header-logo header-logo

29 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Boris in bus-ad ban storm

Questions over Mayor’s link to TfL’s ban of controversial bus advert

The Court of Appeal has ordered the High Court to investigate whether the Mayor of London intervened to pull controversial gay-“cure” bus adverts.

The proposed adverts, by Christian charity The Core Issues Trust read “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud, Get Over It”, and were intended as a response to the Stonewall bus adverts, “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

The charity, which supports those who want to “cure” their homosexuality, accused Mayor Boris Johnson of intervening in the decision for political reasons, which would make the decision unlawful. Johnson was due to speak at a hustings organised by gay rights group Stonewall on the day the adverts were blocked. The High Court upheld the ban.

However, Lord Dyson, in the Court of Appeal, pointed to new evidence of an e-mail which “unequivocally” states the Mayor had “instructed” Transport for London (TfL) to ban the advert, and shows the Mayor’s aides immediately contacted The Guardian newspaper. TfL said it had taken the decision to ban the adverts, regardless.

Lord Dyson, giving his decision in R (Core Issues Trust) v TfL [2014] EWCA Civ 34, said: “This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.”

However, he said TfL were entitled to ban the adverts. “The restrictions are justified in view of the prominence of the advertisements and the fact that they would be seen by, and cause offence to, large numbers of the public in central London,” he said.

“Moreover, for those who are gay, the advertisements would be liable to interfere with the right to respect for their private life under Art 8(1).”

He said that to allow the adverts would “involve a breach of [TfL’s] duty to have due regard to the s 149(1) [of the Equality Act] considerations and encourage homophobia and put homosexuals at risk”.

 

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll