The House of Lords yesterday delivered its decision in Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1999  UKHL 34.
The case dealt with an application by the BBC to broadcast a programme identifying an accused person acquitted of criminal charges that might be subject to re-trial. (The UK introduced provisions a few years ago in Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 overturning the common-law prohibition on re-trial, based on the double-jeopardy rule.)
The Lords previously ordered that D’s identity should be kept anonymous.
On the Attorney-General’s reference, the Lords considered Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression and communication) under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (Those provisions are similar, to s 13 and s 15, respectively, of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.)
The Lords considered the balance between these competing rights favoured the BBC, and held that the earlier anonymity order should be discharged.
I’m not sure if this case is directly relevant to Victoria’s charter, because our charter applies only to natural people, not to corporations.
Nevertheless, it’s an interesting example of the balancing act courts perform when considering competing rights.