Injunction to Stop Onscreen Smoking

ACTORS SMOKING WILL CAUSE ONE BILLION DEATHS THIS
CENTURY - CHILDREN ARE THE TARGET - NEED PUBLIC ENQUIRY
The World Health Organisation forecast one billion tobacco deaths this century – that's more than 15 times
greater than the total war dead of the entire 20th century or 1/6 of the world’s population!

Application to Lord Falconer Ministry of Justice TABLE OF CONTENT page 3
Tel. 020 7210 8500
Selborne House, 54 Victoria St, SW1 6QE. general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
From: Stuart Holmes Anti Smoking Campaigner stuart277@hotmail.co.uk

Extracts from bundles - Judicial Review against the - Attorney General - Tessa
Jowell & the Met. Police Commissioner CO/8239/06 For brief overview see page 98 para 3.
Pages 1-122 open attachment (PDF) Please Note page references in extracts do not refer to pages of this bundle


18-6-07
Dear Lord Falconer, please acknowledge receipt.
Urgent Immediate Action is required “Injunction” To Stop These Tobacco
Promotions. (Every 3 seconds someone is killed and a child is recruited into
smoking addiction) This application is a request to seek an injunction to immediately stop
actors smoking in films and TV and to seek public enquiries as below:
1. There needs to be a public enquiry into the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act.
Because it does not protect children as it was promised to do*1 According to UKs top judges
there is a gaping loophole which allows actors to promote smoking in films*2 which entice
children into tobacco addiction! – 80% of films promote smoking – Sky TV alone transmits
over 450 films a week! (Rupert Murdoch Director of Philip Morris did a secret deal with Tony
Blair!*3 Along with cinema and DVDs this avalanche of smoking promotion is a public health
disaster!*4

2. There needs to be a public enquiry into the politicians who stand to gain from this corrupt
piece of legislation. The people who stand to gain are those involved with the film industry,
tobacco industry, and sickness industries. (Possibly - Tessa Jowell, David Mills, Tony Blair,
various health ministers, Lord Tim Clement Jones, Rupert Murdoch? etc.)
3. There needs to be a public enquiry into the Attorney Generals refusal to seek an injunction
to stop actors smoking in films and TV. And to the money he gave to Prime Minster Tony Blair
and the Lordship and Job as Attorney General he then received from Tony Blair!*5
4. There needs to be a public enquiry into the first Judges refusal (Hon. Calvert Smith ex head
of DPP.)– All 4 reasons he gave for his refusal are incorrect – also he has connections with one
of the defendants – Tessa Jowell!*6
5. There needs to be a public enquiry into the UK's top criminal judge (Sir Igor Judge) for
failure to protect the public. It is outrageous that this judge seems to think that the pre
meditated killing of one billion people this century is a perfectly legal activity!*7
On weight of harm alone this case should have gone to a full hearing. Also his refusal is

page 1


hypocrisy it is not compatible with the speech he gave to Kings College on Public Protection*8
Just a few weeks before his refusal for a full hearing and refusal of the Appeal to the House of
Lords on the grounds that “No Point of Law Worthy of possible consideration by the House of
Lords was involved in the case.”*9
6. There needs to be a public enquiry into Tony Blair who was involved in the Bernie Eccleston
affair (See p. 11) along with Tessa Jowell and husband David Mills (who happens to be the brother in law
of Dame Barbara Mills ex head of the DPP and head of the Serious Fraud Office who knows the
first judge Calvert Smith - she was his predecessor. Also the Attorney General superintends
the SFO and DPP*10
Tony Blair was named in a previously secret tobacco industry document! As being tobacco
friendly and may be able to assist in the destruction of EC directive 98/43/EC banning all
tobacco advertising! (See Tobacco Lobby Targeted Tony Blair p. 61) When Bernie Eccleston went to
number 10 this was discussed probably part of the one million pound deal/donation! -Shortly
after the EC directive was annulled! -Tessa Jowell was involved with this, at that time husband
David Mills was Formula Ones chief financial advisor and Director.*11
More recently Tony, Tessa, and David have all been involved with Sylvio Berlusconi - Films
with actors smoking and secret payments!*12 The secret deals and meetings regarding Tony
Blair and tobacco need looking into.
7. There needs to be a public enquiry into the Sylvio Berlusconi Affair Tony Blair, Tessa
Jowell, David Mills, Film Co Production contracts (money laundering?)*15 & Film tobacco
product placements – and secret payments. £350,000 or £2million? *13
8. There needs to be a public enquiry into the Metropolitan Police Commissioners refusal to
take action regarding public protection, political corruption and corporate crime manifesting in
the forecasted 1 billion tobacco deaths this century. Ref consistent police response – ‘Public
Health is not a Police Matter’. (It’s Political Corruption and Corporate Crime.)*14
9. There seems to be no separation of power, even the head of the Ministry of Justice Lord
Falconer shared a flat with Prime Minister Tony Blair.
10. One billion tobacco addiction deaths is no less than a crime against humanity, a crime
against children, and a crime against the future.
*1 (See brief history p. 51, Ministers Views page 68 & bottom of p. 69 – Nov. 1999. Yvette Cooper: As part of our
comprehensive programme against tobacco, we will implement a ban on tobacco advertising in line with Directive
98/43/EC [banning tobacco advertising, which was annulled in 2000] as soon as practicable. See 98/43/EC Article 3 on
page 72) *2. (See Something wrong p. 55, Mrs Spellman p. 55, Transcripts of Proceedings & Judgement p. 42 & p. 86)
*3 (See Preamble p. 25, Media Moguls on Board p. 62, As Election Looms Tony Blair Basks in Warmth of the Sun. p.
65, Google of ‘Blair Campbell deal with Murdoch’ p. 120)
*4(See pages 12, 24-32, and 97-101) *5 (See Grounds & Statement of Facts p. 5-16) *6 (His predecessor Dame
Barbara Mills (ex head of the Serious Fraud Office & Head of the DPP.) is David Mill’s sister! (See Grounds for Renewal
page 24-32, Proceedings p.49 Para 91-93, Skeleton Argument p.97, Para 3, 5, Common Sense Points p.99 Para 14 )
*7 (See Speech p. 50, Transcripts of Proceedings p.42 & Judgement p. 86) *8(p.90 line 12 – “The judges primary
responsibility is the protection of the public” etc.) *9 (Judgement p. 86 also letter to and from the Court Admin Office
102-104) *10 (see 4. above & Ministers Moguls and Murky Deals p. 59) *11 (See Tobacco Industry Attempts to

page 2


subvert E.U. Tobacco Advertising Legislation p. 30) *12 (See- Jowell Faces New Allegations Over Grants to
Berlusconi Film Company p. 58) *13 (See- Statement of Facts Relied On p.11, Jowell Faces New Allegations Over
Grants to Berlusconi Film Company p. 58, Ministers Moguls and Murky Deals p. 59) *14(See Third Defendant the
Met. Police Commissioner p. 54) *15 See Film Co Production Contracts p. 56 and p. 80 cc
press.
………………………………………………………………
TABLE OF CONTENTS listed by sequence of events
Please note the page numbers incorporated in the extracts are not the page numbers of this
Bundle, only the page numbers in this Table of Contents and page 1 refer to the page
Numbers at the bottom of the pages. For brief overview see page 98 para 3.
Page
Application to the Ministry of Justice for Public Enquiry 1
Table of Contents 3
EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE 1 Judicial Review against the Attorney General- 4
Tessa Jowell & Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Grounds 5
Statement of Facts Relied On 11
Index of Bundle 1 16
EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE 2 Renewal of Application 23
Grounds for Renewal 24
Contents (bundle 2) 25
Judge Hon. Calvert Smith's refusal for full hearing (see his 4 observations 26
And claimants response)
Index of Supporting Documents (for Bundle 2) 38
Transcript of Proceedings (½ hour oral hearing) 42
Written Speech (intended speech was interrupted by the 50
Judge but a copy + supporting documents was handed to him see Para 24 page 75)
Transcript of Judgment 86
Sir Igor Judge's speech to Kings College on “Public Protection 90
EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE 3 Appeal to the House of Lords 96
Skeleton Argument 97
20 Common Sense Points of massive public importance 98
Index of Supporting Documents 101
Letter from the Court Administration Office & Reply 104
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS – “Smoking in Films” 105

