DOCSLIB.ORG

Contempt of Court: a Consultation Paper (No 209)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contempt of Court: a Consultation Paper (No 209) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 209 CONTEMPT OF COURT A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: To consider the law and procedure on some aspects of contempt of court. This consultation paper addresses: . contempt by publication, . the impact of the new media, . contempts committed by jurors, and . contempt in the face of the court. Geographical scope: This consultation paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: An impact assessment has been published on our website. Online appendices: We have prepared some additional information relevant to this consultation which we have published on our website as a set of appendices, as follows: Appendix A: Background to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 Appendix B: Contempt of Court and the European Convention on Human Rights Appendix C: Contempt in overseas jurisdictions Appendix D: Survey results Appendix E: Jurisdictional basis for a court or tribunal to act on a contempt in its face Appendix F: List of contempts and associated statutory provisions Availability of materials: The consultation paper, appendices and impact assessment are available on our website at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/contempt.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 28 November 2012 to 28 February 2013. Comments may be sent: Online to https://consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/contempt OR By email to [email protected] OR By post to Criminal Law Team, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could also send them electronically (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format). After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide on our final recommendations and present them to Government. iii Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at: https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/consultation-principles-guidance. Freedom of Information statement Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)). If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please explain to us why you regard the information as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in most circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. iv THE LAW COMMISSION CONTEMPT OF COURT CONTENTS Paragraph Page GLOSSARY xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 The need for reform 1.1 1 Background to this project 1.4 1 The way we have worked 1.6 2 The problems we address 1.10 3 This consultation 1.16 3 Acknowledgements 1.18 4 CHAPTER 2: CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION 5 Introduction 2.1 5 The rationale for contempt by publication 2.4 5 Active proceedings under the 1981 Act 2.9 7 Present law 2.9 7 Problems and potential solutions 2.14 7 Substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment under the 2.25 10 1981 Act Who can be prejudiced? 2.25 10 Present law 2.29 12 Substantial risk of serious prejudice 2.30 12 Substantial risk of serious impediment 2.42 15 Problems and potential solutions 2.44 16 Section 5 of the 1981 Act 2.50 18 Present law 2.50 18 v Paragraph Page Problems and potential solutions 2.53 18 Intentional contempt by publication 2.56 19 Evidence and procedure 2.58 20 Present law 2.58 20 Problems and potential solutions 2.60 21 Reporting restrictions under the 1981 Act 2.78 26 Present law: section 4(1) 2.78 26 Present law: section 4(2) 2.82 26 Present law: section 11 2.92 29 Procedure 2.96 30 Problems and potential solutions 2.100 32 Sanctions 2.106 33 Present law 2.106 33 Problems and potential solutions 2.110 35 CHAPTER 3: PUBLICATIONS, PUBLISHERS AND THE NEW 38 MEDIA Introduction 3.1 38 Publication 3.5 39 Speech 3.9 40 Writing 3.10 40 Programme included in a programme service 3.13 40 Communication in whatever form 3.18 42 Addressed to the public at large or any section of the public 3.23 43 Who is responsible for a publication? 3.30 44 The time of the publication 3.50 50 Present law 3.50 50 On what basis is the power to be ordered? 3.80 57 Who might apply to the court for such an 3.83 58 order to be made? What penalty will follow? 