1979-Sunday-Times-v.-the-United-Kingdom-(No.-1)---

11979SundayTimesv.theUnitedKingdom__CaseSummarySundayTimesv.theUnitedKingdom(No.1),(ApplicationNo.6538/74)\26April1979,ApplicationNo.6538/74(EuropeanCourtofHumanRights)Facts:ABritishdrugcompanyhadmanufacturedanddistributeddrugscontaininganingredientknownasthalidomide.Thedrugswereprescribedassedativesfor,inparticular,expectantmothers.In1961,anumberofwomenwhohadtakenthedrugswhiletheywerepregnantgavebirthtochildrensufferingfromseveredeformities;inthecourseoftimethereweresome450suchbirthsinall.Thecompanywithdrewalldrugscontainingthalidomidefromthemarketinthesameyear.Between1962and1966theparentsofseventyofthedeformedchildrenfiledsuitagainstthecompany,allegingnegligenceonbehalfofthecompany.Oftheseventyactionsbyparents,sixty-fiveweresettledin1968.Underdomesticlaw,thesettlementrequiredcourtapprovalwhichwasobtained.TwocaseswereotherwisedisposedofandtheamountofdamagesintheremainingtwowasstillundernegotiationinJuly1973.Subsequently,nearlyfourhundredothersuitswerefiledbyotherparentsandtheirchildren.Thecompanyhadannouncedthattheywouldprovideasubstantialsumforthebenefitoftheseclaimantsandbothsideswereanxioustoarriveatasettlement.In1971,negotiationsbeganonaproposalbyDistillerstoestablishacharitabletrustfundforallthedeformedchildrenotherthanthosecoveredbythe1968settlement.Eventually,asettlementinvolvingthesettingupofasignificanttrustfundhadbeenworkedoutandwasexpectedtobesubmittedinOctobertothecourtforapproval.Theapplicantnewspaper,aswellasothernewspapersandbroadcasters,hadreportedonthe'thalidomidechildren'throughouttheproceedings,andithadcriticisedthe1968settlement.In1972,theapplicantpublishedanarticleexaminingthesettlementproposalsthenunderconsideration,describingthemasgrotesquelyoutofproportiontotheinjuriessuffered,criticisingvariousaspectsofdomesticlawinpersonalinjurycases,andcomplainingofthedelaythathadelapsedsincethebirths.Afootnotetothearticleannouncedthatafuturearticlewouldtracehowthetragedyoccurred,includinganinvestigationintowhetherthedrugcompanyhadcarriedoutpropertestsonthedrug,andwhetherithadbeenawarethatthalidomidecouldhaveanegativeimpactontheunbornfoetus.Subsequently,theAttorney-Generalappliedforandwasgrantedaninjunctionrestrainingpublicationofthisfuturearticleonthegroundsthatitwouldconstitutecontemptofcourt.Theapplicantappliedfortheinjunctiontobeliftedbutwasultimatelyunsuccessful.Paralleltotheappealproceedings,apublicdebateontheissueensued,includingadebateinParliamentandarticlesinothernewspapersreferringtoissuessimilartothosethefuturearticleintheapplicant'snewspaperwouldhaveaddressed.Theinjunctionasfinallyliftedin1976,afterasettlementhadbeenreachedandapprovedbythecourts.Thecontentiousarticlewaspublishedfourdayslater.Held:2Theinjunctionconstitutedaninterferencewiththerighttofreedomofexpression.Atissuewaswhetherithadbeen'prescribedbylaw',and'necessaryinademocraticsociety'inpursuitofalegitimateaim.ProvidedbylawTheapplicantshadarguedthatthelawofcontemptofcourtwassovagueanduncertainandtheprinciplesenunciatedbythedecisionintheircasesonovelthattheinterferencecouldnotberegardedasprovidedbylaw.TheCourtobservedthatthewordlawintheexpressionprovidedbylawcoverednotonlystatutebutalsothecommonlaw.Accordingly,thefactthat'contemptofcourt'wasacreatureofthecommonlawwasirrelevant.TheCourtheldthattheexpressionprovidedbylawimpliedatleasttworequirements:Firstly,thelawmustbeadequatelyaccessible:thecitizenmustbeabletohaveanindicationthatisadequateinthecircumstancesofthelegalrulesapplicabletoagivencase.Secondly,anormcannotberegardedasalawunlessitisformulatedwithsufficientprecisiontoenablethecitizentoregulatehisconduct:hemustbeable-ifneedbewithappropriateadvice-toforesee,toadegreethatisreasonableinthecircumstances,theconsequenceswhichagivenactionmayentail.Thoseconsequencesneednotbeforeseeablewithabsolutecertainty:experienceshowsthistobeunattainable.Again,whilstcertaintyishighlydesirable,itmaybringinitstrainexcessiverigidityandthelawmustbeabletokeeppacewithchangingcircumstances.Accordingly,manylawsareinevitablycouchedintermswhich,toagreaterorlesserextent,arevagueandwhoseinterpretationandapplicationarequestionsofpractice.(para.49)Inthepresentcase,theCourtconsideredthatdifferentprincipleshadbeenreliedonbydifferentcourtsthroughouttheappealsprocess,withdifferentmembersintheHouseofLordsultimatelyapplyingdifferentprinciplesbutarrivingatthesameresult.However,twoconstantprincipleshadbeenreliedon,andtheCourtconsideredthattherehadbeennodoubtthatthesehadbeenformulatedwithsufficientprecisiontoenabletheapplicantstoforeseetotheappropriatedegreetheconsequenceswhichpublicationofthedraftarticlemightentail.Therefore,theinterferencewasprovidedbylaw.LegitimateaimTheapplicantscontendedthatthelawofcontemptofcourtservedthepurposeofsafeguardingnotonlytheimpartialityandauthorityofthejudiciarybutalsotherightsandinterestsoflitigants.TheCourtemphasisedfirstthattheexpressionauthorityandimpartialityofthejudiciaryhadtobeunderstoodwithinthemeaningoftheConventionasawhole,andthataccounthadtobetakenofthecentralpositionoccupiedoftherighttoafairtrial,whichreflectsthefundam