Take 10 - 13 June 2025

Welcome to RPC's Media and Communications law update. This month's edition on key media developments and the latest cases.

RPC's Media and Communications law update

"Article 10.1: 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."

 Dale Vince's second claim against ANL dismissed 
On 9 June, Mr Justice Swift struck out a second claim brought by Dale Vince over an article published in the Daily Mail and on Mail+ in June 2023.  The article reported on the return of a Labour party donation to a third party accused of sex harassment, and went on to mention Mr Vince's separate Labour party donation, suggesting that he had caused embarrassment to the party by participating in a Just Stop Oil protest that day.  The headline of the article was "'Labour repays £100,000 to "sex harassment" donor'" and the article included two photographs of Mr Vince at the protest. Mr Vince argued that publishees who only saw the headline and photographs would assume that he was the 'sex harassment' donor referred to, but acknowledged that readers of the whole article would understand that he was not.

After ANL applied to strike out Mr Vince's first claim in libel (see our summary here), Mr Vince issued a second claim in June 2024 on the basis that ANL's processing of his personal data was unfair pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR. The libel claim was subsequently struck out by a judgment handed down in July 2024.

ANL applied to strike out the data claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process as per Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 as the claim could and should have been pursued with the libel claim, and/or for summary judgment on the basis that Mr Vince had no prospect of demonstrating that his personal data was processed unfairly. Mr Vince also cross-applied for summary judgment.

In his judgment, Swift J determined that whilst the Henderson principles were not engaged (as the second set of proceedings were issued before the first claim had been finally determined) the second claim nevertheless amounted to an abuse of process pursuant to CPR r.3.4(2)(b) because it could have been brought alongside the libel claim, or introduced by way of an amendment to that claim. The court therefore determined that Mr Vince's actions in bringing a second claim served "only to use the court's process in a way that is unnecessary and is oppressive to Associated Newspapers" [29]. In respect of the summary judgment applications, the court held that the principle of fairness must depend on context and so the entirety of the publication must be considered as per the libel principle in Charleston v NGN [1995] 2 AC 65. Taking into account the entirety of the article, Mr Vince's claim had no real prospect of success so summary judgment was granted in favour of ANL. Swift J also refused permission to appeal, though Mr Vince has suggested publicly that he will seek permission from the Court of Appeal. RPC acts for Associated Newspapers. 

Liverpool parade: reporting restrictions
On 3 June, HHJ Andrew Menary KC lifted reporting restrictions (RROs) that he had earlier put in place to protect the identities of the adult complainants who were injured when a vehicle drove into the crowd at Liverpool's Premier League victory parade on 26 May.

The RROs were imposed under section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Adult witnesses are only eligible for protection pursuant to s.46 if the court is satisfied that the quality of the witness's evidence or their level of co-operation is likely to be diminished by reason of the witness's fear or distress in connection with being identified by members of the public (s.46(3)).  In determining whether to give a reporting direction the court is directed to consider whether it would be in the interests of justice to do so, and the public interest in avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings (s.46(8)).

The prosecution sought a lifetime continuation of the order, supported by witness evidence of or relating to each of the four complainants in which distress and concern about testifying at the trial was expressed [9]. The application was opposed by numerous media publications: their contentions are at [11-13].

HHJ Andrew Menary KC discharged the RROs.  He found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to discharge the s.46 criteria.  In particular, there was no sufficient evidence to suggest identification would diminish their evidence or co-operation [14-15] nor any cogent evidence to suggest that the direction would improve the quality of their evidence [18].  The judge referred to the public nature of the incident and the victims' "apparently blameless" status, both of which made it difficult to see how identification would deter them from testifying. The judge further indicated that, even if the witnesses were eligible pursuant to s.46(3), the RROs would have been lifted in any event pursuant to the s.46(8) balancing exercise [19-21], concluding "the public interest in open and accurate reporting outweighs the potential distress, anxiety or discomfort to these witnesses. The restriction is not necessary or proportionate, nor convincingly established".

OSA: super complaints
Following a consultation on policy proposals between November 2023 and January 2024, the government has, pursuant to ss.169 and 170 OSA, published draft regulations which establish (1) eligibility criteria for entities to submit super-complaints and (2) various procedural matters related to the submission of super-complaints. 

The government's response to the consultation explains that the "objective of the super-complaints regime is to ensure that eligible entitles can make complaints to Ofcom…to make them aware of existing or emerging online harms. This will also support Ofcom’s horizon scanning function, supporting Ofcom in taking an agile approach to regulating online harms. Importantly too, the regime will ensure that eligible entitles can also make Ofcom aware of any action taken by regulated services [RSs] which is significantly adversely impacting users’ rights to freedom of expression."

The draft regulations propose four criteria for entities to be eligible to make a super-complaint: (1) it must represent the interests of users of RSs, or members of the public, or a particular group of such users/members of the public, (2) its composition, governance and accountability must be such that it can be relied upon to act independently from RSs (the fact it receives funding from an RS or that representatives from RSs are involved in its governance will not prevent eligibility), (3) it routinely contributes significantly, as an expert, to public discussions about any aspect of online safety matters, and (4) it can be relied upon to have due regard for any guidance published by Ofcom as per s.171(2) OSA

The regulations are expected to come into force on 31 December 2025 after parliamentary approval.  Further guidance which will assist those looking to submit super-complaints will be published by Ofcom in due course following a further upcoming consultation.

Australia: new privacy law comes into effect
A new statutory tort of 'serious invasion of privacy' came into effect in Australia on 10 June 2025.

