1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
international law, will naturally depend upon the particular circumstances of that case. All that one can say at this stage is that a censor who conscientiously decided that a film or a particular series of films could not be shown without damaging good relations with other territories would be active within the
scope of the restrictions permitted by the covenant. So the third of the criteria in the covenant relates to necessity, the restrictions must be necessary to achieve the purposes that are permitted. Necessary. I agree it is not enough as Mr. Martin Lee said merely to show that they would be useful or desirable, but it doesn't have to be shown to be indispensable, they must be necessary. Here again there is scope for different views.
Some argue that there ought to be some universal test which strikes a constant balance between individual rights on the one
hand and restrictions on the other. But this, Sir, is not the way of the world. A concept such as the needs of national
security in public policy vary from place to place, from
18 community to community. So with the consequent necessity for restrictions upon the rights of the individual. Members will not be surprised to find that a sensitive approach to this test, this judgment of necessity, has been adopted in a number of cases. It has been recognised that a contracting state has a margin of appreciation as to whether it is necessary to apply an authorised restriction and if it is how far it needs to go
to reflect its assessment of the need.
22
23
24
25
Sc 26
Sc 27
Je 28
2222
29
}
I think Dr. Barend has acknowledged the validity of this
approach and indeed Mr. Martin Lee acknowledges it too. But Dr. Barendt went on to suggest that if a state believes it necessary to restrict the right of self-expression for a particular purpose, 30 the restrictions on films could only be justified if it can be 31 shown that similar restrictions have been imposed on the right of expression across the board in the media. But, Sir, it is
our considered opinion that this view is not correct in law;
and in particular that it is at variance with the decision known
as the Handyside case, which is referred to in our comments on
Dr.
Burendt opinion, which illustrates how a community may properly
32
33
34
35
&C 36
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.