page 3

EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE
1
Judicial Review against the
Attorney General – Tessa
Jowell & Metropolotan Police
Commissioner
page references in extracts do not refer to pages of this bundle

page 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
In the matter of an Application for Judicial Review
BETWEEN:
STUART HOLMES
Claimant
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Respondent
DCMS
Second Respondent
POLICE COMMISSIONER
Third Respondent
________________________
GROUNDS
________________________
1. This application concerns incorrect reasons given for a refusal of an injunction by the first
respondent on (7th July 06 and 27th Sept. 06) and the failure of the second respondent to act in
accordance with their policy and to give a response to letters dated (20th Feb, 13th April, 8 Sept.
06.) and the failure of the 3rd respondent to take action to protect children from the tobacco
holocaust and enforce the law. (Tab 23 p.8, 26. 3, 5, 20. 24, 25.)
2. The Attorney General was asked by way of a letter dated (Email 4th July 06) This letter
requested the Attorney General to use his powers vested in him pursuant to his role as defender of
the public interest and the prosecution of offences act 1985 see Attorney Generals statement
regarding the Fire Dispute Hansard. (Tab 23 p.7 9.)

page 5


3. The Attorney General in respect of discussion regarding the fire-fighters dispute (Hansard 19
December 2002: Column WA137) stated that he had the power to prevent threatened breaches of
criminal law.
4. The Claimant seeks to rely upon section 1, 2, 3, 10, 13. of the 2002 Tobacco, Advertising and
Promotions Act which is now in force This stated that :“Anything done which has the purpose or
effect of promoting a tobacco product is prohibited.” When this matter was debated prior to
implementation Ministers views stated that the clear purpose of this legislation was to prevent
children from taking up smoking as a result of promotion by the Tobacco Industry. (to cut all
shots of actors smoking) (Tab6 p.2. Tab8 p.1, 2.)
5. The Claimant has asked the Attorney General to apply for an injunction preventing the
showing either directly or indirectly of smoking within films such as to encourage either directly
or subliminally the taking up of smoking by children. (Tab23 p.7.)
6. The Attorney General in reaching a decision on this matter was invited by way of a letter
dated 4th July 06, to take into account the following evidence namely: That of Professor Glantz –
Smokefreemovies of the University of California. (Tab23 p.7.)
Suggest Google
2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act.
Anything done which has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product.
Attorney General smoking films.
Smokefreemovies now showing.
Covert tobacco advertising.
Smoking in Films.
Glantz Tobacco Films.
Children Smoking Films.
Disney subliminal tobacco ads.
India's 2006 legislation bans smoking in films.
Product Placement Children Smoking.
7. The Attorney General however by way of letters dated (emails 7th July 06 and 27th Sept. )
refused to apply for such an injunction stating: (Tab23 p.8, 26.))
(a) ( based on 7 July response – no power to do so. In addition that such a decision can
only be taken by the Department of Health)
(b) ( based on 7 July response- not in the public interest to do so)
(c)

page 6


8. In respect of paragraph 7(a) above it is submitted that the AG clearly has the power to act see
paragraph 2 &3 above. In addition the Department of Health have stated by way of an email that
it is a matter to be dealt with by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport however they have
failed to respond to an application made of a similar nature and they are therefore the second
Respondents in respect of this matter. (Tab23 p.3.)
9. It is submitted however that quite clearly the AG has the power to override any decision taken
by DCMS (Prosecution of Offences Act 1985) and if he does not in the alternative it is submitted
that the DCMS should act in accordance with the material submitted to them in preventing such
advertising from taking place, it seems that they are not acting lawfully within the context of their
powers to ban the showing of smoking in film. In addition, it may be possible to argue bias in that
the reasonable bystander would not feel that justice has been seen to be done because of the
Minister for the DCMS and her husband’s involvement with Bernie Ecclestone and the seeking of
the exemption of tobacco advertising in the motor racing industry. Her husband from whom she is
now separated has been charged with fraud by the Italian Authorities. It should be noted that it is
not being submitted that actual bias has occurred but simply that the perception of bias may be
seen. (Tab21 p.16. Tab15 p. 4 Tab13 p.6-12.)
10. It is submitted that the AG has acted irrationally in not applying for the injunction. It is
submitted that the AG has fettered his discretion by erroneously stating that he has no power in
law to apply for an injunction. It is further submitted that the reasons given for refusing to apply
for an injunction are inadequate in so far as there was detailed objective material provided and the
Claimant was entitled to know the view taken by the AG of the specific points raised. It is
submitted that the cursory nature of the decision given does not indicate that sufficient and/or any
proper regard was taken of the material submitted. It is further submitted that it is a breach of the
rules of natural justice for the Claimant to not properly understand why an adverse decision was
taken against him.
11. In respect of the Second respondent it is submitted that a failure to respond whatsoever can
itself be perceived as an adverse decision. It is submitted that the DCMS as a public body have a
duty to respond to letters written by members of the public and indeed their own code requires
them to do so. (We aim to respond within 20 days and answer all points raised in
correspondence...) (Tab14 p.1.)

7


It is therefore submitted that permission to apply for judicial review should be given.
STUART HOLMES
Continued
THE FIRST RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
After writing letters -Emails and getting nowhere, with the Dept. of Health Patricia Hewitt,
Dept of Public Health Caroline Flint (who is attempting to exempt the Film. Theatre and TV.
Industry from the smoking in workplace and public places ban), and the Police
commissioner, and DCMS Tessa Jowell. (Tab23 p.1, 3, 5, 6, 18, + others)
The claimant wrote to the Attorney General (Email 4th July) requesting he seek an
injunction to cut all shots of smoking in film and TV. As according to expert opinion actors
smoking onscreen is the major cause why children start to smoke. Actors smoking on screen
has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product and is therefore in breach of the 2002
Tobacco advertising and promotions act. (Tab23 p.7)
The Attorney General replied by (Email 7th July 06) saying: (Tab 23 p.8)
1. He did not have the power to act
2. 2.That what the claimant had asked for was not within his Public Interest role
3. 3. That smoking policy was led by the dept. of health.
Because of the great urgency and gravity of the issue (1 billion deaths this century) The
claimant sent pre action protocols for Judicial Review in the High Court. To: (Tab23 p.20,
22, 24.)
a. The Attorney General b. The DCMS c. The Police Commissioner
The Attorney General acknowledged receipt and then replied (Tab23 p.26.) (Email 27th Sept.
06) saying:
4. The mere depiction of actors smoking does not have the purpose or effect of promoting a
tobacco product and therefore there is no breach of criminal law.

8


5. And that before writing to him the claimant should have written to the Weights and Measure
Authorities (enforcement authority)
THE ABOVE 5 REASONS ARE INCORRECT:
1. The Attorney Generals statement that he did not have the power to act contradicts his
previous statement with regard to the Fire dispute as reported in Hansard. (Tab23 p.9.)
2. Again the Attorney Generals statement That what the claimant had asked for was not within
his Public Interest Role again contradicts his previous statement with regard to the Fire dispute
as reported in Hansard. (Tab23 p.9.)
3. That smoking policy was led by the dept. of Health. The claimant had previously written to
the dept. of health who informed him that they had passed his letter on to the DCMS who dealt
with the issue of smoking in films, and said that the claimant would get a reply shortly from
them. The claimant received no reply. (Tab23 p.3 p.3.)
4. The mere depiction of actors smoking does not have the purpose or effect of promoting a
tobacco product and therefore there is no breach of criminal law. Expert opinion says actors
smoking onscreen is the major cause of children starting to smoke. This issue is well
documented. Therefore there is a breach in the criminal law. Also why has Ofcom just cut all
shots of smoking from “Tom & Jerry” and other children's cartoons? (Tab3 p.3, 6.+ Tab2 p.
8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17. Tab24 p. 16.)
5. That before writing to him the claimant should of written to those responsible for
enforcement –Weights and Measures. The claimant did write to those responsible for
enforcement of serious crime. This issue concerns the entrapment of vulnerable impressionable
children via enticement, into an addiction forecast to kill 1 billion people this century 1/6th of
the worlds population or 15 times the total war dead of the entire 20th century excluding

9


genocide. For harm of such magnitude the proportionate response is the highest enforcement
officer the Police commissioner. Also Weights and Measures take their instruction from the
DCMS. - Section 13 of the Act say's: (tab23 p.1, 18.)
(3) The appropriate Minister may direct, in relation to cases of a particular description or a
particular case, that any duty imposed on an enforcement authority in England and Wales or Scotland
by subsection (2) shall be discharged by the appropriate Minister and not by the enforcement
authority.
to whom the claimant has written but received no reply, also Weights and Measures
comesunder the DTI who have had a bad press with regards to tobacco corruption allegations.
Also Weights and Measures authorities are local not national? The terms used by the AG
“the mere depiction off actors smoking” and “enforcement via Weights and Measures”
indicate he and those concerned have not got a grasp on the reality of just how serious this
situation is. (Tab23 p. 3, 5, 22.)
SECOND RESPONDENT TESSA JOWELL DCMS Prior to the claimant writing
to the Attorney General, the claimant had written to Patricia Hewitt (dept. of health) they said
that smoking in films was the responsibility of the DCMS they forwarded the claimants’ letter
to the DCMS and said that the claimant would receive a reply shortly, The claimant did not
receive a reply. The claimant also wrote directly to Tessa Jowell at the DCMS and received
no reply and also no reply from the Pre Action Protocol. Judicial Review against Tessa Jowel
is as a result of refusal to answer letters and because of her involvement in the Tobacco
Holocaust. (Tab23 p.3, 5, 22.)
THIRD RESPONDENT THE POLICE COMMISSIONER The claimant has written
to the Police Commissioner on 7 occasions (13, 14, 19, 20, 21, Dec. 5, and 13 Feb, 9 Sept
06.) This can not be correct the reply has been consistent and swift “This is not a Police
matter” This can not be correct, serious crime, breaches of the criminal law, corporate crime,
the protection of children and the public, corruption etc. are police matters. Hence Judicial
Review against the Police Commissioner. (Tab23 p.24)

10


STATEMENT OF FACTS RELIED ON THIS IS A
MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY AND GRAVITY
Pre action protocols for judicial review in the High Court have been sent to Tessa Jowell, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney
General.
ONE BILLION TOBACCO DEATHS THIS CENTURY has been forecast
by the Director General of the World Health Organisation; That’s 15 times
greater than the total war dead of the entire 20th century (excluding
genocide) or 1/6 of the worlds population. Due to a consumer product
sold in children’s sweet shops! (Tab12 p.1.)
The tobacco industry target vulnerable impressionable children into tobacco addiction by
enticement via the film industry; On-screen smoking is the catalyst of the tobacco holocaust;
On average every 3 seconds somebody is killed and a child is addicted to tobacco; The root
cause of the tobacco holocaust is political corruption. (Tab3 p. 3, 6, 8, +)
Tessa Jowell (DCMS) is the minister in control of film classification and censorship, and she
has previously been involved with a tobacco corruption scandal along with her husband David
Mills and Tony Blair. (Bernie Eccleston affair) Now Tessa Jowell, David Mills and Tony Blair
are all dealing with Silvio berlusconi and Tessa Jowell’s DCMS is churning out up to 5 films a
day, a large proportion of which covertly promote tobacco 80%? This is in breach of the “2002
Tobacco advertising and promotions act.” It is therefore highly probable that the £350,000
(gift? to David Mills) was payment for illegal covert tobacco promotions in the films Tessa
Jowell is supposed to regulate and censor? (Tab3)
THE BERNIE ECCLESTON AFFAIR
The minister in control of the DCMS (dept. of culture media and sport) is Tessa Jowell and along
with her husband David Mills they have been involved in a previous tobacco corruption scandal,
namely “The Bernie Eccleston affair” in which Tessa Jowell (the then health minister) successfully
argued in Brussels for an exemption for her husbands company (Formula one racing cars) from a
tobacco advertising ban. (Conflict of interests and corruption?)
At the same time the owner of Formula One, Bernie Eccleston gave another million pounds to Tony
Blair. (At that time David Mills was a Director of Formula One, and also their chief financial
adviser, probably negotiating tobacco advertising deals etc. His sister was or had been the former
Director of public prosecutions and head of the Serious Fraud Office). Payment for changing policy
is corruption. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown then went on TV and both lied regarding their
involvement.
.
TESSA JOWELL DCMS- FILM CENSORSHIP (Sylvio Berlusconi Affair)
A similar situation to the Bernie Eccleston Affair has arisen; same team but this time its Sylvio
Berlusconi (richest man in Italy) not Bernie Eccleston (richest man in U.K.). David Mills now being the
financial adviser to Silvio Berlusconi (ex prime minister, media, advertising, and film mogul, close
friend of Tony Blair with mafia connections etc.)
This time David Mills is involved with setting up offshore film companies, hedge funds, tax breaks
and generally shuffling money around in secret accounts. He has recently been charged along with
Silvio Berlusconi for fraud by the Italian authorities.
Just as a coincidence? The financial systems used by his wife’s film department at DCMS resemble
those suspected of use for illegal covert or tobacco product placement deals. And just as a
coincidence? The film co-production deal she had with Silvio Berlusconi was terminated at around
the same time as the £350,000 mortgage, gift? (From Silvio Berlusconi?) Scandal emerged. (Tab3

11


p.? Tab13 p. 11.)
Now that tobacco advertising has been banned it’s possible that what was once spent on tobacco
advertising (£1 million a day) is now spent on covert tobacco promotions in films, a far more potent
form of enticing children. (If they don’t get children addicted they are out of business. 90% of
smokers become addicted when children)
It is highly probable that the £350,000 (nobody knows the donor yet?) originated from the tobacco
industry as a secret payment for the numerous covert tobacco promotions (actors smoking) that
appear in the films that Tessa Jowell’s DCMS is supposed to regulate? (Also Tony Blair has had
secret meetings with tobacco executives etc. and goes on holiday with Silvio Berlusconi) (Tab3 p.85,
86.)
THE 2002 TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION ACT (tab6, 8, 3, tab3 p. 11.)
The 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act. –Was instigated to protect children (tab p. )
From enticement into tobacco addiction see also “history of the act.”
The repeated phrase and general public perception of the act is that “Anything done which has the
purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product is prohibited” this being a proportionate
remedial response to the problem. Either this is the case or the 2002 act is in effect a license to
poison children via the film industry-, which is now happening in a very big way. 80% of top
grossing films now promote smoking (actor’s smoking aspirational role models etc). It is well
documented that this is the major cause of children starting to smoke. This along with TV. Repeats
DVDs etc. creates an avalanche of potent tobacco enticement and is the catalyst of the tobacco
holocaust, a previously secret letter from the film industry, to the tobacco industry quotes –“film is
better than any commercial that has been run on TV. Or any magazine, because the audience is
totally unaware of any sponsor involvement...”
At the Lib-Dem conference (Brighton 18 Sept. 06) I complained to Lord Tim Clement Jones (who
progressed the 2002 act through the House of Lords and Commons), regarding covert tobacco
promotions in films- he said that covert advertising was prohibited under the act. However the next
day he had changed his mind? I asked him to join me in the action against the Attorney General
(regarding an injunction to cut smoking shots from films etc). He refused; I spoke to Simon Hughes
(president of LibDems) who said he was considering joining me in the action but so far not sent the
email he promised. (Lord Tim Clement Jones is a solicitor and treasurer of the Liberal Democrat
Party and Simon Hughes M.P. is a barrister)
When introducing the act to the House of Commons (see Hansard tab p. ) Allan Millburn the
then health minister refers to all “overt” tobacco advertising being prohibited which implies that
covert tobacco advertising is not he then went on to talk about the film industry (Hansard see tab7
p. 14. )
Indicating his awareness and acceptance of covert tobacco promotions in films!
It is possible that there is a link between political donations for honors and peerages and the
corruption of well meaning legislation. The £2 million donation from the financier Mr Brown to the
Liberal Democrat Party probably went via the treasurer Lord Tim Clement Jones and Mr Brown has
now been imprisoned for his dealings. (Businessmen don’t give £2 million away for nothing a deal
has been done!) If the 2002 Tobacco advertising and promotion act is in effect a license to poison
children via enticement into addiction, then political donations are probably central to the corruption.
OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Obviously regardless of the 2002 act, enticement of children into a poisonous addiction forecasted to
kill 1 billion people is very wrong and criminal. In fact this is no less than a crime against children
and a crime against humanity on an unprecedented scale. One billion deaths this century are more
than 15 times the total war dead of the entire 20th century. (Ref. Tab 11. p.1)
ROLE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER SIR IAN BLAIR

12


The whole point of law is to stop or prevent harm (children have priority). One role of the police is
to bring wrongdoing to the attention of the courts. (The greater the harm done the greater the crime)
including corporate crime and political corruption. As the police have demonstrated by arresting Lord
Levy (cash for honors –honors come under the DCMS Tessa Jowell) the police are not the puppets of
corrupt governments, their role is to serve and protect the public. (tab13 p. 14.)
It is both illogical and insane to suggest that the police can not take action to protect the public
especially vulnerable impressionable children, surely if other bodies fail to protect the public the
police must step in, especially when there are breaches in the criminal law and great harm is being
done.
In reply to my requests for the Police Commissioner to take action, to stop the harm being done by
onscreen smoking, he has consistently stated that this is not a police matter and that I should contact
the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). However the DCMS has overall responsibility for
regulation and censorship. (Responsibility of Tessa Jowell) (Tab15 p.4)
Both the BBFC and the DCMS are very dodgy indeed. The BBFC is financed by the film industry,
which has a very close relationship with the tobacco industry, and rarely censor’s films.
ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
One of the Attorney Generals roles is “Defender of the public interest” I emailed the following
letter:
4nth July 2006
Dear Sir, (please respond via Email)
Could you please take out an injunction to halt tobacco promotions in films & T.V. (covert tobacco
advertising) as actors smoking (aspirational role models) entice children into tobacco addiction, which is
forecast to kill one billion people this century. (World Health Organisation)
And received this reply:
The Attorney General does not have the powers to act in the way you ask. His public interest role is fairly
tightly defined and relates to specific areas of law, of which this is not one. Government policy on smoking is
led by the Department of Health.
My response:
Please take this email as pre action protocol for judicial review. GROUNDS: REASONS GIVEN FOR
REFUSAL OF INJUNCTION ARE INCORRECT
Please respond via email within 2 weeks.
Dear Sir,
Acting in your capacity as Defender of the Public Interest and with ref. to your response dated 7nth
July to my email of 4th July refusing an injunction to halt tobacco promotions in films and TV.
Which are in breach of the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act (anything done which
has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product is prohibited.) The reasons you give appear
to be incorrect. Your remarks regarding the AG.s Public Interest Role seem to contradict the AGs
previous statement as in Hansard –
Fire Dispute: Attorney-General -Lord Tomlinson asked Her Majesty's Government: What role the
Attorney-General plays in the firefighters' dispute. [HL260]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I have the power to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent
threatened breaches of the criminal law. This power is to be exercised in the public interest, which I exercise in
my independent judgment in my role as Attorney-General rather than as a member of government. Such an
application is always exceptional and is instituted only where there is the prospect of genuine, serious and
irreparable harm and I judge that it is in the public interest to make the application.
It is my duty to keep under constant review the question whether to exercise this power. In order to determine

13


where the public interest lies I may consult, as I have been doing, with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that
I am properly informed as to the public interest consultations arising. I have been informed also of the views of
fire authority representatives in relation to the potential threat to public safety. But the power to apply for an
injunction is one for me as the Attorney-General to exercise in the public interest and the decision is for me
alone. 19 Dec 2002: Column WA137
Also the Attorney General has powers to take the necessary action under the Prosecution of Offences
Act 1985.
See full pre action protocol to Lord Goldsmith (Attorney General) tab p.
Also see pre action protocol to Tessa Jowell (Minister of State DCMS) tab p.
Also see pre action protocol to Sir Ian Blair (Police commissioner) tab p.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE CHOICE
Actors not smoking or 1 billion tobacco deaths this century. Given the above I can’t imagine any
right thinking person objecting to not being able to see actors smoking.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
E.C. Directive TVWF (television without frontiers) prohibits all surreptitious tobacco advertising.
(Tab16 p. 8 article 3g (a)(b)
OFCOM. (21 August 06) cut all shots of smoking from Tom and Jerry and other children’s cartoons.
(Tab24 p.16)
U.S.A. (8 Sept 06) 40 Attorney Generals instigate the showing of anti-smoking promotions at the
beginning of DVD’s, which contain actors smoking. (Tab2 p.18.)
U.S.A. (26 Sept. 06) 2 billion lawsuit against tobacco industry. (Tab2 p. 17.)
CONCLUSION Legal proceedings have been initiated against the
following
Lord Goldsmith -Attorney General because the reasons given for his refusal to take action are not
correct. (Lord Goldsmith has replied and acknowledged his reasons given were incorrect, his new
reasons are also incorrect.)
Rt.Hon.Tessa Jowell - Minister of State for DCMS (dept. of culture media and sport) because of
failure to reply to letters regarding her involvement in the tobacco holocaust. (Tessa Jowell has not
replied)
Sir Ian Blair –Police Commissioner. Because of consistent refusal to take action to protect children
and the public from the tobacco holocaust and enforce the law. (Sir Ian Blair has replied, “This is
not a police matter.”)

14


1.Dr. LEE Jong-wook, WHO's Director-General unveiled the Death Clock, that is currently ticking at
25.7 millions deaths since October 1999. Dr Lee said, among other things that "Tobacco's death toll
has accelerated. It will kill nearly 5 million people this year. … And it kills on a massive scale. 100
million people in the twentieth century. Unchecked, it is predicted to kill one billion in this
century." (Ref. Tab 12 page 1 (day 1. 12:45))
2. It is well documented that 90% of those addicted to tobacco become so as children. (Tab 3. p.85,
86, plus others)
3. It is well documented that the tobacco industry target vulnerable impressionable children into
tobacco addiction. (ref. Professor Glantz. Tab 3 p.3, 6, 8, plus others)
4. It is well documented that the major cause of why children start to smoke is actors smoking in
films. (ref. Tab 3 p.3, 6, plus others)
5. This is no less than a crime against children and a crime against humanity on an unprecedented
scale.
6. One billion deaths this century is more than 15 times the total war dead of the entire 20th century.
(ref. Tab 11. p.1)
7. The 2002 Tobacco advertising and promotions act prohibits anything done which has the purpose
or effect of promoting a tobacco product. (ref. Tab 6. p.3) also other acts prohibit tobacco
advertising
8. The above act was instigated to protect children. (ref. Tab 8. p.1-2)
9. E.C. directives and TVWF (television without frontiers) also prohibit surreptitious tobacco
advertising. (ref. Tab 24 p.I)
10. The priority is to urgently (immediately) stop the harm. (Every few seconds somebody is killed by
tobacco and a child becomes addicted.)
11. Human Rights Law articles 2, 3, 4, 5 & 10 may be applicable. Ref . Tab 4
12. Protection of children and young persons act and U.N. Rights Of The Child
Ref. Tab 10
13. E.C. Consumer protection law is probably also applicable.
13. There is not a parent or right thinking person wants children to start smoking, also there is hardly
a family in the land that has not suffered a tobacco death, so would anybody object if there was no
smoking by actors, would it be a great loss if the public could not see actors smoking? Please weigh
the proportionality of this against one billion deaths this century.
As the public and trade unions and parliament have indicated the public interest is opposed to tobacco and in favour of
prevention and protection especially of children.
69% want tobacco banned daily mail poll 2004 ?

