The restriction must be a prescribed by law b serve

Info icon This preview shows pages 3–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
that is very similar to the one articulated in the ICCPR. The restriction must be: (a) prescribed by law; (b) serve one of the enumerated purposes; and (c) be necessary in a democratic society. Necessary In order to be deemed necessary, the reasons adduced by the [domestic tribunal] must be “relevant and sufficient” and the restriction must be “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom , case no. 51/1990/242/313, 24 October 1991, para. 59. Further, whether the interest is justified by sufficient reasons may depend on the nature of the expression sought to be restricted. If the expression sought to be restricted involves information that is a matter of “undisputed public concern,” the information may be restricted only where it is “absolutely certain” that its dissemination would have the adverse consequences articulated by the State party as the reason for the restriction . The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom , paras. 65-66; see also The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom , para. 59(b) (noting the duty of the press, upon whom it is incumbent “to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest”). Similarly, the analysis may be altered by the type of sanctions sought to be imposed. Prior restraints, while not expressly forbidden by Article, do require more scrutiny from the Court – in fact, they are subject to “the most careful scrutiny.” The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, Case no. 51/1990/242/313, para. 60. In The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom , Case no. 51/1990/242/313, the two named applicants, both newspapers, sought relief from interlocutory injunctions imposed by the English courts on the publication of details from a book called “ Spycatcher ”, and information obtained from its author, Peter Wright, concerning the operations of the British Security Service. The Court divided the period in question into two periods: one before publication of the information abroad and one after publication abroad. It assessed relevancy, sufficiency and proportionality in turn for each period. For the first period, it upheld the restrictions. It concluded that the reasons adduced by the English courts for imposing the preliminary injunction were relevant: the reason to obtain a preliminary injunction was that the Attorney General was seeking a permanent ban on publication - if publication went forward, it would destroy the substance of the action and any claim to protect national security. When assessing sufficiency of the reasons, it deferred to the English
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern