Strona główna Prawo Komitet Praw Człowieka Avon Lovell vs. Australia - Komitet nie przychylił się do wniosków skarżącego o naruszenie wolności

Od 1 stycznia 2018 r. strona nie jest aktualizowana.

Tematyka wolności słowa została przeniesiona na stronę główną
Helsińskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka, dostępną na:

Avon Lovell vs. Australia - Komitet nie przychylił się do wniosków skarżącego o naruszenie wolności PDF Drukuj Email

Facts :
The author of the communication dated 21 December 1999, is Avon Lovell, an Australian citizen, currently residing in Greenwood, Western Australia. He claims to be a victim of violations by Australia of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 5, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is not represented by counsel.

The author was retained as an industrial advocate by a trade union, the Communications, Electrical, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Workers' Union of Australia, Engineering and Electric Division, Western Australia Branch (CEPU), when it became involved in industrial action against Hamersley Iron PTY Ltd (Hamersley) in 1992. Hamersley, represented by the law firm Freehill, Hollingdale and Page (Freehill), commenced civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the CEPU and a number of its officials, seeking injunctions and compensatory damages on a number of grounds. During these proceedings, Hamersley was required to make available for discovery by the CEPU and its officials all relevant documents for which privilege could not be claimed. These documents were obtained and inspected by the author and the CEPU. Included in these documents were five documents, in relation to which Hamersley alleged that the author and the CEPU, by revealing their contents publicly in a radio interview, in newspaper articles and in a series of briefings prepared for distribution to members of the CEPU and other unions, and by using them contrary to the rules of discovery, had committed contempt of court.

On 22 May 1998, the author and the CEPU were convicted at first instance in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (three judges) on two accounts of contempt of court.
On 29 October 1999, the author was denied Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia. His application was dismissed on two grounds; first, that there was no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Supreme Court; and secondly, that the case was not considered a suitable vehicle for determining the question of principle sought to be agitated by the applicants because it appeared unlikely that a decision of an appeal would require a determination of that issue. With this, the author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies. 

Decision on admissibility :

With regard to the author's claim under article 19 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has submitted sufficient arguments to substantiate for purposes of admissibility, that the fact that he was convicted and fined for publishing documents that had previously been referred to in open court, may raise issues under this article.
The Committee therefore decides that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 19 of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee observes that any restriction of the freedom of expression pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 19 must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided for by law, it must address one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 3(a) and (b) of article 19, and must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose.
The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of any of the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Uchwała Komitetu Praw Człowieka w sprawie Avon Lovell vs. Australia

pomorskie zachodniopomorskie warmińsko-mazurskie podlaskie mazowieckie kujawsko-pomorskie lubuskie wielkopolskie łódzkie dolnośląskie opolskie śląskie świętokrzyskie małopolskie podkarpackie lubelskie