15


INDEX
TAB
1 Grounds & Statement of Facts p.8
2 Smoking in Films – Medical News – Smoking in movies makes more kids smoke p. 11
Dartmouth Medical School – Adolescents who watch smoking in movies are more likely to
try smoking p. 13
3 Prof. Glantz. -Smokefreemovies`
4 Human rights act
5 Spare
6 Tobacco advertising and promotions act
7 Explanatory notes
8 Ministers views
9 Grounds
10 U.N. Convention on rights of the child
Children and young persons act p.
11 Mathew White 20th century war DEAD (20th century 61 million. - military & civilian)

16


12 World Health Org. 1 Billion tobacco deaths this century
WHO convention on tobacco control p.1
13 D.C.M.S. search result
2006 current consultations p.18
About us. 2
Advertising. 4
Annual report 2006. 17
Application for British film certificate. P.6
British board of film classification p.3
Co-production p.11
Every child matters & youth matters. p.
Fashion. 16
Film policy p.6, 7, 12
Film. 6
Film council. p.8
Game and film classification. p.15
Game and Film classification. p.3
Honors. 14
Humanitarian assistance. p. 3,13
Italy co-production treaty ended 2 May p.11
Ofcom p.
Press. p. 20
Protection of children from harm p.
Role of the department p.
Search results. Tobacco p. A-D
Tax relief. p.12
The films act 1985 guidance notes p.10
The films act 1985 p.10
The films act 1985 qualifying criteria for UK films p.10
The films act 1985 Schedules p.10
What we do. 1
14 CODES- Services Standards (DCMS)
We aim to answer all letters within 20 days and answer all points raised

17


In correspondence etc. p.1
15
TESSA JOWELL DCMS
DCMS role of department p.7
New secretary of state for DCMS p.3
Tessa jowell - Allegations p.1
David Mills. What is he accused of? p.2a
16 E.C. directive TVWF (television without frontiers)
17 Issue grid. revised TVWF.
18 Speech to ISBA conference
19 Alcohol
Age restrictions to Cinema p.20
Age restrictions to Theatre p.6
20 BROADCASTING LAW
Broadcasting Act 1990 p.1
Broadcasting Act 1996 p.4
Classification categories p.13
Google search for Surreptitious advertising tobacco films p.7
Imitable Techniques p.16
Imitable Techniques p.16 p.17
Introduction BBFC p.11
Legal considerations p.12
Ofcom protecting the under 18s p.19
Recent BBFC decisions for film p.8

18


Rule 1.10 Drugs, Smoking, Solvents, Alcohol p.20
Rule 1.20 Films p.23
Rule 1.26 - 1.28 p.24
21
ATTORNEY GENERAL
A.G.s office p.6
Criteria Permanent Injunctions p.9
Decisions of the A.G. are not amenable to J.R. P.13
Definitions of the Public Interest p.34
Google page-(injunctions to prevent harm) p.36
Guardian of the public interest……p.33
Halsbury's stats. P.12
J.R. exceptions (the A.G.) p.12
Law Officers Departments p.38
Office of the AG p.4
Prosecutions of offences act 1985 p.16
Restraining the commission of a crime p.10
The A.G. p.22
The legal sec. To the law officers p.1
22 Pre Action Protocol
23
LETTERS
Email to Police Commissioner p.1
Reply from " " p.1

19


hypocrisy it is not compatible with the speech he gave to Kings College on Public Protection*8
Just a few weeks before his refusal for a full hearing and refusal of the Appeal to the House of
Lords on the grounds that “No Point of Law Worthy of possible consideration by the House of
Lords was involved in the case.”*9
6. There needs to be a public enquiry into Tony Blair who was involved in the Bernie Eccleston
affair (See p. 11) along with Tessa Jowell and husband David Mills (who happens to be the brother in law
of Dame Barbara Mills ex head of the DPP and head of the Serious Fraud Office who knows the
first judge Calvert Smith - she was his predecessor. Also the Attorney General superintends
the SFO and DPP*10
Tony Blair was named in a previously secret tobacco industry document! As being tobacco
friendly and may be able to assist in the destruction of EC directive 98/43/EC banning all
tobacco advertising! (See Tobacco Lobby Targeted Tony Blair p. 61) When Bernie Eccleston went to
number 10 this was discussed probably part of the one million pound deal/donation! -Shortly
after the EC directive was annulled! -Tessa Jowell was involved with this, at that time husband
David Mills was Formula Ones chief financial advisor and Director.*11
More recently Tony, Tessa, and David have all been involved with Sylvio Berlusconi - Films
with actors smoking and secret payments!*12 The secret deals and meetings regarding Tony
Blair and tobacco need looking into.
7. There needs to be a public enquiry into the Sylvio Berlusconi Affair Tony Blair, Tessa
Jowell, David Mills, Film Co Production contracts (money laundering?)*15 & Film tobacco
product placements – and secret payments. £350,000 or £2million? *13
8. There needs to be a public enquiry into the Metropolitan Police Commissioners refusal to
take action regarding public protection, political corruption and corporate crime manifesting in
the forecasted 1 billion tobacco deaths this century. Ref consistent police response – ‘Public
Health is not a Police Matter’. (It’s Political Corruption and Corporate Crime.)*14
9. There seems to be no separation of power, even the head of the Ministry of Justice Lord
Falconer shared a flat with Prime Minister Tony Blair.
10. One billion tobacco addiction deaths is no less than a crime against humanity, a crime
against children, and a crime against the future.
*1 (See brief history p. 51, Ministers Views page 68 & bottom of p. 69 – Nov. 1999. Yvette Cooper: As part of our
comprehensive programme against tobacco, we will implement a ban on tobacco advertising in line with Directive
98/43/EC [banning tobacco advertising, which was annulled in 2000] as soon as practicable. See 98/43/EC Article 3 on
page 72) *2. (See Something wrong p. 55, Mrs Spellman p. 55, Transcripts of Proceedings & Judgement p. 42 & p. 86)
*3 (See Preamble p. 25, Media Moguls on Board p. 62, As Election Looms Tony Blair Basks in Warmth of the Sun. p.
65, Google of ‘Blair Campbell deal with Murdoch’ p. 120)
*4(See pages 12, 24-32, and 97-101) *5 (See Grounds & Statement of Facts p. 5-16) *6 (His predecessor Dame
Barbara Mills (ex head of the Serious Fraud Office & Head of the DPP.) is David Mill’s sister! (See Grounds for Renewal
page 24-32, Proceedings p.49 Para 91-93, Skeleton Argument p.97, Para 3, 5, Common Sense Points p.99 Para 14 )
*7 (See Speech p. 50, Transcripts of Proceedings p.42 & Judgement p. 86) *8(p.90 line 12 – “The judges primary
responsibility is the protection of the public” etc.) *9 (Judgement p. 86 also letter to and from the Court Admin Office
102-104) *10 (see 4. above & Ministers Moguls and Murky Deals p. 59) *11 (See Tobacco Industry Attempts to




