or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of
the judiciary.”
CASE OF THE SUNDAY TIMES VS. THE UNITED
KINGDOM, JUDGEMENT (26 APRIL 1979)
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
THALIDOMIDE
 a sedative drug particularly for expectant
mothers between 1958-1961.
 Developed by the Federal Republic of Germany
and Manufactured and marketed by Distillers
Company (Biochemicals) Limited.(“Distillers”)
 British trials(January 1958)- it has been foud out
that the drug suppressed the work of the
THYROID GLAND and its method of action is
unknown.
ARTICLE 10, European Convention of of Human
Rights-
“ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas
without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries
with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject
to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary
in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for
the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of
the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence,
CASE SUMMARY
The European Court of Human Rights held that an
injunction restraining the Sunday Times from
publishing an article related to a settlement being
negotiated out of court violated its freedom of
expression. In 1972 the British newspaper
the Sunday Times published articles concerning the
settlement negotiations for the “thalidomide
children,” following pregnant women’s’ use of the
drug thalidomide which resulted in severe birth
defects. The newspaper had criticized the settlement
proposals and subsequently, an injunction was
issued based on the claim that future publications
would constitute contempt of court. Although the
Court found that the interference was proscribed by
law and pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding
the impartiality and authority of the judiciary, it was
not necessary in a democratic society. The Court
observed that the right to freedom of expression
guarantees not only the freedom of the press to
inform the public but also the right of the public to be
properly informed, and the thalidomide disaster was
a matter of undisputed public concern. The court
noted that the proposed article was moderate and
balanced in its arguments on a topic that had been
widely debated in society and therefore the risk of
undermining the authority of the judiciary was
minimal. The Court concluded that the interference
did not correspond to a social need sufficiently
pressing to outweigh the public interest in freedom of
expression within the meaning of the European
Convention.
FACTS: (History)
 In 1961, a number of women who had taken
thalidomide during pregnancy gave birth to
children suffering from severe deformities; in
course in time there were some 45o such births
in all. Distillers withdrew all drugs containing
thalidomide from the British market in the same
year.
 Writs against Distillers were issued, by parents
of 70 of the deformed children on their own and
on their children’s behalf.
 They contend that the cause of the deformities
was the effect on the FOETUS of thalidomide
administered to the mother during pregnancy.
 Several of those cases were settled ; however,
there were some that did not settle , and
throughout 1968, various other actions were
filed against Distillers. By the end of 1971, there
were 389 claims that had been filed against the
company.
 While these actions were being litigated, there
were newspaper articles and reports that were
being published regarding these actions and the
birth defects.
 In particular, The Sunday Times published
an article on September 24, 1972, titled
“Our Thalidomide Children: A Cause for
National Shame.”
 The article discussed the settlements and
characterized such offers as “grotesquely out of
proportion to the injuries suffered.” [para. 11]
 Furthermore, the article criticized English law
regarding the recovery and assessment of
damages among other things.
 In a footnote to this article there was an
announcement that a another article would be
published in order to uncover in more depth the
cause of these birth defects.
 In November 17, 1972, the Divisional Court of
the Queen’s Bench granted an injunction in
order to restrain the publication of the future
article and that its publication would constitute
contempt of court.
 The Sunday Times filed a motion for the
injunction to be removed but it was unsuccessful.
At the same time, several members in
Parliament and newspaper articles were
debating the same issues that were the subject of
the restricted article.
 Finally in 1976, the injunction was lifted.
ISSUES:
 Was the interference prescribed by law?
 Did the interference have aims that are
legitimate under Article 10 para 2?
 Was the interference necessary in a democratic
society for maintaining the authority of the
judiciary?
DECISION OVERVIEW
 The Court first discussed the issue of contempt
of law. The applicants argued that the law of
contempt of court was so vague and uncertain
and the principles enunciated by that decision so
novel that the restraint imposed could not be
regarded as “prescribed by law”. [para. 46]
 The Court observed that the word “law” in the
expression “prescribed by law” covers not only
statute but also unwritten law. [para 47].
 The Court held that there are two
“requirements that flow from the expression
‘prescribed by law.’” [para. 47]
 First, “the law must be adequately
accessible”; and second, “a norm cannot
be regarded as ‘law’.” [para. 47] In this
manner, the Court stated that
“assumptions and guesses do not suffice,”
and rather “the application of legal rules
must be given to any case.” [para. 47]
 Thus, “the law must be formulated with
sufficient precision to enable the citizen to
regulate his conduct,” by being able to foresee
what is reasonable and what type of
consequences an action may cause. [para. 47].
 Using this standard, the Court held “that the
applicants were able to foresee, to a degree that
was reasonable in the circumstances, the
consequences of publication of the draft article.”
[paras. 51, 52]
 Therefore, while there was indeed an
interference with the applicants’ right to freedom
of expression, it was an interference that was
prescribed by law within the meaning of Article
10.

 Next, the Court analyzed whether the restriction

pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary
within a democratic society.

 The Court found that indeed the interference

with the applicant’s freedom of expression
pursued a legitimate aim because the
interference sought to maintain an objective
judiciary and the potential recourse that
Distillers could find in the courts.

 Second, the Court found that such

interference did not meet the “necessary
within a democratic society” standard
because “the inference…did not
correspond to a social need sufficiently
pressing to outweigh the public interest in
freedom of expression within the
meaning of the Convention.” [para.
67] Therefore, the Court held that there
had been a violation of Article 10 of the
ECHR.