GB News Limited, R (on the application of) v Office of Communications
[2024] EWHC 2658 (Admin)
Mark Steyn, R (on the application of) v Office of Communications
31 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2028 (Admin)
High Court
Mark Steyn's show on GB News got in trouble with Ofcom, the UK media regulator. Ofcom said Steyn's show presented misleading information about Covid vaccines and didn't warn viewers about the potentially harmful things said. A judge agreed with Ofcom, saying it's important to be free to speak, but not to spread lies that can hurt people. So, Steyn lost his case.
Key Facts
- •Mark Steyn brought judicial review claims against Ofcom concerning two decisions related to his GB News show.
- •The first claim challenged Ofcom's decision regarding a monologue ('The Steyn Line') criticizing the Covid-19 vaccine booster program.
- •The second claim challenged Ofcom's decision regarding an interview with Naomi Wolf, which contained strong criticism of the vaccine rollout.
- •Ofcom found both the monologue and the interview breached broadcasting codes: the monologue for materially misleading the audience (Rule 2.2), and the interview for failing to provide adequate protection from harmful material (Rule 2.1).
- •Steyn argued Ofcom's decisions were flawed due to improper factual findings and breached his freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR).
Legal Principles
Freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions in a democratic society.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10
Courts apply a 'close and penetrating examination' to justifications for restricting freedom of speech, particularly concerning political speech.
R (TV-Novosti) v Ofcom [2021] EWCA Civ 1543
Weight is given to the opinion of specialist regulators like Ofcom, but courts will intervene if the regulator has 'obviously gone wrong'.
R (TV-Novosti) v Ofcom [2021] EWCA Civ 1543; Gaunt v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR SE15
The distinction between fact and opinion in defamation law is not directly applicable to Ofcom's broadcasting code.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
Ofcom's broadcasting code aims to balance freedom of expression with the protection of the public from harm. Potential harm is sufficient for regulatory action; actual harm need not be proven.
Communications Act 2003, sections 3, 319; Ofcom Broadcasting Code, sections 2.1, 2.2
Outcomes
Both claims were dismissed.
Ofcom's decisions were deemed proportionate and did not 'obviously go wrong'. The monologue materially misled the audience by misrepresenting statistical data about vaccine effectiveness, and the interview failed to provide adequate protection against potentially harmful claims.
Ofcom's decision regarding the monologue (breach of Rule 2.2) upheld.
Steyn's presentation of statistical data, without acknowledging inherent biases and caveats, materially misled the audience. The potential harm was the discouragement of vaccination.
Ofcom's decision regarding the interview (breach of Rule 2.1) upheld.
Wolf's claims of 'mass murder' through the vaccine rollout, presented without challenge or context, were potentially harmful. The lack of challenge, despite Wolf's views being presented as authoritative, constituted a breach of the code.