Email to Health Minister Patricia Hewitt p.3
Reply from " " " " p.3
Email to DCMS Tessa Jowell p.5
Email to Public Health Minister Caroline Flint p.6
Email to A.G. 4 July p.7
Reply from " " " p.8
Comparison between reply v A.G.s statement. P,9
Email to Frank Dobson M.P. P.13
Email to Police Commissioner p.18
Reply from " " p.18
Pre action protocol to A.G. P20
Pre action protocol to Tessa Jowell p.22
24
FILM
CENSORSIP
80% of top grossing movies promote smoking p.28
Ash Scotland Policy etc.
p.24
Ban on smoking in public places, a

success? ? p.17

BBFC profile p.5
Censorship and regulators p.14
E.C. directive TVWF all TV tobacco advertising including indirect is prohibited p.1
Explained-film censorship in the U.K.
p.12
Google of surreptitious advertising tobacco films p.A
Individual ministerial responsibility (416) p.B

20


Narnia, Lord of the rings, Oliver - no cuts made p.7-11
Ofcom- Ash response p.20
Tessa Jowells answers p.3
Tom and Jerry tobacco ads ban p.16

21

LIST OF ESSENTIAL READING
Actors smoking & One billion deaths this century!
That’s 1/6 of the worlds population or 15 times more than the total war dead of the entire 20th century
Tab 1 Please read all Tab 1
Tab 2 Please read all Tab 2
Tab 3 Please read all Tab 3
Tab4 page 1,2. Articles 2,3,4,5.
Tab 6 p.2 section 1 p.3, 4, 5. p.7 section10 p.8 p.9 p.14.
Tab 7 Please scan all, also p.14 first line “The bill will ban overt advertising…”
Tab 8 p.1-2.
Tab 10 preamble. Article 1, 3, 6, 32,
Tab 11 p.1.
Tab 12 p.A, p.1(day 1 12:45) Dr Lee Jong –Wook… p.7-9. (Kit)
Tab 13 Please scan all.
Tab 14 p.1 we aim to answer all letters etc.
Tab 15 p,1, 2, 2a, 4-7, 9.
Tab 16 p,2 definitions of TV advertising (cg), surreptitious advertising (d h), sponsorship (e i),
p.3 product placement (k), p.8 Article 3g a ,b, (iii) p.7 Article 3d p.9 3gd Article 3h
1.(c) 2. 4. p.10 4. p.13 chapter 1V art. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. p.14 Article 12(d) Article
13 p.15 Article 16(a) (b) (c) p.16 (c) 2 p.17 Article 22. 1. 2.
Tab 18 p.4 Para under TOP….There are a lot…..
Tab 20 do search for “Tobacco”- Broadcasting act 1990 & 1996
P.5 “Harm and offence” replaced “taste and decency.”
Tab 21 Please scan all.
Tab 23 Please scan all letters.
Tab 24 Please scan all.

22


EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE
2
Renewal of Application
page references in extracts do not refer to pages of this bundle

23


Grounds for Renewing the application....pages 1 - 9E
Supporting Documents...... pages 10 – 88 INDEX page 9F
One billion tobacco deaths this century (one death every 3 seconds) & the refusal of
the Attorney General (Defender of the public interest) to seek an injunction to stop actors smoking in
films. (The catalyst of the holocaust)
JUDICIAL REVIEW RESPONSE TO REFUSAL OF PERMISSION (By the Honourable Mr Justice
Calvert-Smith) 1st Defendant –Attorney General. 2nd Defendant Tessa Jowell. 3rd Defendant Met. Police
Commissioner Claimant- Stuart Holmes (Anti-smoking campaigner)
The entirety of the claim is set out in the claim form and Tab 1 under the Grounds and Statement of
Facts relied on. and incorporated in the bundle (I do hope the gravity of this claim will take precedence
over any errors that I have made- there is a mountain of documentation and I was unable to obtain a
solicitor, however I believe this claim should be sufficient as in urgent cases injunctions should be
granted on prima facia in order to stop the harm immediately. - One death every 3 seconds and one
new recruit every 3 seconds)
The Injunction requested would not be detrimental to the legitimate business of the film industry, if
granted the injunction would have a massive effect on the wellbeing of people and the protection of
people especially children from enticement into tobacco addiction via actors smoking.
The following judgement is compatible with my request for the injunction.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 12 December 2006 (*) (Action for annulment –
Approximation of laws – Directive 2003/33/EC – Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products –
Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 – Choice of legal basis – Articles 95 EC and 152 EC – Principle of
proportionality) In Case C-380/03, ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 9 September
2003, On those grounds, the Court (Grand
Chamber) hereby:
Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs; 3. Orders the Kingdom
of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European Communities
each to bear their own costs.
Please see full text below page
Also the request for the A.G. to pursue the injunction is compatible with the judgement of 12/12/06 above-to
prevent the circumvention of the advertising of smoking and breach of Article 10 of ECHR. See paragraphs
of judgement of 12/12/06 page below.
In any event regardless of law the enticement of people especially children into a poisonous addiction via
actors smoking in films resulting in one billion deaths this century is immoral and is sufficient reason for
the A.G. to seek the injunction.

24


Contents
1. Preamble…….. page. 2
2. Response to Hon. Justice Calvert-Smiths Observations…….. page. 3
3. Was the tobacco industry the author of the 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act? …….. page.
5
4. ECHR. …….. page. 8
5. TVWF…….. page. 9
6. WHO. FCTC. …….. page. 9c
7. Advertising Standards Authority…….. page. 9c
8. The cheese & tobacco factory…….. page. 9c
9. Polonium 210 sold in children’s sweet shops…….. page. 9d
10. Catalogue of Political tobacco Corruption…….. page. 9d
11. Tessa Jowell & David Mills…….. page. 9e
12. Corporate Crime etc. is a police matter…….. page. 9e
13. In any event…….. page. 9
1. Preamble
Speech by the Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson M.P. Secretary of State for Health, 19 May 1997
Mr. Dobson told the conference: "We will ban tobacco advertising. It will cover all forms,
including sponsorship." At a later date he said-
Thursday September 30, 1999 Guardian Unlimited “And we are taking one very special step to
protect the health of every child in this land. From December this year tobacco advertising will
be banned. That will bring most benefit to the most deprived children in the most deprived
areas.”
Before getting into power New Labour said they would ban tobacco advertising within the first few weeks of

office.
25


Please put into perspective the weight of harm done.
Smoking is forecast to kill One Billion People this century (W.H.O.) that’s 1/6 of the world’s population or 15
times greater than the total war dead of the entire 20th century (due to a consumer product sold in children’s
sweet shops!) The cause-political corruption & enticement into addiction. This amounts to premeditated
killing as it is public knowledge that 1/2 those addicted to cigarettes will be killed.
The governments manifesto pledge was to ban tobacco advertising (to protect the public especially children)
this was reneged on; also there has been acts of corruption regarding tobacco and government. There is a
legitimate expectation that governments will honour there promises. (In real terms tobacco advertising or
promotions are more potent (i.e. covert or surreptitious promotions in films) and in far greater volume than
before new labour came to power. growth in films in cinema, on TV. (satellite, cable, digital), on video, cd
rom, internet and information society service etc.)
I think that I am correct in saying that sky films is the major sauce of tobacco promotions via films, the owner
Rupert Murdoch is a Director of Philip Morris (Marlboro) who has done some sort of deal with Prime
Minister Tony Blair. page 33, 37, 57.
POSSIBLY –YOU GET ME IN POWER – AND I’LL LET YOU ADVERTISE CIGARETTES
? see article page. 33, 37.
Below page 57 is just some of one days film viewing, the majority of which will be
covertly/subvertly/surreptitiously/indirectly/subliminaly/via product placement, call it what you like –
advertising and promoting smoking via actors smoking. (and hence circumventing the ban) Sky Movies
screen over 450 films every week the majority of which will be promoting smoking via actors smoking !
2. Response to Hon. Justice Calvert-Smiths Observations
Ref. Hon. Justice Calvert-Smith’s Observation 1.
Sections 2, 3, 8,9,10,11,15,18 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act 2002 create offences or classes
of offender. None are concerned with “promotion” or television or radio programs. They concern
advertisements, coupons, sponsorship, breaches of regulations concerning emblems etc. obstructing officers

