Christian radio station to appeal over banned advert

A Christian radio station has promised to appeal after the High Court upheld a ban on an advertisement asking listeners to take part in research on the marginalisation of Christians at work.

Mr Justice Silber, who rejected the application for judicial review, said the advert was rightly refused clearance by the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) on the grounds that it amounted to political advertising.

London Christian Radio (LCR), owner of Premier Radio, wanted to broadcast a statement saying: 'Surveys have shown that over 60 per cent of active Christians consider that Christians are being increasingly marginalised in the workplace.

'We are concerned to get the most accurate data to inform the public debate. We will then use this data to help make a fairer society.'

Peter Kerridge, chief executive of LCR, said in his witness statement that the purpose of the advert was to gather accurate information from Christians to verify an initial survey on the extent of discrimination.

Kerridge said the information obtained would be raised with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the government to make the point that 'there is not the same level of respect and tolerance towards Christians and Christian values and belief as there is for other groups, which, in a pluralistic society, is not acceptable, fair or democratic'.

The RACC refused clearance, on the grounds that advertisements were unacceptable if they sought to influence government policy in any way. LCR argued that, even if its advert fell within the statutory ban, this was incompatible with the radio station's right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the ECHR.

Ruling in R (on the application of London Christian Radio) v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre [2012] EWHC 1043 (Admin), Silber J said it was not in dispute that article 10 was engaged.

He referred to the judgment of the House of Lords in the Animal Defenders case, [2008] UKHL 15, in which the claimant charity campaigned against the use of animals 'to achieve changes in law and public policy'.

The law lords decided that the ban on political advertising in sections 319 and 321 of the Communications Act 2003 was necessary in a democratic society and compatible with article 10.

Mr Justice Silber said that Lord Bingham had explained in the ruling that there is 'a substantial margin of appreciation or deference' owed to the government in such matters.

'So if, which is not the case, I had been in any doubt about whether there had been an infringement on the claimant's article 10 rights, I would have come to the conclusion that such deference would have led to a conclusion that the claimant's article 10 rights had not been infringed,' Silber J said.

He said the culture secretary, who intervened in the LCR case, argued that the proposed advert fell 'fairly and squarely' within section 321 of the Act because it was 'directed towards a political end'.