Omid Scobie cites Human Rights Act over Piers Morgan Ofcom ruling

Omid Scobie cites Human Rights Act over Piers Morgan Ofcom ruling
Omid Scobie cites Human Rights Act over Piers Morgan Ofcom ruling

Royal author Omid Scobie's suggestion that Ofcom could have broken the Human Rights Act by clearing Piers Morgan over his comments about Meghan Markle was today dismissed by a legal expert.

The watchdog found Good Morning Britain was not in breach of its code after Mr Morgan said that he 'didn't believe a word' of what Meghan told Oprah Winfrey.

But Mr Scobie said he questioned the decision because 'freedom of expression' under the 1998 Act is subject to the restriction of 'protection of health or morals'.

However, a human rights barrister insisted Mr Morgan is not a public authority so is not himself bound by the Human Rights Act, and therefore cannot have breached it.

Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers in London, added that Ofcom had not breached its duties under the Act after it gave a 'detailed and reasoned' response. 

Royal author Omid Scobie is pictured speaking on ITV's This Morning programme today

Royal author Omid Scobie is pictured speaking on ITV's This Morning programme today

Ofcom found Good Morning Britain was not in breach of its code after Piers Morgan (pictured on the programme) said that he 'didn't believe a word' of what Meghan told Oprah Winfrey

Ofcom found Good Morning Britain was not in breach of its code after Piers Morgan (pictured on the programme) said that he 'didn't believe a word' of what Meghan told Oprah Winfrey

Mr Scobie, who co-authored Prince Harry and Meghan's biography Finding Freedom, is a trusted media contact of the Sussexes and often defends them in the public eye.

Mr Scobie tweeted today: 'Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of speech ensures everyone in UK 'has the right to freedom of expression.'

What the Human Rights Act actually says about freedom of expression 

Human Rights Act 1998

Article 10 - Freedom of Expression 

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. 

This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Advertisement

'But it is not absolute - that freedom can also be subject to laws and 'formalities, conditions, restrictions… necessary in a democratic society'. 

'One of those restrictions is 'protection of health or morals', which makes me question Ofcom's decision.

'While everyone should be free to express opinion on public figures, discrediting a person's mental health issues on TV reinforced a dangerous stigma and put others at risk.'

Replying to a comment by one of his 71,000 followers, Mr Scobie later added: 'It sets a worrying precedent for Ofcom to be giving the nod to this kind of commentary.' 

Mr Scobie, who works for Harper's Bazaar, did not make clear if he was suggesting that Ofcom had breached the Act with its judgement, or that Mr Morgan had breached the Act with his comments.

Mr Morgan himself also weighed in on Mr Scobie's comments on Twitter this afternoon, telling him: 'Pipe down,

read more from dailymail.....

NEXT In news vacuum, rumours and concern swirl over Catherine mogaznewsen