The post you are reporting:
OK, this Legal Opinion of a QC is thorough, as they often are. On my quick read through I have lit upon these two main points, laid out below:First that the Bill, is harmful and second that in it's present form may well contravene EU law, as set out in detail by the QC...
"14
ISSUES
Whether the Bill will affect charities and voluntary organisations
60.
In my view, it is beyond doubt that PPERA ( Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) does - and the amendments proposed by Part II of the Bill will - affect charitable and voluntary organisations' ability to undertake political/policy lobbying and campaigning. "...
95. There are two reasons, therefore, why in my view PPERA as amended by Part II of the Bill
may fall foul of Article 10 ECHR.
96. The first is that the restriction on freedom of expression must be 'prescribed by law', but -
for the reasons I have set out above - I consider the proposed framework lacks sufficient
clarity to give it the 'quality of law'. For Convention purposes 'law' must have the necessary
qualities of accessibility and foreseeability to enable those affected to regulate their
conduct by reference to it (see eg Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245 at [49]:
"Firstly, the law must be adequately accessible: the citizens must be able to have an
indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case.
Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as 'law' unless it is formulated
with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct".
97. Given the lack of clarity about what is meant by 'for political purposes', and the as to the
length of the 'relevant period', it is not possible to say with sufficient certainty what steps
must be taken in relation to recording and reporting expenditure associated with particular
activity in advance, so as to enable organisations to avoid criminal penalty.
98. This uncertainty about what the law requires is likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of
expression, by putting small organisations and their trustees/directors in fear of criminal
penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern with a view to affecting
the law on relevant issues.
99. Secondly, the restrictions and restraints are so wide and so burdensome as arguably to
amount to a disproportionate restraint on freedom of expression, notwithstanding the
legitimate aim of ensuring equality between candidates so that all voices can be heard in an
election. That is particularly the case given that they affect advertising 'in any form' - unlike
Animal Defenders, these restrictions do not just go to one medium. It is very far from clear,
given the Parliamentary timetable, that there has been any proper consideration of the
impact of this decision on freedom of expression and participation in policy debates by civil
society bodies.
100.
In my view, therefore, there is a serious case for saying that the proposals in Part II
of the Bill as it presently stands violate the right to freedom of political expression.
HELEN MOUNTFIELD QC
Matrix Chambers
30 August 2013"
