Mark Steyn, R (on the application of) v Office of Communications

Mark Steyn, R (on the application of) v Office of Communications

Ofcom was entitled to conclude that the broadcasts in question portrayed factual matters in a materially misleading and potentially harmful way, and that the absence of adequate challenge or contextualisation justified regulatory action. The decisions were proportionate, reasoned, and did not amount to a...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Steyn; Defendant: Office of Communications (Ofcom); Interested Party: GB News Limited; Interested Party: Naomi Wolf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Broadcast Regulation, Freedom of Expression, Misleading and Harmful Broadcast Content, Judicial Review of Regulatory Decisions, Article 10 ECHR
Administrative Law Media Law Human Rights Broadcast Regulation Freedom of Expression Misleading and Harmful Broadcast Content Judicial Review of Regulatory Decisions Article 10 ECHR

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Steyn

Claimant

Office of Communications (Ofcom)

Defendant

GB News Limited

Interested Party

Naomi Wolf

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ofcom's decisions restricting broadcast content breached the claimant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether Ofcom's findings of misleading and harmful content were based on proper findings of fact
  3. 3 Whether the challenged broadcasts portrayed factual matters or opinion under the Ofcom Code

Ratio Decidendi

Ofcom was entitled to conclude that the broadcasts in question portrayed factual matters in a materially misleading and potentially harmful way, and that the absence of adequate challenge or contextualisation justified regulatory action. The decisions were proportionate, reasoned, and did not amount to a disproportionate interference with the claimant's Article 10 rights. The claims were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Both claims for judicial review are dismissed.
  • The parties are to agree the terms of a draft order reflecting the judgment for approval; if not agreed, they may revert to the court.