PRIVY COUNCIL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 45, 21 January 1938, Page 7

PRIVY COUNCIL

IMPORTANT RULING. RACING BROADCASTS. AUSTRALIAN CASE. (United Press Association—By Electric T elegraph.—Copyright.) Received January 21, 10.0 a.m. LONDON, Jan. 19. The Privy Council has refused the Victoria Park Racing Club, Sydney, leave to appeal in the broadcasting case which was listed as . “the Victoria Park Racing Company, Ltd., against George Taylor and Cyril Angles, and the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation, Ltd.” The Victoria Park Racing Club appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the decision of the Commonwealth High Court in a case involving the right of a person overlooking a racecourse to broadcast a commentary on the racing. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., on„behalf of the club, said that the owner of tho land adjoining the course had erected a tower from which a person with field glasses could view the racing and broadcast a minute description of it. The result undoubtedly was that persons who used to pay for. admission abstained, and were content to listen to the broadcast. The club contended that it was not a natural use of the land. The chairman (Lord Russell) • said that the landowner was using his land in a “placeable” way. Sif William Jowitt: That is so, but it is not natural and has caused damage. Sir William said that there was no such thing as the absolute right of the landowner to privacy, but it was a complete fallacy, because of that, to say that there was the. right on the other side of unlimited overlooking. Lord Russell said the use of the land in the * way complained of did not interfere with the enjoyment of the people who went to the racecourse. klr I- F. Abrahams, the Australian K.C., for respondents, said that no one attending a race meeting might bo aware of the broadcasting. It could not be said that what was happening interfered with their use and enjoyment on the racecourse. Its only effect related to the people not on the land. QUESTION OF “STEALING.” Sir William Jowitt said there was a danger of it being thought -that, because the English law did not allow perfect privacy ; anybody, by means of modern inventions like broadcasting and television, could “steal”—for it was little more—that which other 'people provided without the expense of organising the entertainment tlijgmselves. He suggested that if that were the law grievous harm might be done. It wa6 most desirable that the matter, which did not exclusively concern Australia, should be decided. Lord Russell said he did not think this was a case in which he could give leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed. Lord Russell, Lord Bonier, and Sir George Rankin heard the application. The decision carries costs. „