Mrs. Justice Collins Rice DBE CB heard the matter of GB News v. Ofcom ([2025] EWHC 460 (Admin)) in the High Court (Administrative Court). A ruling by the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, was contested by GB News Ltd. The ruling was rendered on February 28, 2025. It will prove to be a pivotal judgement in defining the limits of broadcasting in the UK.
GB News vs Ofcom Judicial Review
In the case of GB News Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v. The Office of Communications (Ofcom) [2025] EWHC 460 (Admin), GB News filed a judicial review against Ofcom’s ruling that two editions of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation violated the Broadcasting Code’s requirements for news reporting impartiality. The High Court (Administrative Court) heard the matter in January 2025 before Mrs. Justice Collins Rice DBE CB, and on February 28, 2025, a judgement was rendered.
Background
Launched in 2021, GB News aimed to subvert the conventions of mainstream media by offering a different approach to news reporting, which included using current politicians as presenters. The aforementioned programmes, which aired on May 9, 2023, and June 13, 2023, included live interviews and breaking news updates from former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
After Ofcom looked into complaints and discovered that these broadcasts violated its regulations, GB News challenged the ruling on procedural and legal grounds.
Legal Framework
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
GB News claimed that Ofcom’s ruling illegally limited its editorial independence, citing Article 10 ECHR, which safeguards freedom of expression. Article 10(2), however, permits restrictions when they are required in a democracy, such as to preserve appropriate broadcasting impartiality.
The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003, which mandates that broadcasters maintain proper impartiality in news reporting, is the source of Ofcom’s regulatory authority. The Act’s Section 319 requires news to be delivered fairly and accurately, and Section 320 expands this need to include topics of political controversy.
Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code
Section Five of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code reinforces these legal obligations, specifically:
- Rule 5.1: News must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
- Rule 5.3: Politicians cannot act as newsreaders, interviewers, or reporters in news programs unless justified by exceptional circumstances.
Ofcom’s Findings
Ofcom ruled that GB News violated these rules in two ways:
- Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Role: Rees-Mogg acted as a newsreader when delivering breaking news updates, which Ofcom considered a breach of Rule 5.3.
- Lack of Impartiality: Since GB News failed to provide a range of perspectives or balance Rees-Mogg’s role with alternative viewpoints, the programs lacked due impartiality, breaching Rule 5.1.
Ofcom noted that while news and current affairs programs may coexist, the use of active politicians as news presenters inherently risks bias. The decision formed part of broader regulatory scrutiny of GB News’ approach to impartiality.
GB News’ Arguments
GB News challenged Ofcom’s ruling on three main grounds:
1. Misinterpretation of the Broadcasting Code
GB News argued that:
- Rule 5.3 only applies to news programs, not current affairs programs.
- State of the Nation was a current affairs program, not a news program.
- The inclusion of brief news updates did not transform the program into a news bulletin.
2. Infringement of Article 10 ECHR
GB News claimed that:
- Ofcom’s interpretation of impartiality imposed excessive restrictions on editorial freedom.
- The restriction was not prescribed by law since it was not reasonably foreseeable.
- Ofcom’s decision set a dangerous precedent for political discourse in broadcasting.
3. Procedural Unfairness
GB News alleged that Ofcom:
- Expanded the scope of its investigation without proper notice.
- Applied new interpretations of the Code without prior guidance.
- Failed to follow its own procedural safeguards, impacting GB News’ ability to respond.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Mrs Justice Collins Rice examined each argument in detail.
Interpretation of the Broadcasting Code
- The court ruled that Rule 5.3 applies only to news programs, not current affairs programs.
- State of the Nation was not a news program but a current affairs program.
- Since Rees-Mogg was presenting a current affairs program, Rule 5.3 did not apply.
- However, Rule 5.1 (due impartiality) still applied to news content within the program.
Due Impartiality under Rule 5.1
- The court stressed that proper impartiality must be appropriate for the program’s subject and structure, but it does not necessitate complete neutrality.
- Ofcom’s view that any politician who presents news items is necessarily unobjective was overly strict.
- Rather, impartiality should be evaluated in the context of the news item, the editorial protections, and the programme format.
Application of Article 10 ECHR
- The court determined that GB News’ journalistic freedom was unnecessarily restricted by Ofcom’s interpretation, which was not reasonably foreseeable.
- Although there is justification for broadcast control, limitations must be reasonable and well-defined.
- The court determined that Ofcom’s strategy did not comply with Article 10.
Procedural Fairness
- The court acknowledged the flaws in Ofcom’s procedural procedure.
- It was unjust to extend the probe beyond its original parameters without giving adequate warning.
- Without first consulting the industry, Ofcom’s judgement was based on creative interpretations of its own regulations.
GB News Judicial Review Conclusion and Outcome
The court quashed Ofcom’s ruling against GB News, reinforcing that:
- News reporting within current affairs programs must be assessed based on context rather than an automatic assumption of bias.
- Politicians can present current affairs programs that contain news elements, provided due impartiality is maintained.
- Regulatory decisions must be based on clear and foreseeable rules, ensuring compliance with Article 10 ECHR.
The High Court decided in GB News’ favour, concluding that:
By extending Rule 5.3 beyond news programmes, Ofcom misunderstood it.
Because it imposed an absolute requirement rather than a context-sensitive one, Ofcom’s conclusion under Rule 5.1 was erroneous.
Ofcom’s interpretation unfairly curtailed freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR and was not mandated by law.
Ofcom’s decision was deemed invalid due to its failure to adhere to fair procedures.
Implications for Broadcasting and Regulation
This ruling has important ramifications:
For Ofcom: It makes it clear that the organisation must scrupulously abide by the parameters of its own Code and cannot enlarge regulations beyond their obvious intent without appropriate consultation.
For Broadcasters: Rather than enforcing a general ban, news reporting in current affairs programmes needs to be evaluated on an individual basis.
Regarding Freedom of Expression: The decision maintains the idea that regulatory agencies must strike a balance between editorial freedom and due impartiality to prevent unjust restrictions on broadcasters.
