THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (BBC); (SECOND) TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD; (THIRD) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_35 (19 March 2020)

THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (BBC); (SECOND) TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD; (THIRD) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_35 (19 March 2020)

The petitioners had an effective alternative statutory remedy by applying for variation or revocation of the reporting restriction order. The absence or inadequacy of reasons did not render the statutory remedy ineffective. Judicial review was therefore incompetent. The first respondent erred in failing to provide adequate reasons, but this did not justify judicial review in the circumstances.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_35
Parties
Petitioner: The British Broadcasting Corporation; Petitioner: Times Newspapers Limited; Petitioner: News Group Newspapers Limited; First Respondent: Forfar Sheriff (unnamed); Second Respondent: Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Contempt of Court, Judicial Review, Reasons for Judicial Decisions, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Contempt of Court Judicial Review +2 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 4 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The British Broadcasting Corporation

Petitioner

Times Newspapers Limited

Petitioner

News Group Newspapers Limited

Petitioner

Forfar Sheriff (unnamed)

First Respondent

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to provide contemporaneous and adequate reasons for a reporting restriction order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 breaches common law or article 10 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is competent where an alternative statutory remedy exists

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners had an effective alternative statutory remedy by applying for variation or revocation of the reporting restriction order. The absence or inadequacy of reasons did not render the statutory remedy ineffective. Judicial review was therefore incompetent. The first respondent erred in failing to provide adequate reasons, but this did not justify judicial review in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

petition refused