BOSSES at Russian television news channel RT have begun the latest round of a legal challenge against Ofcom’s decision to censure programmes about the Salisbury poisonings and the conflict in Syria.
The watchdog, which licenses RT to broadcast in the UK, decided that programmes aired after Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in Salisbury in March 2018 breached impartiality rules and imposed a £200,000 fine.
RT bosses, who insists the ruling was unfair and not compatible with free speech rights, lost the first round of a fight in the High Court.
Two judges last year dismissed a judicial review claim.
Lawyers representing RT have now asked three Court of Appeal judges to overturn that ruling.
Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Warby are scheduled to consider arguments over two days at a hearing in London.
Ofcom argued RT’s appeals should be dismissed.
A barrister leading RT’s legal team told the appeal judges that the regulator had found that seven programmes broadcast in March and April 2018 breached “due impartiality” requirements.
Sam Grodzinski QC said six of the seven programmes related to the poisoning of the Skripals or the conflict in Syria.
He argued that Ofcom’s findings could not be justified as necessary or proportionate.
Grodzinski said the two judges who considered the case in the High Court had “erred” in finding that Ofcom’s decisions did not infringe the right to free speech – enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“At its core, this appeal concerns the extent of the obligation imposed on television broadcasters to maintain ‘due impartiality’ in news and certain other kinds of programmes,” he said in a written case outline given to judges.
“It is a critical feature of Article 10 that it is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that ‘offend, shock or disturb’.”
He said if the “reasoning” of the two judges who considered the case in the High Court was applied generally by Ofcom there was a risk of a “chilling” effect on broadcasters and a “less diverse news supply”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel