South Africa: Defamation, Manuel v. Malema in the Supreme Court of Appeal
This post originally appeared on the Musing on Media blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks. It can also be found on Inforrm. The…
This post originally appeared on the Musing on Media blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks. It can also be found on Inforrm. The…
On April 25, 2024, dozens of global free speech advocates joined us for the all-day event at the Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York City,…
Though the judgment of the majority in the present matter does expand expression on merits, the extent to which it does so could have been enlarged had the reasons offered by Judge Power-Forde’s in her partly Dissenting Opinion – on the applicant’s entitlement to more than a mere moral victory due to the anxiety suffered by him on being convicted for exercising his freedom of expression and on the need for the affirmation of the principles established in Colombani and Others v. France [ECHR] (2002) 51279/99 – formed part of the reasoning and decision put forth by the majority.
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.
This interview was conducted by Sara Whyatt for IFEX on 11 November 2016. The interview was originally published on IFEX.org. Sara Whyatt: You have had…
This post was originally published in Strasbourg Observers and is reproduced with permission and thanks. Introduction On 26 March 2020, the European Court of Human…
Amalia De Simone is an Italian investigative journalist. In 2016, she was honoured with the title of Cavaliere della Repubblica Italiana (“Knight of the Italian…
On Tuesday June 23, 2020, booksellers across the United States and around the world were finally able to satisfy the appetite of their readers, when…
This post originally appeared on the Strasbourg Observers blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks On 30 April 2019, in Kablis v. Russia, the European Court’s…