Coughlan v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission [2000] IESC 44 (26th January, 2000)

Coughlan v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission [2000] IESC 44 (26th January, 2000)

RTE, in allocating significantly more uncontested broadcasting time to the 'Yes' side than the 'No' side during the 1995 Divorce Referendum, failed to hold the balance equally between both sides, resulting in a constitutionally unfair procedure and a breach of fair procedures required by law and the Constitution. The statutory permission to transmit political party broadcasts does not override the obligation to ensure fairness and equality in the context of a referendum.

Citation
[2000] IESC 44
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Anthony Coughlan; Respondent/appellant: Broadcasting Complaints Commission; Respondent/appellant: Radio Telefís Éireann (RTE); Notice Party: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court declaration upheld
Legal Topics
Referendum Fairness, Broadcasting Impartiality, Political Party Broadcasts, Equality Before the Law, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Media Law Referendum Fairness Broadcasting Impartiality Political Party Broadcasts Equality Before the Law Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Coughlan

Applicant/respondent

Broadcasting Complaints Commission

Respondent/appellant

Radio Telefís Éireann (RTE)

Respondent/appellant

Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RTE's allocation of uncontested broadcasting time during the 1995 Divorce Referendum was constitutionally unfair and unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Broadcasting Complaints Commission erred in dismissing the applicant's complaint regarding broadcasting imbalance
  3. 3 Interpretation of statutory duties of impartiality and fairness under the Broadcasting Authority Acts in the context of referenda

Ratio Decidendi

RTE, in allocating significantly more uncontested broadcasting time to the 'Yes' side than the 'No' side during the 1995 Divorce Referendum, failed to hold the balance equally between both sides, resulting in a constitutionally unfair procedure and a breach of fair procedures required by law and the Constitution. The statutory permission to transmit political party broadcasts does not override the obligation to ensure fairness and equality in the context of a referendum.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court declaration upheld

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the BCC's decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant's complaint
  • Declaration that the allocation of uncontested broadcasting time during the Divorce Referendum of 1995 was significantly unequal and constitutionally unfair