BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION v UNITED KINGDOM - 25798/94 [1996] ECHR 82 (18 January 1996)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25798/94 by the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 January 1996, the following members being present: Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President Mrs. J. LIDDY MM. E. BUSUTTIL A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK A. WEITZEL M.P. PELLONPÄÄ B. MARXER B. CONFORTI N. BRATZA I. BÉKÉS E. KONSTANTINOV G. RESS A. PERENIC C. BÎRSAN K. HERNDL Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the application introduced on 1 November 1994 by the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION against the United Kingdom and registered on 29 November 1994 under file No. 25798/94; Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; Having deliberated; Decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant in the present case is the British Broadcasting Corporation ("the BBC"), which was established by Royal Charter in 1927. It is represented before the Commission by Ms. G.E. Phillips, of its litigation department, and Mr. D. Pannick, QC, of counsel. The facts of the case, as submitted by the BBC's representatives, may be summarised as follows. On 20 April 1994 a witness summons was issued to the BBC in the context of criminal proceedings against two policemen for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in connection with investigations into the death of PC Keith Blakelock during a major riot at Broadwater Farm, Tottenham, London, on Sunday 6 October 1985. The witness summons required the BBC to attend court and to produce "all material in your possession or control (whether transmitted or untransmitted) of or related to the disturbances at Broadwater Farm Estate, Tottenham, North London taken on the 6th or 7th October 1985." The summons was later amended to relate only to 7 October, and was limited to film taken during daylight hours. The BBC challenged the witness summons under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, which permits application for a declaration that a summons is of no effect where the applicant (the potential witness) can satisfy the court "that he cannot give any material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence". As the trial judge was not available, the BBC's application was heard by the Recorder of London, on 3 June 1994. After hearing the representatives of the BBC and the defendants and the prosecution to the criminal case, the Recorder adjourned the case to 8 June 1994 for the defence to have the opportunity to identify anything in the film material which they wished to have produced in court, and for the BBC then to have the opportunity to say in court why they did not wish to produce it. On 8 June 1994, counsel for the BBC explained that the BBC had looked through the film and had found nothing which approximated to WS (who had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock) in the untransmitted material. The prosecution objected that they had not had the opportunity to consult the films. At the end of the proceedings on 8 June 1994, the Recorder made the following ruling: "The application was to set aside the summons on the ground that it was not sufficiently specific. I think there can be no doubt in anyone's mind now as to what it is that the defence are seeking to have disclosed. It has been identified ... by the BBC and can easily be viewed. I put the matter back without making a specific order on the last occasion. I put it back so there could be co-operation. I do not find that there has been co-operation in the terms which were discussed. ..." The order applied for by the BBC was therefore not made, and the BBC was ordered to disclose the film material to the defence within 24 hours. The BBC requested and was refused costs from central funds. COMPLAINTS The BBC alleges that the requirement to disclose material which had been filmed on 7 October 1985 at the Broadwater Farm riots violated Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the BBC contends that the application to set aside the witness order determined its civil obligations to provide access to the film material, and that in the context of this determination, the principle of "equality of arms" was not met. In particular, it complains that it was not permitted to know why the untransmitted material was said to be potentially relevant to the issues in the criminal trial, and hence that it could not make proper submissions as to why the untransmitted material should not have been disclosed. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the BBC submits that the refusal to set aside the witness summons was an interference with the BBC's freedom of expression because it required the disclosure of information obtained, despite the considerable risks which this creates for journalists and film crews. The BBC considers that the interference with freedom of expression was not prescribed by law in that the procedure adopted by the Crown Court was arbitrary, and that it was not necessary in a democratic society because there was no reason to think that the material which the defendants in the criminal case wished to see could assist the defence at the criminal trial, or because it was not necessary to impose an obligation on the BBC to disclose without giving the BBC a proper opportunity to know the issues in the criminal trial. THE LAW 1. The BBC alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in connection with the proceedings in which it challenged a witness summons requiring it to produce evidence at a criminal trial. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) provides, so far as relevant, as follows: "1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ..." The Commission has considered whether the BBC is a "person, non- governmental organisation or group of individuals" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. However, the Commission is not required to determine this question in the present case as, assuming that the BBC does have the necessary status to bring the application, the application is nevertheless inadmissible for the following reasons. The BBC was required to produce filmed material in the context of criminal proceedings which had been brought against two policemen. There was therefore no determination of a criminal charge against the BBC. If Article 6 (Art. 6) is to apply to the proceedings in which the BBC challenged the witness summons, those proceedings must therefore have determined the civil rights or obligations of the BBC. The BBC submits that the proceedings determined its civil obligation to provide access to the film material. The Commission recalls that it has previously held that an order for costs made against a lawyer who appeared as representative in criminal proceedings did not determine the civil rights and obligations of the lawyer concerned, the