 July 1988 Mr. P. Hunt, Legal Officer, National Council
for Civil Liberties, sent a telex to the Commission stating inter
alia:
"I have received a copy letter dated 7 July 1988 from Michael
Wood to Mr. Krüger in Application No. 11553/85 (Hodgson,
Woolf and the NUJ). I am instructed that the applicants
agree to settle this matter on the terms found in Mr. Wood's
letter of 7 July to Mr. Krüger. ..."
21. At its session on 15 July 1988 the Commission found from the
above letters that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of a
settlement. The Commission further found that, having regard to
Article 28 (b) of the Convention and the proposed amendment to the
Criminal Justice Bill providing inter alia for an appeal to the Court
of Appeal against an Order made under Section 4 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981, a friendly settlement of the application had been
secured on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention.
For these reasons the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)