header-logo header-logo

25 January 2007
Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
printer mail-detail

Legal implications for Shilpa and Jade

News

Bullied Celebrity Big Brother (BB) contestant Shilpa Shetty could have a claim in law against production company Endemol UK, says a prominent media lawyer.

Shetty, a Bollywood actress, has been unknowingly caught in the eye of a political storm following public outrage over her ill treatment at the hands of co-contestant Jade Goody.

 Media lawyer Mark Stephens, a partner at Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, says: “Having represented many BB contestants in the past, my focus is the fact that because they are paid to appear, they are workers so benefit from all the protections an employee has in the workplace.”

He says that if a secretary walked into Channel 4’s offices and faced bullying and harassment then they would have a cast-iron claim, and there is no reason to distinguish between that and what Shetty was subjected to.
“I think she would have a good claim against Endemol [the makers of BB],” he adds. “Under broadcasting legislation there may be a breach of Channel 4’s obligation to provide appropriate viewing.

“The whole BB process is about disempowerment. I have represented 16 or 17 contestants and everyone talks about their sense of isolation, the key thing is if you’re in an environment you don’t like at any other point in your life you can go home, shut the door and share the burden with your friends and intimates. In BB you’re in a situation where you’re with people you’ve never met before, you can’t escape, and must befriend and then betray them by nominating, and that is counter-cultural to any normal behaviour.”

However, legal commentator B Mahendra says: “I don’t think there are any legal implications at all. It’s not racial discrimination as such, just shouting insults. I don’t think there could be a prosecution, it’s not primarily racist abuse and for a prosecution to proceed there has to be a 50% chance of conviction and it needs to be in the public interest to pursue the case.”

The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed concern over the programme, and is writing to Channel 4 “to remind them of their legal responsibilities as a public broadcaster, under the terms of the Race Relations Amendment Act, to eliminate racial discrimination, promote racial equality and to promote good relations between people from different racial groups”.

Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
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