3.84 58 vi Paragraph Page Place of publication 3.87 59 CHAPTER 4: JUROR CONTEMPT 62 Introduction 4.1 62 Jury instructions 4.5 64 Jurors seeking information 4.17 68 Present law 4.17 68 The problem 4.21 69 Proposed reforms 4.33 74 Jurors disclosing information 4.41 77 Present law 4.41 77 The problem 4.50 81 Proposed reforms 4.57 84 Evidence and procedure 4.63 86 Present procedure 4.63 86 Problems 4.67 87 Proposed reforms 4.68 88 Preventative measures 4.77 90 Education and pre-trial information 4.78 91 In-trial procedures and judicial directions 4.82 92 CHAPTER 5: CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT 97 Present law 5.2 97 What amounts to contempt in the face of the court 5.2 97 The proscribed conduct 5.3 97 The proscribed circumstance: “in the face 5.7 98 of the court” The proscribed consequence: interference 5.8 98 with the administration of justice The mental element 5.9 99 Recording proceedings 5.11 99 Particular kinds of contemnor 5.14 100 vii Paragraph Page How contempt in the face of the court may be dealt 5.25 103 with Action by the court itself or application to 5.25 103 the Divisional Court Other than by contempt proceedings 5.27 104 By contempt proceedings in the Crown 5.31 105 Court Power to remand on bail or in custody 5.33 105 prior to a finding of contempt Hearsay evidence 5.36 106 Immediate enquiry 5.42 108 Sanctions 5.43 109 Appealing from the Crown Court 5.47 110 Contempt proceedings in the magistrates’ 5.48 110 courts Procedure 5.53 112 Bail procedures in magistrates’ courts 5.56 112 Appealing from the magistrates’ courts 5.57 113 The main problems with the present law 5.58 113 Definition of the offence 5.59 113 Procedural difficulties 5.62 113 The immediate enquiry procedure for dealing with 5.72 115 contempt in the face of the court Contempt in the face of the court as a unique form of 5.83 118 proceedings Provisional proposals for reform 5.86 119 Crown Court 5.86 119 Detention of the alleged contemnor 5.90 120 The maximum penalty 5.100 122 Hearsay evidence 5.101 122 Other aspects of criminal procedure 5.106 123 Magistrates’ courts 5.109 124 Power to suspend an order of committal 5.109 124 viii Paragraph Page Power to adjourn the enquiry into the contempt and power to remand into 5.110 124 custody pending the contempt hearing CHAPTER 6: PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS AND QUESTIONS 125 FOR CONSULTEES Contempt by publication 6.2 125 Contempt under the 1981 Act 6.2 125 Active proceedings 6.2 125 Substantial risk of serious prejudice or 6.6 125 impediment Section 5 6.10 126 Intentional contempt by publication 6.11 126 Evidence and procedure 6.12 126 Reporting restrictions under the 1981 Act 6.18 127 Sanctions 6.20 127 Modern media 6.24 127 Publication 6.24 127 Addressed to the public at large or any section of 6.25 127 the public The time of the publication 6.26 128 Who might apply to the court for such an 6.30 128 order to be made? What penalty will follow? 6.31 128 Place of publication 6.33 129 Juror contempt 6.34 129 Jurors seeking information 6.34 129 Jurors disclosing information 6.35 129 Evidence and procedure 6.37 129 Preventative measures 6.43 130 Education and pre-trial information 6.43 130 In-trial procedures and judicial directions 6.44 130 Contempt in the face of the court 6.53 131 ix Paragraph Page In the Crown Court 6.53 131 In the magistrates’ courts 6.55 132 The immediate enquiry procedure for dealing with 6.56 132 contempt in the face of the court Provisional proposals for reform: Crown Court 6.57 132 Detention of the alleged contemnor 6.58 132 The maximum penalty 6.64 133 Hearsay evidence 6.65 133 Other aspects of criminal procedure 6.66 133 Provisional proposals for reform: magistrates’ courts 6.67 133 Power to suspend an order of committal 6.67 133 Power to adjourn the enquiry into the contempt and power to remand into 6.68 134 custody pending the contempt hearing x GLOSSARY This is a glossary of terms and abbreviations used in this consultation paper.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Adamson 7242107 Phd Thesis Final Submission Sep 2017
    IP in the Corridors of Power A study of lobbying, its impact on the development of intellectual property law, and the implications for the meaning of democracy A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Ben Adamson School of Law Contents Title Page 1 Contents 2 Table of Abbreviations 7 Abstract 8 Declaration 9 Copyright Statement 10 Acknowledgements 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 13 1. What is Lobbying? 15 2. Setting the Scene 16 3. Core Themes 20 3.1 A Model of Democracy 20 3.2 The Importance of Stakeholder Input 21 3.3 Equality of Access and Influence 22 4. A Matter of Method 23 4.1 Quality vs. Quantity 24 4.2 Why Case Studies? 25 4.3 Gathering Data 27 4.4 Style and Substance 28 4.5 Objectivity and Subjectivity – The Balance of Fairness 29 4.6 Questions by Design 30 4.7 Confidentiality & Anonymity 31 5. Thesis Outline 32 Chapter 2: Conceptions of Governance and Democracy: A 34 Contemporary Model of Democracy 2 1. Governance 34 1.1 Definitions of Governance 39 1.2 Complexity and Multiple Actors 45 1.3 Relationships Between Actors & Policy Networks 49 1.4 Policy Networks in the EU Context 58 1.5 Conclusions on Governance 60 2. Democracy 62 2.1 Classical Models of Democracy 63 2.2 Organisations as Citizens? 69 2.3 Pluralism 75 2.4 A Minimal Role for the State? 82 2.5 Participation By All? 84 2.6 Towards A Working Model? 88 2.7 Wealth and Equality 89 2.8 Wealth, Equality and Lobbying 97 2.9 MPs: Delegates or Trustees? 101 2.10 All Party Groups 102 2.11 Who to Lobby? 102 2.12 Opening Up Access 104 2.13 The Media 105 2.14 Digital Media and Participation 107 2.15 Concluding Remarks 110 3.
    [Show full text]
  • “Site Blocking” to Reduce Online Copyright Infringement
    “Site Blocking” to reduce online copyright infringement A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has redacted some parts of this document where it refers to techniques that could be used to circumvent website blocks. There is a low risk of this information being useful to people wanting to bypass or undermine the Internet Watch Foundation‟s blocks on child sexual abuse images. The text in these sections has been blocked out. Advice Date: 27 May 2011 1 Contents Section Page 1. Executive summary 3 2. Introduction 9 3. Understanding how the internet operates 17 4. Blocking sites 26 5. Effectiveness of Section 17 & 18 46 6. Conclusion 50 Annex Page 1 Technical Glossary 52 2 Whois domain privacy service output 54 Section 1 1. Executive summary The Secretary of State has asked Ofcom to consider a number of questions related to the blocking of sites to reduce online copyright infringement. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked Ofcom to report on certain technical matters relating to sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). Sections 17 and 18 provide the Secretary of State with the power to grant the Courts the ability to require service providers, including internet service providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries, to prohibit access to sites on the internet that are found to be infringing copyright. Specifically, we have been asked to consider the following questions: Is it possible for internet service providers to block site access? Do
    [Show full text]
  • Lancaster Castle: the Rebuilding of the County Gaol and Courts
    Contrebis 2019 v37 LANCASTER CASTLE: THE REBUILDING OF THE COUNTY GAOL AND COURTS John Champness Abstract This paper details the building and rebuilding of Lancaster Castle in the late-eighteenth and early- nineteenth centuries to expand and improve the prison facilities there. Most of the present buildings in the Castle date from a major scheme of extending the County Gaol, undertaken in the last years of the eighteenth century. The principal architect was Thomas Harrison, who had come to Lancaster in 1782 after winning the competition to design Skerton Bridge (Champness 2005, 16). The scheme arose from concern about the unsatisfactory state of the Gaol which was largely unchanged from the medieval Castle (Figure 1). Figure 1. Plan of Lancaster Castle taken from Mackreth’s map of Lancaster, 1778 People had good reasons for their concern, because life in Georgian gaols was somewhat disorganised. The major reason lay in how the role of gaols had been expanded over the years in response to changing pressures. County gaols had originally been established in the Middle Ages to provide short-term accommodation for only two groups of people – those awaiting trial at the twice- yearly Assizes, and convicted criminals who were waiting for their sentences to be carried out, by hanging or transportation to an overseas colony. From the late-seventeenth century, these people were joined by debtors. These were men and women with cash-flow problems, who could avoid formal bankruptcy by forfeiting their freedom until their finances improved. During the mid- eighteenth century, numbers were further increased by the imprisonment of ‘felons’, that is, convicted criminals who had not been sentenced to death, but could not be punished in a local prison or transported.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Death in a Digital Age: Post
    Publishing Office Aims and scope Abramis Academic ASK House Communication ethics is a discipline that supports communication Northgate Avenue practitioners by offering tools and analyses for the understanding of Bury St. Edmunds ethical issues. Moreover, the speed of change in the dynamic information Suffolk environment presents new challenges, especially for communication IP32 6BB practitioners. UK Tel: +44 (0)1284 700321 Ethics used to be a specialist subject situated within schools of philosophy. Fax: +44 (0)1284 717889 Today it is viewed as a language and systematic thought process available Email: [email protected] to everyone. It encompasses issues of care and trust, social responsibility and Web: www.abramis.co.uk environmental concern and identifies the values necessary to balance the demands of performance today with responsibilities tomorrow. Copyright All rights reserved. No part For busy professionals, CE is a powerful learning and teaching approach that of this publication may be reproduced in any mate- encourages analysis and engagement with many constituencies, enhancing rial form (including pho- relationships through open-thinking. It can be used to improve organization tocopying or storing it in performance as well as to protect individual well-being. any medium by electronic means, and whether or not transiently or incidentally Submissions to some other use of this Papers should be submitted to the Editor via email. Full details on submission – publication) without the along with detailed notes for authors – are available online in PDF format: written permission of the www.communication-ethics.net copyright owner, except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Subscription Information Designs and Patents Act Each volume contains 4 issues, issued quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Gambaccini
    2017­6­12 An Evening With Paul Gambaccini An Evening With Paul Gambaccini By Alexander Baron ­ Oct 31, 2015 Paul Gambaccini 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 18 6 0 SHARES a d y n f h k m Paul Gambaccini may be a DJ, radio presenter and noted musicologist, but when he turned up at the Law Society Hall in London’s Chancery Lane on Thursday night, the last thing on his mind was entertainment. With him on the stage was Christopher Jefferies, and sitting between them was Owen Bowcott, Legal Affairs Correspondent of the Guardian newspaper. If the name Chris Jefferies is not familiar to you, he was in the news five years ago for all the wrong reasons. The retired teacher owns several properties in the Bristol area, and when one of his tenants was found murdered, he was an obvious suspect; families, friends and acquaintances along with any enemies of the victim always are. It was not unreasonable that he was arrested, but for reasons that need not concern us here he was subjected to considerable vilification by the tabloids which would clearly have prejudiced his trial had he been charged. https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/tln/An%20Evening%20With%20Paul%20Gambaccini­.html 1/6 2017­6­12 An Evening With Paul Gambaccini After he was released on police bail, another suspect came to light. Vincent Tabak would eventually be convicted of the murder of Joanna Yeates, and there is no uncertainty about his guilt. While Mr Jefferies was accused of a real crime, Paul Gambaccini was accused of an entirely imaginary one, and although it was a far less serious allegation, it would still have destroyed his life had it stuck.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform in England
    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing Be Regulated Without Impeding the Digital Revolution?
    CYBER PIRACY: CAN FILE SHARING BE REGULATED WITHOUT IMPEDING THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION? Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester Michael Robert Filby School of Law University of Leicester May 2012 Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing be Regulated without Impeding the Digital Revolution? Abstract This thesis explores regulatory mechanisms of managing the phenomenon of file sharing in the online environment without impeding key aspects of digital innovation, utilising a modified version of Lessig’s modalities of regulation to demonstrate significant asymmetries in various regulatory approaches. After laying the foundational legal context, the boundaries of future reform are identified as being limited by extra-jurisdictional considerations, and the regulatory direction of legal strategies to which these are related are linked with reliance on design-based regulation. The analysis of the plasticity of this regulatory form reveals fundamental vulnerabilities to the synthesis of hierarchical and architectural constraint, that illustrate the challenges faced by the regulator to date by countervailing forces. Examination of market-based influences suggests that the theoretical justification for the legal regulatory approach is not consistent with academic or policy research analysis, but the extant effect could impede openness and generational waves of innovation. A two-pronged investigation of entertainment industry-based market models indicates that the impact of file sharing could be mitigated through adaptation of the traditional model, or that informational decommodification could be harnessed through a suggested alternative model that embraces the flow of free copies. The latter model demonstrates how the interrelationships between extant network effects and sub-model externalities can be stimulated to maximise capture of revenue without recourse to disruption.
    [Show full text]
  • CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007
    CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007 Promoting Improvement in Criminal Justice HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007 Promoting Improvement in Criminal Justice HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Report 2007 ABBREVIATIONS Common abbreviations used in this report are set out below. Local abbreviations are explained in the report. ABM Area Business Manager HMCPSI Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ABP Area Business Plan JDA Judge Directed Acquittal AEI Area Effectiveness Inspection JOA Judge Ordered Acquittal ASBO Anti-Social Behaviour Order JPM Joint Performance Monitoring BCU Basic Command Unit or Borough Command Unit LCJB Local Criminal Justice Board BME Black and Minority Ethnic MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements CCP Chief Crown Prosecutor MG3 Form on which a record of the CJA Criminal Justice Area charging decision is made CJS Criminal Justice System NCTA No Case to Answer CJSSS Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, NRFAC Non Ring-Fenced Administrative Summary Costs CJU Criminal Justice Unit NWNJ No Witness No Justice CMS Case Management System OBTJ Offences Brought to Justice CPIA Criminal Procedure and OPA Overall Performance Assessment Investigations Act PCD Pre-Charge Decision CPO Case Progression Officer PCMH Plea and Case Management Hearing CPS Crown Prosecution Service POCA Proceeds of Crime Act CPSD CPS Direct PTPM Prosecution Team Performance CQA Casework
    [Show full text]
  • A Supreme Court's Place in the Constitutional Order: Contrasting Recent Experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom
    A Supreme Court's Place in the Constitutional Order: Contrasting Recent Experiences in Canada and the United Kingdom Paul Daly" In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6 that its position at the apex of the judicialsystem was constitutionally entrenched. It did so by interpreting its own history and developing a narrative that emphasized both the critical importance of section 6 in protecting Quebec's distinct interests and legal tradition, and the Court's position as domestic rights protector. The author analyzes this narrativeand argues that the Court'sentrenchment within the Constitution Act, 1982 was not as inevitable 2015 CanLIIDocs 5258 as its reasoning suggests. The article then turns its attention to the newly established United Kingdom Supreme Court and its role pre-and post-adoption of the Human Rights Act 1998. The authorpulls out themes in the Court's recent judgments-which suggest a move awayfrom the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Strasbourg Court and a desire to return to British common law traditions-andan emerging narrativethat resembles that of its Canadiancounterpart. The author then compares the narrativesdeveloped by the two courts to predicthow the United Kingdom Supreme Court might in the future interpret its own role as the guardian of its legal tradition. * Associate Dean and Faculty Secretary, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal. Special thanks to Marie-France Fortin and Matthew Harrington for discussion. I am indebted to the two anonymous reviewers and fear only that my revisions do not do justice to the excellent and thoughtful comments they produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Television and Media Concentration
    •• IRIS Special Edited by the European Audiovisual Observatory TelevisionTelevision andand MediaMedia ConcentrationConcentration Regulatory Models on the National and the European Level TELEVISION AND MEDIA CONCENTRATION IRIS Special: Television and Media Concentration Regulatory Models on the National and the European Level European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2001 ISBN 92-871-4595-4 Director of the Publication: Wolfgang Closs, Executive Director of the European Audiovisual Observatory E-mail: [email protected] Editor and Coordinator: Dr. Susanne Nikoltchev (LL.M. EUI and U of M) Legal Expert of the European Audiovisual Observatory E-mail: [email protected] Partner Organisations that contributed to IRIS Special: Television and Media Concentration IViR – Institute of European Media Law EMR – Institute of European Media Law Rokin 84, NL-1012 KX Amsterdam Nell-Breuning-Allee 6, D-66115 Saarbrücken Tel.: +31 (0) 20 525 34 06 Tel.: +49 (0) 681 99275 11 Fax: +31 (0) 20 525 30 33 Fax: +49 (0) 681 99275 12 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] CMC – Communications Media Center MMLPC – Moscow Media Law and Policy Center New York Law School Mokhovaya 9, 103914 Moscow 57 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013 Russian Federation USA Tel./Fax: +7 (0) 503 737 3371 Tel.: +1 212 431 2160 E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 212 966 2053 [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Proofreaders: Florence Pastori, Géraldine Pilard-Murray, Candelaria van Strien-Reney Translators: Brigitte Auel, France Courrèges, Christopher
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Statutes
    Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434
    [Show full text]