header-logo header-logo

Legal implications for Shilpa and Jade

25 January 2007
Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

Bullied Celebrity Big Brother (BB) contestant Shilpa Shetty could have a claim in law against production company Endemol UK, says a prominent media lawyer.

Shetty, a Bollywood actress, has been unknowingly caught in the eye of a political storm following public outrage over her ill treatment at the hands of co-contestant Jade Goody.

 Media lawyer Mark Stephens, a partner at Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, says: “Having represented many BB contestants in the past, my focus is the fact that because they are paid to appear, they are workers so benefit from all the protections an employee has in the workplace.”

He says that if a secretary walked into Channel 4’s offices and faced bullying and harassment then they would have a cast-iron claim, and there is no reason to distinguish between that and what Shetty was subjected to.
“I think she would have a good claim against Endemol [the makers of BB],” he adds. “Under broadcasting legislation there may be a breach of Channel 4’s obligation to provide appropriate viewing.

“The whole BB process is about disempowerment. I have represented 16 or 17 contestants and everyone talks about their sense of isolation, the key thing is if you’re in an environment you don’t like at any other point in your life you can go home, shut the door and share the burden with your friends and intimates. In BB you’re in a situation where you’re with people you’ve never met before, you can’t escape, and must befriend and then betray them by nominating, and that is counter-cultural to any normal behaviour.”

However, legal commentator B Mahendra says: “I don’t think there are any legal implications at all. It’s not racial discrimination as such, just shouting insults. I don’t think there could be a prosecution, it’s not primarily racist abuse and for a prosecution to proceed there has to be a 50% chance of conviction and it needs to be in the public interest to pursue the case.”

The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed concern over the programme, and is writing to Channel 4 “to remind them of their legal responsibilities as a public broadcaster, under the terms of the Race Relations Amendment Act, to eliminate racial discrimination, promote racial equality and to promote good relations between people from different racial groups”.

Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll