Overview of the Legal Issue

The relevant issue in this part is understanding what are the main sources such as relevant
statutes and case laws to understand where freedom of expression has been particularly laid
down and granted to the citizens to freely express their thoughts as it is one of the main
fundamental human rights guaranteed to all and solidified as it is a part of many international
conventions.
Legislation Granting Freedom of Speech
Before dwelling into case laws, there are many Acts and statutes that deal with granting
freedom of expression to the public as provided under Equality and Human Rights
Commission and Legislation of United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act is a law which was
passed in the UK under which Article 101 deals with freedom of expression which in layman
term is the right to speak freely in order to express an opinion. It is a fundamental civil right
that indicates to hold views and being able to show case and receive information and ideas
without any censorship from any kind of higher governmental, public or administrative
authority as this right is guaranteed to all which includes but also allows submitting of
licenses for various enterprises. The nature of such a freedom is that even in main statutes and
Acts it lays down certain limitation and responsibilities if breached may lead to liabilities and
penalties to ensure a smooth running of a democratic society as well as protecting the public
and sovereignty and security of the state, confidentiality and impartiality. It is under Article
10 that provides rights of being able to publish any information, broadcast it, express art and
share vital data on any social platform by being able to obtain particulars from others but is
subject to limitations.
In Chambers v DPP the case focused on the malice communication of the defendant as he had
posted a tweet publicly that he was going to blow up the airport but it was laid down by the
High Court that when viewing the entire tweet as a whole it could not be perceived that there
existed any malice intention as the followers when viewing the wordings of the tweet could
not conceive it as a serious threat. 2 In another case law material was posted on a website in
the United States but was sent from England and could be viewed by the people of England
which consisted of defamatory and racist remarks against black and Jewish people which led
to his conviction for publicly posting racial remarks leading to imprisonment for 3 years and
10 months.3 Similarly, it was laid down that just by using unpleasant words towards officers
won’t result in a breach of freedom of expression as just swearing at officers with no one
1
Human Rights Act [1998] art OR 10.
2
Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157.
3
R v Sheppard [2010] EWCA 65.

1
nearby nor causing any anguish to the officers is not a result of either a defamatory remark
nor a breach of misusing the right to freedom of expression. 4 However, there are limits to
which remarks cannot be deemed as a breach like in another case it was laid down that
officers were harassed verbally when racial slurs and curse words was used against them
when there were multiple people in an ear shot this was laid down as causing anguish against
those officers.5
Understanding Freedom of Expression:
Because the UK does not have a formal written constitution, the freedom of expression
guideline exists in the form of statutory provisions, common law and codes of practice that
has been laid down over the years. Throughout history it merely existed as a form of residual
freedom only and there was a lack of any regulatory authority that laid down limitations to
freedom of expression this led to a weak foundation on being able to freely express views
within local law until the initiation of Human Rights Act 1998 which was incorporated into
the European Convention on Human Rights. The national law was then able to place duties
upon public authorities to behave which was in light of the rights and limitations present in
the Convention as well as making national courts to obey those rights by conforming it to
local law as per what has been provided under the Convention. 6 The limits are justifiable
because it is only limited to being able to express openly which is not illegal as the
restrictions imposed are all necessary for the smooth flowing of a democratic society. This is
better understood as it is necessary that whether freedom of speech was engaged and if there
exists a chance to first interpret or apply the laws in the light of that right. 7 It rather depends
upon the logic and quality of administrative law which provides more scrutiny when
authorities mingle with the common law rights especially freedom of expression as that
which have been laid down by national courts.8
The limitations which have been laid down by authorities under the freedom of expression is
to make sure that the words spoken are done so in a manner which does not cause harm or
damage to the person or their reputation which shall be proportionate in terms of protecting

4
EWHC 3992 Harvey v. DPP [2011].
5
EWHC 1202 in Taylor v. DPP [2006].
6
Freedom of Expression, A Comparative Law Perspective," by Ian Cram [2019] (263).
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/642263/EPRS_STU(2019)642263_EN.pdf> is th
e website of the European Parliamentary Research Service. retrieved December 15, 2023.
7
Freedom of Expression in the United Kingdom Under the Human Rights Act of 1998," by Eric Barendt
[2009] (3) The Indiana Law Journal may be found at https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=ilj. retrieved December 15, 2023.
8
Defence of R v. M/O
R. v. Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex parte A [1999] 4 All ER 860; Ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517; [1996] 1 All E
R 257.

2
territorial integrity, public safety, morals, right of public as a whole; preventing crimes and
disclosure of such information which is confidential and maintain authority of the judges.
This allows restricting freedom of expression by ensuring that racial, religious and all other
kids of hatred is not encouraged but these conditions have to proportionate in nature in a term
that addresses the issue.9 The proportionality rule can be understood from the fact that when
The Guardian and The Observer newspapers published some book excerpts alleging that MI5
had acted illegally the government ended up obtaining a court order to prevent the article
from being printed until proceedings had been concluded but when the book was finished The
Guardian provided that it would be a breach of court order if continued but ECHR laid down
that it was lawful as provided by the court order because of the interest of national security
but with the book publication the information was no longer confidential. 10 In terms of
deciding balance and betterment of a person like invading a child privacy by reporting illegal
proceeding and crime scene photos was forbidden as per two judges of House of Lords but
one had the opinion that it the report is a fundamental right. 11 It is through these precedents
that an inclusive set of recognized standard has been laid down at a minimum level especially
when it comes to state interference in terms of the qualifying nature of freedom of
expression12 as to the limitations placed upon it as well as protecting it as well.13
In short, freedom of expression is a rather important right which has been granted to people
all over the world including the UK in which restrictions came into existence through the
inclusion and introduction of Human Rights Act, 1998. This allowed that the national courts
and the democratic nature of the country to be upheld by placing down certain limitations that
has the ability to not only protect the country as well as its citizens. The precedents which
have been laid down by the courts also better analyse as to when freedom of expression can
be granted and when there is a breach of it allowing it to lay down a certain criterion which
has to be fulfilled so that the general public can freely exercise their right of sharing opinion,
information and data amongst each other either via through verbal expression, on online
platforms or written material.

The findings that are obtained under this is that freedom of expression is rather an old right
which has originated a long time ago to ensure harmony and being able to express one’s view
9
The 1998 Human Rights Act.
10
United Kingdom v. Observer and The Guardian [1991].
11
Webster (A Child) Reviewed [2006] EWHC 2733 (Family).
12
Human rights and the UK constitution, by Colm O'Cinneide (The British Academy, 2012)
The document titled "Human-rights and the UK Constitution" can be found here. retrieved December 15, 2023.
13
UK [1995] Tolstoy v. 20 EHRR 442.

3
openly which is observed under national legislations and precedents as there is no written
constitution. However, it can be observed from case laws that it is subject to restriction so
that the freedom of expression is not abused in a manner which causes harm to someone and
their reputation that has to be proportionate in nature to ensure that the right is not only
protected but as well as has the ability to hold someone liable when it causes to agony to
someone as it is a right which cannot be granted without any restrictions because of its ability
to harm and damage public and this is how the limitations in these rights uphold public
safety.
The research began from viewing where this right is specifically stated and what precedents
have been laid down in light of freedom of expression being used or abused, it was enhanced
by breaking down the principles laid down under the Act as well as the cases and all
secondary sources via ensuring that the information provided was of the 21 st century and
relevant to the subject matter at hand. This way the current situation as to the right related
freedom of expression and the limitations placed down by the statutory laws were not
outdated and still relevant to this date.

(Word Count = 1500)

4
Bibliography
Table of Cases
 [1996] 1 All ER 257
 Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157
 Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC 3992
 Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom [1991]
 Defence of R v. M/O R. v. Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex parte A [1999]
 R v Sheppard [2010] EWCA 65
 R.v. Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex parte A [1999] 4 All ER 860
 Re Webster (A Child) [2006] EWHC (Fam) 2733
 Taylor v DPP [2006] EWHC 1202
 Tolstoy v UK [1995] 20 EHRR 442
Table of Legislation
 The 1998 Human Rights Act.
 Human Rights Act [1998] art OR 10
List of References
 Colm O’Cinneide, Human rights and the UK constitution (The British Academy
2012) < https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/262/Human-rights-and-the-
UK-constitution.pdf> accessed 15 December 2023
 Eric Barendt, ‘Freedom of Expression in the United Kingdom Under the Human
Rights Act 1998’ [2009] (3) Indiana Law Journal <
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1125&context=ilj> accessed 15 December 2023
 Ian Cram, ‘Freedom of Expression, A Comparative Law Perspective’ [2019] (263)
European Parliamentary Research Service <
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/642263/EPRS_STU(201
9)642263_EN.pdf> accessed 15 December 2023