Moot Problem in the Court of Appeal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Moot Problem in the Court of Appeal - Essay Example The judge argued on the art 10 of the HRA and overlooked the domestic law; the press regulation act 2012, while deciding the above case. The Daily Grind had been fined after the press regulation commission accused the paper for violating section 2 of the press regulation act 2012 which states â€Å"publication by the press of article relating to the private lives of individuals is hereby prohibited†. This was after my client had published an article citing the prime minister as a â€Å"sexual maniac† who is not legible to lead this country and should even quit politics for good. Though the press regulation act of 2012 bars the publication of articles relating to people’s private lives, section 2b gives some provisions where the above restrictions does not hold. This if: â€Å"it is strictly necessary to publish the material relating to the individual’s live in order for criticism of their performance in public office to be made good.† Judge Templeto n-Smythe J was right to give more weight to the HRA, than to our domestic legislation in this issue. For instance, if we allowed local authorities to impose regulations that to some extend limit the international laws on human rights we would just be declaring our country a non-partisan in international treaties at large. In the above stated publication, the Daily Grind was merely expressing its freedom of expression as stated in the article 10 of the convention rights which states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and receive and impact information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 1 Application of the relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence in the domestic law Though there seems some contradiction of the domestic law and the Human Rights art 10, there has been cases in the past where the two has been harmonized to apply the art 10 in the domestic law. For example, in Manchester city v. Pinnock the Supreme Court came up with a formula to deal with relevant Strasbourg jurisprudences as Karinne and Fiona writes: Where, however, there is a clear and constant line of decisions whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook a point of principle, we consider that it would be wrong for this court not to take that line (p.26)2. Judge Templeton-Smythe in delivering his verdict argued that the Daily Grind has a right to express its opinion as the provisions of the art 10 of the human rights act. Although in another perspective the Daily Grind the may appear to have invoked the premier’s privacy, there was much logic in the publication. For instance, the publications were based on substantial truth as some of the prime minister’s Lovers a t the university are cited to have regular contacts with him up-to-date. The Daily Grind in this case is also entitled to a qualified privilege as per the British law. In a much similar case, in1999, Britain’s highest court defended a news paper against a former prime minister of Ireland as Perry Keller states: The courts have extended this principle to develop a new form of qualified privileg