Core Issues Trust Ltd, R (on the application of) v Transport for London & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Core Issues Trust sought judicial review of TfL's decision to refuse their advertisement on London buses, arguing the decision was illegal and politically motivated. The High Court affirmed the refusal was consistent with TfL's advertising policy and did not breach human rights. The Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the High Court to reconsider the potential political motivation behind the decision. Subsequently, the High Court ruled that the refusal was lawful and not influenced by an improper purpose to advance the Mayor's electoral campaign.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Lang:
Core Issues Trust (“the Trust”) seeks judicial review of the decision made by Transport for London (“TfL”), on 12 th April 2012, not to allow its advertisement to appear on the outside of its buses.
The wording of the proposed advertisement was:
“NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!
www.anglican-mainstream.net ” www.core-issues.org
The Trust and Anglican Mainstream are Christian organisations which promote the view that, in accordance with the Scriptures, sexual relations should only take place between heterosexual married couples, not homosexuals. The Trust seeks to support those who are unhappy with their homosexuality to manage, reduce and where possible, eliminate homosexual practices and feelings.
Their advertisement was intended to be a response to an advertisement by Stonewall, a campaigning organisation for LGBT (lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender individuals) which had earlier appeared on the outside of TfL’s buses stating:
“SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!”
The reason given for the refusal was that the advertisement was contrary to TfL’s Advertising Policy.
Judgment of the High Court
At a hearing on 22 nd March 2013, I dismissed the Trust’s claim for judicial review . I held that TfL did not act unlawfully in refusing to display the Trust’s advertisement because: [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin)
TfL’s Advertising Policy did not permit advertisements which were controversial or likely to cause widespread or serious offence or which were inconsistent with TfL’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 ; and
the refusal was not a breach of the Trust’s human rights under Articles 9 or 10 of the Convention.
In my judgment, I also rejected the Trust’s submission that the decision had been made for an improper purpose, namely, to advance the Mayor’s electoral campaign. The election was on 3 rd May 2012, and the campaign was underway by 12 th April 2012 when the decision was made. I held:
“58. The appointment of the Mayor as Chairman of TfL, with power to appoint Board members, and to give directions to TfL, creates a potential conflict of interest between the Mayor’s different roles which the Mayor has to be careful to avoid. In my judgment, it was perfectly proper for Mr Johnson, as Chair of TfL, to be involved in the decision-making process on this issue and to express his views to Mr Everitt. But if the motive for the decision was to advance Mr Johnson’s election campaign, at the expense of a p