British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Ahmad (Rev 1)

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Ahmad (Rev 1)

The Secretary of State's refusal to permit a face-to-face interview and its broadcast constituted a disproportionate interference with the claimants' Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The decision failed to maintain a fair balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and the interests of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: British Broadcasting Corporation; Claimant: Dominic Casciani; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice; Interested Party: Babar Ahmad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Prisoners' Rights, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Media Access to Prisoners
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Prisoners' Rights Judicial Review Proportionality Media Access to Prisoners

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Broadcasting Corporation

Claimant

Dominic Casciani

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Babar Ahmad

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to permit a face-to-face interview and broadcast with a prisoner was a disproportionate interference with Article 10 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's decision was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's refusal to permit a face-to-face interview and its broadcast constituted a disproportionate interference with the claimants' Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The decision failed to maintain a fair balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and the interests of victims and the justice system, especially given the highly exceptional circumstances of the case. Less restrictive alternatives were available, and the Secretary of State's policy, while generally lawful, was applied too rigidly in this instance.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of 22 September 2011 is quashed.
  • The Secretary of State must retake the decision in accordance with the court's judgment.