order being made in the context of the administration of justice and the proper organisation of the work of the courts (No. 10615/83, Dec. 3.7.94, D.R. 38, p. 213). It further recalls that obligations, even of a pecuniary nature, have been held by the Court not to be covered by the notion "civil rights and obligations" where they are regarded as forming part of normal civic duties in a democratic society (Eur. Court H.R., Schouten and Meldrum judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no 304, para. 50). The Commission considers that similar reasoning is applicable to the present case. The duty to give evidence in criminal proceedings is a good example of one of the normal civic duties in a democratic society: any person may be called on to give evidence as to matters witnessed by him, and, at least to the extent that he is not required to say anything which may incriminate himself, may be compelled to give evidence in the interests of the fair and proper administration of justice. The order requiring the giving of such evidence does not involve the determination of any civil obligations of the witness, however, and the position is not different where, as in the present case, the evidence consists of material which has been filmed rather than an individual's oral testimony as to what he witnessed. The proceedings in which the BBC challenged the witness summons made against it did not, therefore, determine the BBC's civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, with the result that that provision is not applicable to those proceedings. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2). 2. The BBC also alleges a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, which provides, so far as relevant, as follows. "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom ... to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." The Commission recalls that in the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (No. 17488/90, Comm. Rep. 1.3.94, pending before the European Court of Human Rights) it found that a disclosure order on a journalist to reveal his sources constituted an interference with the right freely to receive and impart information without interference by public authority. The present case is different from the case of Goodwin, since in that case the applicant had received information on a confidential and unattributable basis, whereas the information which the BBC obtained comprised recordings of events which took place in public and to which no particular secrecy or duty of confidentiality could possibly attach. The Commission will, however, assume an interference with the BBC's Article 10 (Art. 10) rights for the purposes of the present application. An interference with the freedoms guaranteed by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention is permissible only if it is "prescribed by law" and if it is "necessary in a democratic society" on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2). The issuing of witness summonses in England and Wales is regulated by Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, which provides for the making of witness summonses for a person to attend court and give evidence or produce documents or things. The same provision enables a person to whom a witness summons is addressed to challenge it on the ground that he "cannot give any material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence". The Commission therefore considers that the witness summons in the present case - and the procedure adopted by the Crown Court - was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. As to whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Commission has found, at para. 1 above, that the duty to give evidence is a normal civic duty in a democratic society. In the ordinary course of events, that duty will suffice to justify an interference created by an obligation to testify on the ground that it is necessary for the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The BBC considers that the present case is not an ordinary case, because there was no reason to think that the material which the defendants in the criminal trial wished to see could assist the defence, and because it was not necessary to impose an obligation on the BBC to disclose without it being given a proper opportunity to know the issues in the criminal trial. The BBC also claims that the obligation to disclose untransmitted material increases the risk for film crews, as they will be associated with the law enforcement agencies by by-standers if such material is subsequently liable to be used in court. The Commission recalls that, in a criminal trial, it is for the judge to consider the evidence before the court, and to assess its relevance and admissibility. The judge can only perform this function if he has powers to require the production of evidence before the court in the first place, and it was for this purpose that the witness summons was made in the present case. The domestic law in the present case enables the recipient of a witness summons to claim that he cannot give any material help to the court, but ultimately it is for the court, and not for the potential witness, to take the final decision on the relevance of evidence. It is true that the discussions in the present case were largely between the defence in the criminal case and the BBC, rather than between the trial judge and the BBC, but the principle is the same: the full picture should be before the criminal court. The Commission is not satisfied that the risks to film crews are greater if untransmitted material is liable to be produced in court. The Commission considers that any risk to film crews flows from their presence at incidents such as the Broadwater Farm riots and from the fact that they are filming such incidents, rather than from any possibility that untransmitted material may subsequently be made available to the courts. Finally, the Commission does not accept the BBC's argument that the interference was not "necessary" because the BBC did not fully know the issues in the criminal trial. In particular, the Commission would note that it will often be the case that a person giving evidence will not fully appreciate the impact his evidence will have - that is a matter for the court, rather than the individual witness. Accordingly, the Commission finds that any interference with the BBC's Article 10 (Art. 10) rights was "prescribed by law" and was "necessary in a democratic society" for "maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary". It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously, DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE. Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber (M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION v UNITED KINGDOM - 25798/94 [1996] ECHR 82 (18 January 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/25798_94.html Cite as: [1996] ECHR 82