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

1、11979SundayTimesv.theUnitedKingdom__CaseSummarySundayTimesv.theUnitedKingdom(No.1),(ApplicationNo.6538/74)\26April1979,ApplicationNo.6538/74(EuropeanCourtofHumanRights)Facts:ABritishdrugcompanyhadmanufacturedanddistributeddrugscontaininganingredientknownasthalidomide.Thedrugswereprescribedassedativesfor,inparticular,expectantmothers.In1961,anumberofwomenwhohadtakenthedrugswhiletheywerepregnantgavebirthtochildrensufferingfromseveredeformities;inthecourseoftimethereweresome450suchbirthsinall.Thec。

2、ompanywithdrewalldrugscontainingthalidomidefromthemarketinthesameyear.Between1962and1966theparentsofseventyofthedeformedchildrenfiledsuitagainstthecompany,allegingnegligenceonbehalfofthecompany.Oftheseventyactionsbyparents,sixty-fiveweresettledin1968.Underdomesticlaw,thesettlementrequiredcourtapprovalwhichwasobtained.TwocaseswereotherwisedisposedofandtheamountofdamagesintheremainingtwowasstillundernegotiationinJuly1973.Subsequently,nearlyfourhundredothersuitswerefiledbyotherparentsandtheirchildr。

3、en.Thecompanyhadannouncedthattheywouldprovideasubstantialsumforthebenefitoftheseclaimantsandbothsideswereanxioustoarriveatasettlement.In1971,negotiationsbeganonaproposalbyDistillerstoestablishacharitabletrustfundforallthedeformedchildrenotherthanthosecoveredbythe1968settlement.Eventually,asettlementinvolvingthesettingupofasignificanttrustfundhadbeenworkedoutandwasexpectedtobesubmittedinOctobertothecourtforapproval.Theapplicantnewspaper,aswellasothernewspapersandbroadcasters,hadreportedonthe'thal。

4、idomidechildren'throughouttheproceedings,andithadcriticisedthe1968settlement.In1972,theapplicantpublishedanarticleexaminingthesettlementproposalsthenunderconsideration,describingthemasgrotesquelyoutofproportiontotheinjuriessuffered,criticisingvariousaspectsofdomesticlawinpersonalinjurycases,andcomplainingofthedelaythathadelapsedsincethebirths.Afootnotetothearticleannouncedthatafuturearticlewouldtracehowthetragedyoccurred,includinganinvestigationintowhetherthedrugcompanyhadcarriedoutpropertestson。

5、thedrug,andwhetherithadbeenawarethatthalidomidecouldhaveanegativeimpactontheunbornfoetus.Subsequently,theAttorney-Generalappliedforandwasgrantedaninjunctionrestrainingpublicationofthisfuturearticleonthegroundsthatitwouldconstitutecontemptofcourt.Theapplicantappliedfortheinjunctiontobeliftedbutwasultimatelyunsuccessful.Paralleltotheappealproceedings,apublicdebateontheissueensued,includingadebateinParliamentandarticlesinothernewspapersreferringtoissuessimilartothosethefuturearticleintheapplicant's。

6、newspaperwouldhaveaddressed.Theinjunctionasfinallyliftedin1976,afterasettlementhadbeenreachedandapprovedbythecourts.Thecontentiousarticlewaspublishedfourdayslater.Held:2Theinjunctionconstitutedaninterferencewiththerighttofreedomofexpression.Atissuewaswhetherithadbeen'prescribedbylaw',and'necessaryinademocraticsociety'inpursuitofalegitimateaim.ProvidedbylawTheapplicantshadarguedthatthelawofcontemptofcourtwassovagueanduncertainandtheprinciplesenunciatedbythedecisionintheircasesonovelthattheinterfe。

7、rencecouldnotberegardedasprovidedbylaw.TheCourtobservedthatthewordlawintheexpressionprovidedbylawcoverednotonlystatutebutalsothecommonlaw.Accordingly,thefactthat'contemptofcourt'wasacreatureofthecommonlawwasirrelevant.TheCourtheldthattheexpressionprovidedbylawimpliedatleasttworequirements:Firstly,thelawmustbeadequatelyaccessible:thecitizenmustbeabletohaveanindicationthatisadequateinthecircumstancesofthelegalrulesapplicabletoagivencase.Secondly,anormcannotberegardedasalawunlessitisformulatedwiths。

8、ufficientprecisiontoenablethecitizentoregulatehisconduct:hemustbeable-ifneedbewithappropriateadvice-toforesee,toadegreethatisreasonableinthecircumstances,theconsequenceswhichagivenactionmayentail.Thoseconsequencesneednotbeforeseeablewithabsolutecertainty:experienceshowsthistobeunattainable.Again,whilstcertaintyishighlydesirable,itmaybringinitstrainexcessiverigidityandthelawmustbeabletokeeppacewithchangingcircumstances.Accordingly,manylawsareinevitablycouchedintermswhich,toagreaterorlesserextent,。

9、arevagueandwhoseinterpretationandapplicationarequestionsofpractice.(para.49)Inthepresentcase,theCourtconsideredthatdifferentprincipleshadbeenreliedonbydifferentcourtsthroughouttheappealsprocess,withdifferentmembersintheHouseofLordsultimatelyapplyingdifferentprinciplesbutarrivingatthesameresult.However,twoconstantprincipleshadbeenreliedon,andtheCourtconsideredthattherehadbeennodoubtthatthesehadbeenformulatedwithsufficientprecisiontoenabletheapplicantstoforeseetotheappropriatedegreetheconsequences。

10、whichpublicationofthedraftarticlemightentail.Therefore,theinterferencewasprovidedbylaw.LegitimateaimTheapplicantscontendedthatthelawofcontemptofcourtservedthepurposeofsafeguardingnotonlytheimpartialityandauthorityofthejudiciarybutalsotherightsandinterestsoflitigants.TheCourtemphasisedfirstthattheexpressionauthorityandimpartialityofthejudiciaryhadtobeunderstoodwithinthemeaningoftheConventionasawhole,andthataccounthadtobetakenofthecentralpositionoccupiedoftherighttoafairtrial,whichreflectsthefundam。