The law was introduced by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 and is now contained in Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988.  An individual (P) has a cause of action in the tort where (1) the defendant (D) invaded P's privacy by (i) intruding upon P's seclusion and/or (ii) misusing information related to P, (2) someone in P's position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, (3) the invasion was intentional or reckless, (4) the invasion was serious, and (5) the public interest in P's privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest. 

There are various defences available, including some defences that would ordinarily arise in the context of defamation proceedings where the invasion of privacy involves the publication of information.  Exemptions are also available, including to journalists in certain circumstances.

The major reform follows recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission over concerns that previous legislation was too outdated to protect privacy in the modern world especially considering rapid technological advancements where information, storage, and surveillance are concerned. 

Confidential sources
The family court has published a judgment related to a father's novel attempt in family court proceedings to compel a journalist, Louise Tickle, to confirm who had tipped off the press about a hearing.

Ms Tickle submitted a Statement of Case in response to the application which set out her "understandably strong opposition to any journalist being ordered by a court to reveal their source" and which helpfully summarised key authorities which the court found to be "a powerful reminder of the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society".

The court did not ultimately need to determine the application as it was never formally made and the father made it clear he was not pursuing it. The judgment reports (at Ms Tickle's request) on how the application came about, how it played out and how it was dealt with by the court. 


AI perils 
On 6 June 2025, the President of the King's Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, put out a clear warning to lawyers putting fake AI-generated cases before the court through a Divisional Court judgment determining two cases.  Both cases arose out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative AI to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which were not subsequently checked, with the result that fake legal citations were put before the court.  The judgment comes amid a flurry of recent reports which indicate that AI 'hallucinations' are getting more frequent and more convincing over time, and that the problem will only get worse as AI becomes more advanced.

The judgment confirms that relying on AI research at face value and subsequently putting false material before the court puts both barristers and solicitors at risk of breaching a wide range of professional duties [17-22].  Where such duties are breached, the court's powers include public admonition of the lawyer, the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and (in the most egregious cases) referral to the police for criminal investigation for perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment [23-25].

Meanwhile, the trial of Getty Images v Stability AI kicked off on Monday 9 June.  Getty is suing for copyright and trademark infringement relating to its vast photography archives, which it alleges Stability has used to train its image-gathering technology.  The trial is due to conclude later this month, with judgment – which will undoubtedly set a landmark precedent – expected to follow. 

Unlawful confiscation of journalistic material
A UK journalist, Asa Winstanley, has received a favourable court ruling in a case against the Metropolitan Police which, in October 2024, raided his home and seized his mobile phone and laptop.  Mr Winstanley writes for Palestine-focused website Electronic Intifada and also publishes a Substack called Palestine is Still the Issue.  Approximately ten officers were reportedly present during the raid at Mr Winstanley's London residence, which was prompted following a complaint about posts on X, and which was part of an on-going investigation by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command into alleged offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (support for a proscribed organisation) and sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (distribution of terrorist material).

The recent ruling determined that the devices had been seized unlawfully due to an incorrect search warrant having been obtained, in part due to the devices in question belonging to a journalist.  The Met's retrospective application for a production order to seize journalistic material was rejected.

IPSO: guidance on the reporting of children 
IPSO has published new guidance for journalists on the reporting of children, alongside advice and information for the public.  The guidance sets out the ways in which the Editors' Code of Practice provides children with greater protection than adults, and refers to case studies in order to give practical examples of how journalists can navigate the Code’s requirements.
Key topics include: (i) who can give consent for publication where the material relates to a child's welfare, (ii) court reporting involving children, (iii) reporting child sexual abuse, (iv) relying on children's social media for journalism, (iv) major incidents involving children, (v) interviewing children and (vi) children with disabilities. 

Tommy Robinson 
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) has been released from prison early after receiving an 18-month sentence for contempt of court.  Mr Yaxley-Lennon was convicted after continuing to make allegations about Jamal Hijazi which breached an injunction made following judgment in the libel claim Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon. The 18-month sentence was made up of a 14 month "punitive" element and a 4 month "coercive" element, i.e. 4 months which would be removed from Mr Yaxley-Lennon's sentence if he agreed to comply with the injunction. Mr Yaxley-Lennon initially refused to comply but, while serving his sentence, he had a "change in attitude" which was accepted by the presiding judge. He was subsequently released on 27 May after serving the punitive 14-month period.

Since his release, Mr Yaxley-Lennon has found himself back in the criminal court for the alleged harassment of two MailOnline journalists. He has entered a not guilty plea, has opted for a jury trial, and is now awaiting trial. 

He has also announced plans to organise a “free speech festival”.

OSA: Ofcom enforcement 
On 10 June, Ofcom opened nine formal investigations under the OSA against seven file-sharing services (regarding complaints of child sexual abuse imagery), porn provider First Time Videos (in relation to its age-assurance measures) and the online discussion board 4chan (regarding its duties to protect users from illegal content).

Ofcom is currently analysing the evidence to determine whether any contraventions have occurred. If its assessment indicates compliance failures, the regulator has indicated that next steps will be the issuing of provisional notices of contravention to the service providers, which will then have the opportunity to make representations, before a final decision is made.

 Quote of the fortnight
"There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused. In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities (such as heads of chambers and managing partners) and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services. Those measures must ensure that every individual currently providing legal services within this jurisdiction (whenever and wherever they were qualified to do so) understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence. For the future, in Hamid hearings such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled." 

Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King's Bench Division, in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) (and another), at paragraph 9

Brought to you by RPC's Media team