26


and the liability of company directors etc.
Claimants response -Contrary to your observation regarding “promotion”- Section 10 of the Tobacco
Advertising and promotion Act 2002. States-
Prohibition of sponsorship (1) “A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if
the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product in the
United Kingdom.”
To simplify matters there seem to be two elements to the act – “protection & punishment”. The element
identified as causing the harm to be protected from is the - advertising and promotion of tobacco, the
claimants request to the Attorney General was urgently to “protect” the public especially children from the
promotion of tobacco in Films and TV. (Via injunction to stop actors smoking in films –smoking, or any
suggestion of smoking, should be prohibited (including new films depicting the past) and also cut from
previous films which were made after the dangers of smoking were widely recognised.
There can be no question that actors smoking have the effect of promoting tobacco, when cigarette advertising
was legal on TV. and before restrictions, the method invariably used to promote cigarettes was the use of
actors smoking. Also in the bundle (tab 3. page 76.) “The Science”- there’s a list of 72 scientific papers stating
that actors smoking are the greatest influence as to why children start smoking.
Also in the bundle (tab 3. page 11.) top of page-
“Film is better than any commercial that has been run on TV. or in any magazine, because the audience is
totally unaware of any sponsor involvement.” This was stated in a letter from a Public Relations company
to its tobacco industry client
.
Also read this speech given by the president of Philip Morris International- (Bundle Tab 3 p.11 Para 6)
“Smoking is being positioned as an unfashionable, as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every
creative means at our disposal to reverse this destructive trend. I do feel heartened at the increasing

27


number of occasions when I go to a movie and see a pack of cigarettes in the hands of the leading lady.
This is in sharp contrast to the state of affairs just a few years ago when cigarettes rarely showed up on
camera. We must continue to exploit new opportunities to get cigarettes on screen and into the hands of
smokers.”
EC directives and Television without frontiers (TVWF) prohibits all forms of tobacco advertising including
surreptitious tobacco advertising which the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Act incorporates see (tab 16) in
bundle. This is why TV and radio are not mentioned in the act. (also see extracts from Tab 16 –TVWF. Page.
10 – 11)
Ref. Hon. Justice Calvert-Smith’s Observation 2. –
“The mere showing of a film in which a person is smoking cannot amount to advertising a tobacco product as
defined in Sections 1&2.”
Claimants response –According to Hansard the word “advertising” has not been defined in order to give it as
wider meaning as possible. (See Hansard and tab 7. page 3.-6) “The Act defines tobacco
advertisement as an advertisement whose purpose or whose effect is to promote a tobacco product. The term
“advertising” is not defined and bears its natural meaning.” (Please check dictionary definitions of
advertisement, advert, etc.)
12. Product placement, surreptitious, subliminal, covert, indirect, direct, brand sharing, etc. are all forms of
tobacco advertising. The most potent form being surreptitious or covert for reasons given in above. And
other reasons.
Ref. Hon. Justice Calvert-Smith’s Observation 4.-
In any event the Attorney General has discretion whether to intervene to injunction persons who have declared
an intention to commit a crime. The courts will not interfere with that discretion.
Claimant’s response -As set out in the grounds the Attorney General has given incorrect reasons for his
refusal to seek an injunction to prevent onscreen smoking the courts can challenge these reasons. (also he is
duty bound to defend the public interest – it can not be in the public interest to poison the nations / worlds

28


children.
Ref. Hon. Justice Calvert-Smith’s Observation 3. –
The appropriate body to take action if criminal breaches of the Act are suspected is a weights and measures
authority. Claimants response :
3. Was the author of the 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act.- the tobacco
industry?
As stated in the Statement of Facts Relied On (tab 1. page 9) There may be problems with this Act as it would
be unusual for a tobacco promoter to declare that he was about to commit a crime. It would seem that the act
is designed to be ineffective; a major part of the act deals with the defence of the accused having merely to say
that he did not know he was advertising or promoting smoking. It is unlikely therefore that the Act would be a
deterrent or that prosecutions would succeed.
There has been an instance where the tobacco industry was the secret authors of anti tobacco legislation! Also
the minister responsible for enforcement is Tessa Jowell who along with her husband and Tony Blair were
central to the Bernie Ecclestone affair (the missed point regarding the Bernie Ecclestone affair was the
intended weakening and destruction of Directive 98/43/EC), also with ref. to Section 13 Enforcement – 3. The
appropriate Minister may direct, in relation to cases of a particular description or a particular case that any
duty imposed on an enforcement authority in England and Wales or Scotland by subsection (2) shall be
discharged by the appropriate Minster and not by the enforcement authority.
It is unlikely that Tessa Jowell (the 2nd defendant) would instigate proceedings against herself for the tobacco
promotions that appear in the films that she is responsible for and that she is supposed to censor; also her
husband David Mills who is involved with- film production, tobacco advertising, offshore film companies,
Silvio Berlusconi, the mafia? and the secret payment of £350,000, (which may have originated from the
tobacco industry for payment of illegal tobacco advertising in Tessa Jowells films) is now in court along with
Silvio Berlusconi, I think they are both charged with embezzlement, money laundering, and fraud etc?. Letters
have been sent to Tessa Jowells for which the claimant has proof of sending but she claims no record of
receipt. (See acknowledgement of service DCMS)

29


Given the circumstances with balance and proportionality the “appropriate” enforcement agency concerning
the above and the premeditated killing (murder) of One Billion People is the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner who is the 3rd defendant.
.
The Honourable Justice Calvert Smith suggests that the 2002 tobacco advertising & promotion act is not
effective in stopping the promotional effect of actors smoking onscreen; therefore the government have not
fulfilled their manifesto commitment to ban tobacco advertising and to protect children from tobacco
promotions and the holocaust. There is a legitimate expectation that governments honour their promises. The
highly respected Professor Glantz (university of California states that “Smoking in movies is the most
powerful pro-tobacco influence on kids today, accounting for 52% of adolescents who start smoking, (I don’t
think this takes into consideration the viral effect i.e. children imitating other children that are imitating actors
smoking etc. therefore the 52% could be much greater?) An effect even stronger than cigarette advertising.
Also they are 16 times more likely to have a positive attitude to smoking if their favourite actors smoke.
In The Statement of Facts Relied On. (Tab 1) the claimant expressed doubts about the 2002 Act (being a
licence to poison children) Given the Honourable Justice Calvert Smiths remarks about the Act. And given
the history of the government’s corruption regarding tobacco. And given the evidence that the tobacco
industry attempted to replace EC directive 98/43/EC by covertly introducing a tobacco authored replacement.-
Tobacco Industry Attempts to Subvert European Union Tobacco Advertising Legislation
The tobacco industry engaged in a number of practices to conceal its role, particularly
the formulation and introduction of an industry-authored minimum
harmonization proposal intended to replace the EC Draft Directive without disclosing
the industry’s role in preparing the draft.. The documents suggest the
involvement of Martin Bangemann and the German delegation to the European
Commission in introducing the tobacco industry’s proposal without disclosing
its source.
Also see Hansard 2nd Nov. 2001 column 1670
Internal tobacco industry documents show that it really views these agreements as a public relations ploy. One
company memo from 1991 states that,
"the ultimate means for determining the success", of agreements to limit marketing aimed at young people, as,
"A reduction in legislation introduced and passed restricting or banning our sales and marketing activities;
"Passage of legislation favorable to the industry; "Greater support from business, parent and teacher groups"

