« Unhealthy secrecy? | Main | Leveson solution »
Law Commission praised
By Steven | March 21, 2013
Last night, delivering the Robin Cooke memorial lecture, UK Court of Appeal judge Dame Mary Arden was full of praise of NZ’s Law Commission’s paper on media regulation. She noted that, unlike the Leveson inquiry, the Law Commission’s brief was to consider media regulation as a whole, not just focus on print media. The Commission’s paper suggested there should be one independent regulator (with – horror! – some statutory underpinning). Dame Mary said the idea of a converged regulator was “overwhelmingly logical”.
(It will be interesting to see whether the Law Commission maintains this position, and whether it reaches a view on whether membership should be compulsory, and for whom, when it releases its final report, due shortly).
The main point in Dame Mary’s lecture, “Press, Privacy and Proportionality”, was that the judicial review ground of unreasonableness will be replaced by review for proportionality, and that this is nothing to fear. This is a big deal: under the traditional view, to challenge a government decision for unreasonableness, you’ve got to show it’s outlandish. Under a proportionality assessment, if the decision affects rights, the government has to show it’s necessary for some significant purpose. But Dame Arden says that proportionality is a flexible standard: its application will vary depending on things like the expertise of the original decision-maker, and that the courts must be careful to ensure that governments aren’t prevented from fulfilling their constitutional roles.
Certainly it’s true that the European Court of Human Rights and some domestic courts have been using proportionality, or something like it, to strike the balance between free expression and privacy rights for some time now, and that this is reflected in a the emergence of a set of principles concerning responsible journalism, as Dame Adern noted. And some aspects of the Leveson solution (such as the levels of costs and damages) may call for proportionality assessment. But I must confess that the link between this and her point about judicial review seemed somewhat opaque to me.
Topics: General | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “Law Commission praised”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 26th, 2020 at 11:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 53682 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 25th, 2020 at 6:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 2:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
July 5th, 2020 at 5:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
July 13th, 2020 at 11:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
July 27th, 2020 at 8:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 1:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 2:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
August 29th, 2020 at 12:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 1:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 9:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 7:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 6631 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
September 7th, 2020 at 6:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
September 26th, 2020 at 8:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 3rd, 2020 at 3:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 4th, 2020 at 1:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 13th, 2020 at 7:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 5:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 1:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
November 26th, 2020 at 2:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
November 27th, 2020 at 11:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 4:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
January 4th, 2021 at 2:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
January 5th, 2021 at 12:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 6:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
January 16th, 2021 at 10:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
March 10th, 2021 at 4:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 18009 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
March 31st, 2021 at 1:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
April 2nd, 2021 at 2:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
April 8th, 2021 at 1:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
April 9th, 2021 at 12:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
April 11th, 2021 at 2:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 2nd, 2021 at 9:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 12th, 2021 at 7:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 10:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 84382 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 8:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 11:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 12:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
August 6th, 2021 at 1:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 11572 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 11th, 2021 at 1:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 16th, 2021 at 7:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
October 17th, 2021 at 1:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
November 10th, 2021 at 2:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
January 8th, 2022 at 1:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
March 3rd, 2022 at 6:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
March 25th, 2022 at 11:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 71262 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
March 27th, 2022 at 1:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 5753 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]
May 1st, 2022 at 1:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=595 […]