PETITION OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY [2000] ScotHC 56 (20th April, 2000)

PETITION OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY [2000] ScotHC 56 (20th April, 2000)

No devolution issue arises because the restriction on public broadcasting was imposed by the court, not as a result of any act or exercise of function by the Lord Advocate. The restriction does not contravene Article 10 ECHR, as there is no right to access encrypted signals for public broadcast, and the court's discretion to restrict broadcasting is justified in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2000] ScotHC 56
Parties
Petitioner: The British Broadcasting Corporation; First Respondent: Lord Advocate (Crown); Second Respondent: Abdel Bassett Ali Mohammed El-Megrahi; Second Respondent: Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium / Review of Prior Refusal and Request for Reference to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting of Court Proceedings, Devolution Issues, Article 10 ECHR, Competency of Petitions, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Freedom of Expression Broadcasting of Court Proceedings Devolution Issues Article 10 ECHR Competency of Petitions +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The British Broadcasting Corporation

Petitioner

Lord Advocate (Crown)

First Respondent

Abdel Bassett Ali Mohammed El-Megrahi

Second Respondent

Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium / Review of Prior Refusal and Request for Reference to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a devolution issue arises under paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 regarding the Lord Advocate's actions and Article 10 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the restriction on public broadcasting of the trial proceedings is unlawful under Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the petition to review the prior decision is competent

Ratio Decidendi

No devolution issue arises because the restriction on public broadcasting was imposed by the court, not as a result of any act or exercise of function by the Lord Advocate. The restriction does not contravene Article 10 ECHR, as there is no right to access encrypted signals for public broadcast, and the court's discretion to restrict broadcasting is justified in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Prayer of the petition refused in its entirety