31:
180:
Her appeal against conviction was dismissed. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the restriction on her "freedom of expression" was justified because the images were grossly indecent and offensive. The restriction was for the protection of the rights of others, in accordance with the exception of
144:, without the qualification to that right being held to outweigh the right in relation to obscene or offensive hate mail directed as part of a mainstream political campaign.
250:
265:
255:
169:
245:
161:
194:
30:
260:
204:
165:
141:
137:
157:
223:
134:
140:
case, in which the appellant sought to invoke the right to freedom of expression in the
153:
239:
199:
152:
Veronica
Connolly sent graphic images of aborted foetuses to pharmacies. She was a
41:
High Court (Divisional Court), appeal by way of by case stated from magistrates
182:
98:
Qualification to the right of
Freedom of Expression upheld.
164:. She held that the prosecution violated her right to
102:
92:
84:
76:
71:
63:
55:
50:Veronica Connelly v Director of Public Prosecution
45:
37:
23:
114:obscene, grossly indecent or offensive images
8:
29:
20:
215:
172:. She was represented by Paul Diamond.
7:
170:European Convention on Human Rights
251:Human rights in the United Kingdom
224:'Rights case over foetus pictures'
14:
162:Malicious Communications Act 1988
195:UK employment discrimination law
266:2007 in United Kingdom case law
160:. She was prosecuted under the
67:EWHC 237 (Admin); 1 W.L.R. 276
1:
80:Conviction before magistrates
256:High Court of Justice cases
282:
246:English criminal case law
107:
97:
28:
16:English criminal law case
168:under Article 10 of the
120:popular political cause
205:Human Rights Act 1998
166:freedom of expression
142:Human Rights Act 1998
111:freedom of expression
156:who objected to the
138:English criminal law
158:morning-after pill
127:
126:
85:Subsequent action
273:
231:
220:
33:
21:
281:
280:
276:
275:
274:
272:
271:
270:
261:2007 in England
236:
235:
234:
221:
217:
213:
191:
178:
150:
131:Connolly v. DPP
123:
17:
12:
11:
5:
279:
277:
269:
268:
263:
258:
253:
248:
238:
237:
233:
232:
214:
212:
209:
208:
207:
202:
197:
190:
187:
177:
174:
154:Roman Catholic
149:
146:
125:
124:
122:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
105:
104:
100:
99:
95:
94:
90:
89:
86:
82:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
24:Connolly v DPP
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
278:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
243:
241:
229:
225:
219:
216:
210:
206:
203:
201:
200:UK labour law
198:
196:
193:
192:
188:
186:
184:
175:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
147:
145:
143:
139:
135:
133:
132:
119:
116:
113:
110:
109:
106:
101:
96:
93:Case opinions
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
230:(23.01.2007)
227:
218:
179:
151:
130:
129:
128:
77:Prior action
72:Case history
49:
18:
240:Categories
183:Art.9 ECHR
117:hate mail
64:Citations
189:See also
176:Judgment
103:Keywords
56:Decided
136:is an
222:see,
211:Notes
148:Facts
38:Court
88:none
59:2007
228:BBC
242::
226:,
185:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
