License for UK Community Radio Station Revoked

Update: 12 Oct 2017 State replied
Year 28 Jul 2017 Country United Kingdom Category Other acts having chilling effects on media freedom Source of threat State Partner Article 19 Alert level Level 2
28 Jul 2017 United Kingdom Other acts having chilling effects on media freedom State Article 19 Level 2

On 27 July 2017, Ofcom, the UK regulatory authority for audiovisual media, revoked the community radio licence held by Iman FM, due to "extremely serious breaches of the Broadcasting Code, after [Iman FM] aired material likely to incite or encourage the commission of crime or to lead to disorder". The decision is related to the broadcast of a series of lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American radical Muslim cleric. Ofcom launched an investigation into the station, following a complaint from a member of the public at the beginning of July. The radio station's service was suspended on 4 July; and on 27 July, Ofcom issued a decision stating that it will not be reinstated. According to Ofcom's decision, the breach of the Broadcasting Code was particularly serious: the broadcast lectures are clearly extremist, coming from a known figure identified as a terrorist by the United States. Ofcom stated that Iman FM had demonstrated "a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic requirements of compliance in broadcasting", and that a failure to revoke the license would "put listeners and the general public at risk." Ofcom further noted that, although there is no evidence that Iman FM intended to incite crime, the station's failure to fully listen to or check the source of materials that it broadcast "fell substantially below the standards expected of a responsible broadcaster, including one that is run by a team of volunteers." Iman FM has admitted it made a mistake broadcasting the lectures and has issued an apology for it. Freedom of expression groups have raised concerns that Ofcom's decision is disproportionate.

State replies

12 Oct 2017 : Response from the United Kingdom Government

CONTACT US

Follow us   

Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.
Twitter feed Twitter feed
Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Partners Partners

CONTACT US

Follow us