This website uses non-intrusive cookies to improve your user experience. You can visit our cookie privacy page for more information.
Beta This is a new way of showing guidance - your feedback will help us improve it.
1. Prejudicial publicity may give rise to a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular the right to a fair trial under Article 6 1.
2. It is unlawful for a public authority such as HSE to act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right" 2. A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA 1998") may, if s/he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act, either 3:
3. In the case of adverse publicity, the Convention rights which are likely to be engaged are:
4. In Allenet de Ribemont v France 4, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6(2) imposed obligations not only on criminal courts but also on other public authorities. It further held that the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) is one of the elements necessary to ensure a fair trial, as required by Article 6(1). The Court further stated that while freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10, includes a right for public authorities to inform the public about criminal investigations in progress, it requires them to do so with caution if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.
5. Mr Allenet de Ribemont (the applicant) had complained that Article 6(2) was infringed when he was described by high–ranking police officers as one of the instigators of a murder. The Court held that this declaration of the applicant's guilt had firstly encouraged the public to regard him as guilty and, secondly, prejudiced the assessment of the facts by the judicial authority. There had, therefore, been a breach of Article 6(2). The Court said:
"The presumption of innocence...will be violated if a judicial decision concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty... Moreover, the Court reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory... The Court considers that the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities.5"
6. You should be aware that if a published report or statement contains anything that harms an individual's reputation it may, at least if untrue, infringe his or her Convention right under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) 6. Where the state fails to provide a remedy to an aggrieved individual by way of an action for defamation the state may be responsible under Article 8(1).
7. This protection of individual reputations may be at the expense of freedom of expression. This could involve a breach of Article 10. Article 10(2) does however allow a state to place restrictions on the right to freedom of expression in the interests of, for example,
8. Both Article 8 and Article 10 are qualified rights where it may be necessary for a court to balance conflicting rights of individuals.
9. Article 6 may require the state to interfere with freedom of expression if the right of a person to a fair trial may be prejudiced. This will have an impact on the information HSE publishes. HSE should be circumspect with information about proceedings.
Is this page useful?