Radio station loses case over ‘political’ appeal to marginalised Christians

A radio station lost its challenge in the High Court yesterday against a ban on an advertisement seeking information on Christians who feel “marginalised” at work.

The proposed 30-second ad for Premier Christian Radio was intended to urge listeners to report their experiences as part of a campaign for “a fairer society”.

But a judge ruled that the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) acted lawfully when it banned the ad.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The RACC, which decides whether individual ads meet the radio advertising standards code, said the ad should not be aired because it was “directed to a political end”, and broadcasting it would infringe provisions of the 2003 Communications Act that ban political advertising.

The legal challenge was brought by London Christian Radio Ltd, which runs Premier, a national station. It was backed by religious magazine publishers Christian Communications Partnership (CCP).

At a hearing in March their QC, James Dingemans, described the ad as “about the most inoffensive proposed ad one could hope to get”.

Mr Dingemans said if the ad was in breach of the 2003 Act, then the relevant sections of the Act should be declared “incompatible” with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Justice Silber, sitting in London, ruled there was no Article 10 infringement and the RACC decision was both “rational and lawful”.

He declared the ad was political and would contravene the prohibition on political advertising as it was intended to obtain information in a bid “to try to make changes to society”.

The judge said Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who has overall responsibility for advertising, had opposed London Christian Radio’s application for judicial review.

But the judge stressed that it had not been suggested in any way that the Secretary of State’s stance was “anti-Christian”, or that his reasoning would not apply to any other religion.

“Indeed nothing in this judgment is meant to preclude advertisements by bodies such as the claimant in, for example, newspapers.”

Related topics: