Euro court judges uphold ban on political adverts

Human rights judges in Strasbourg ruled in a 9-8 test case verdict that Government refusal to allow Animal Defenders International (ADI) to screen a TV advert promoting animal rights was not a breach of its freedom of expression.

The blanket ban in the UK is designed to prevent a political advertising free-for-all in which the richest have most access to promote their views in US-style aggressive political advertising.

Yesterday’s verdict rejected a complaint by the animal rights organisation that denying it the possibility to advertise on TV or radio breached the European Human Rights Convention, which guarantees free speech.

The ruling by the smallest possible majority of the Strasbourg judges declared: “The court noted that both parties (ADI and the Government) maintained that they were protecting the democratic process.

“It found in particular that the reviews of the ban by both parliamentary and judicial bodies had been exacting and pertinent, taking into account the European Court’s case law.”

The judges said the ban applied only to advertising and ADI had access to “alternative media, both broadcast and non-broadcast”.

The ruling also pointed out that there was a “lack of European consensus” on how to regulate paid political advertising in broadcasting – giving the UK government “more room for manoeuvre when deciding on such matters as restricting public interest debate”.

The verdict concluded: “Overall, the court found that the reasons given to justify the ban were convincing and that the ban did not therefore go too far in restricting the right to participate in public debate.”

Culture Secretary Maria Miller said: “We welcome the fact the European Court has upheld the UK’s blanket ban on political advertising.

“Political adverts are – and have always been – banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting – and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets.

“This case was not about the particular views of this. This case was not about the particular views of this organisation, but about the fact the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) considered that broadcasting this advert would breach the ban on political advertising in the UK.”

The case was triggered by the BACC’s refusal in 2005 to allow UK-based ADI to run a TV advert juxtaposing images of a girl and then a chimp in chains in a cage.

The BAAC said ADI’s objectives were political in nature, and such a broadcast would breach the 2003 Communications Act.

The High Court and the House of Lords agreed and ADI went to the Human Rights Court.

In their ruling, the judges said they had taken account of the “complex” regulatory regime governing political broadcasting in the UK had been subjected to “exacting and pertinent” reviews and validated by both parliamentary and judicial bodies.

UK broadcast media was influential, with an immediate and powerful impact, and there was no evidence that this influence had been altered by the rise of the internet and social media to an extent which undermined the current broadcast restrictions.

But, warned the judges: “Allowing a less restrictive prohibition could give rise to abuse and arbitrariness, such as wealthy bodies with agendas being fronted by social advocacy groups created for that precise purpose or creating a large number of similar interest groups, thereby accumulating advertising time.”