30


Also see WHO. FCTC. below page.
And given the bizarre history and content of the 2002 tobacco ad. & promotion act. which was unnecessary as
the U.K. government could have immediately adopted directive 98/43/EC into UK law without the years of
ongoing delay even though it was annulled by the ECJ.- ref. pre amble Rt Hon Frank Dobson’s speech of 19.
5. 1997.
It is not unreasonable to suspect that the 2002 act was authored by the tobacco industry. Look at the evidence
– Tony Blair had links with the Tobacco Advertising Council via a list of people who could support the demise
of 98/43/EC; also those involved in the attempt to covertly replace 98/43/EC were also involved with the
Tobacco Advertising Council. (Formula One was used as a third party by the tobacco industry to get to
politicians. And when Bernie Ecclestone went to number 10 the issue of 98/43/EC was raised, there was a
massive coordinated effort by the tobacco industry to defeat 98/43/EC. Ref. Tobacco Industry Attempts to
Subvert European Union Tobacco Advertising Legislation. Also see similar tobacco industry behaviour
pages. 32 or 58, 61, 62, 30, 76, 82.
In any event the 2002 Tobacco advertising and promotion act was only part of the claim as mentioned (EC
Directives, TVWF. ECHR. WHO. Advertising standards,) in Grounds & Statement of Facts relied on (tab 1)
and incorporated in the bundle.
As stated in the Statement of Facts this is nothing less than a Crime against Children and a Crime against
Humanity on an unprecedented scale. It is my understanding that if the authorities fail to take action to prevent
harm and crime then they become guilty of that crime.
.
4. ECHR.Article 10: Freedom of Expression
According to Human Rights Law in the interest of public safety and health, tobacco advertising and promotion
in all its forms is illegal. Please see (2) below and page (Also Ofcom need to restrict all actors from
smoking not just Tom & Jerry. It is also illegal regarding EC law which states a high level of public health
guarantee.)

31


(1) Everyone has the right of 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.
Also please see document below- The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies.
M E Crow. Page. 12.
5. TVWF. The following are extracts from the bundle Tab. 16 (Not sure if all the
following are in force yet)-
Key words: tobacco, surreptitious, subliminal, placement, smoking, children,
Consolidated TEXT
Produced by the CONSLEG system
Of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
CONSLEG: 1989L0552 — 30/07/1997
Number of pages: 16
Whereas it is necessary to prohibit all television advertising promoting
Cigarettes and other tobacco products including indirect forms of advertising
Which, whilst not directly mentioning the tobacco product, seek to
Circumvent the ban on advertising by using brand names, symbols or
other distinctive features of tobacco products or of undertakings whose
known or main activities include the production or sale of such products;
1989L0552 — EN — 30.07.1997 — 001.001 — 5
Article 13
All forms of television advertising and teleshopping for cigarettes and
other tobacco products shall be prohibited.
2. Television programmes may not be sponsored by undertakings
whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.

32


►M1 (d) ◄ ‘surreptitious advertising' means the representation in
words or pictures of goods, services, the name, the trade
mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a
provider of services in programmes when such representation
is intended by the broadcaster to serve advertising
and might mislead the public as to its nature. Such
representation is considered to be intentional in particular
if it is done in return for payment or for similar
consideration;
►M1 (e) ◄ ‘sponsorship' means any contribution made by a public
or private undertaking not engaged in television broadcasting
activities or in the production of audio-visual
works, to the financing of television programmes with a
1989L0552 — EN — 30.07.1997 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image, its
activities or its products;
▼M1
(f) ‘teleshopping' means direct offers broadcast to the public with
a view to the supply of goods or services, including immovable
property, rights and obligations, in return for payment.
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image, its
activities or its products;
▼M1
Television advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping
Article 10
1. Television advertising and teleshopping shall be readily recognizable
as such and kept quite separate from other parts of the programme
service by optical and/or acoustic means.
2. Isolated advertising and teleshopping spots shall remain the exception.
3. Advertising and teleshopping shall not use subliminal techniques.
4. Surreptitious advertising and teleshopping shall be prohibited
……………………………………………………………………….
tobacco, surreptitious, subliminal, placement, smoking, children, EN EN
V 14.0 Draft for Amended TVWF Directive – Consolidated version
EN EN
DIRECTIVE [] OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL AMENDING
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC
on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
Text with relevance for EEA
(d) all forms of audiovisual commercial communications and teleshopping for cigarettes and
other tobacco products shall be prohibited;
(d) all forms of audiovisual commercial communications and teleshopping for cigarettes and
other tobacco products shall be prohibited;
2. Audiovisual media services must not be sponsored by undertakings whose principal activity is
the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Further, audiovisual media
services must not contain placement of tobacco products or cigarettes or product placement from
undertakings whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products.
Article 13
All forms of television advertising and teleshopping for cigarettes and other tobacco products
shall be prohibited.

33


CHAPTER I
Definitions
Article 1
For the purpose of this Directive:
(a) ‘audiovisual media service’ means a service as defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty the
principal purpose of which is the provision of moving images with or without sound, in order to
inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks within
the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council1;
(b) ‘media service provider’ means the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility
for the choice of the audiovisual content of the audiovisual media service and determines the
manner in which it is organised;
(ac)‘television broadcasting’ means the initial transmission by wire or over the air, including that
by satellite, in unencoded or encoded form, of television programmes intended for reception by
the public. It includes the communication of programmes between undertakings with a view to
their being relayed to the public. It does not include communication services providing items of
information or other messages on individual demand such as telecopying, electronic data banks
and other similar services;
1 OJ L 108, 24.04.2002, p.33
EN EN
or ‘television broadcast’ mean a linear audiovisual media service where a media service
Provider decides upon the moment in time when a specific programmed is transmitted and
establishes the programmed schedule;
(bd) ‘broadcaster' means the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for the
composition of schedules of television programmes within the meaning of (a) and who transmits
them or has them transmitted by third parties;
means provider of linear audiovisual media services;
(e) ‘non-linear service’ means an audiovisual media service where the user decides upon the
moment in time when a specific programme is transmitted on the basis of a choice of content
selected by the media service provider;
(f) ‘audiovisual commercial communication’ means moving images with or without sound which
accompany audiovisual media services and are designed to promote, directly or indirectly, the
goods, services or image of a natural or legal entity pursuing an economic activity;
(cg) ‘television advertising' means any form of announcement broadcast whether in return for
payment or for similar consideration or broadcast for self-promotional purposes by a public or
private undertaking in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote
the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations, in return
for payment;
(d h) ‘surreptitious advertising' means the representation in words or pictures of goods, services,
the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a provider of services in
programmes when such representation is intended by the broadcaster to serve advertising and
might mislead the public as to its nature. Such representation is considered to be intentional in
particular if it is done in return for payment or for similar consideration;
(e i) ‘sponsorship' means any contribution made by a public or private undertaking not engaged
in television broadcasting activities providing audiovisual media services or in the production of
audio-visual works, to the financing of television programmes audiovisual media services with a
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image, its activities or its products;
(f j) ‘teleshopping' means direct offers broadcast to the public with a view to the supply of goods
or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations, in return for payment;
(k) ‘product placement’ means any form of audiovisual commercial communication consisting of
the inclusion of or reference to a product, a service or the trade mark thereof so that it is featured
within audiovisual media services, normally in return for payment or for similar consideration.
(a) audiovisual commercial communications must be clearly identifiable as such. Surreptitious
audiovisual commercial communication shall be prohibited.
(b) audiovisual commercial communications must not use subliminal techniques;
(c) audiovisual commercial communications must not:
(i) include any discrimination on grounds of race, sex or nationality;
(ii) be offensive to religious or political beliefs;
(iii) encourage behaviour prejudicial to health or to safety;

34


Television advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping
Article 10
1. Television advertising and teleshopping shall be readily recognizable as such and kept quite
separate from other parts of the programme service by optical and/or acoustic means.
2. Isolated advertising and teleshopping spots, other than in sports programmes, shall remain the
exception.
3. Advertising and teleshopping shall not use subliminal techniques.
4. Surreptitious advertising and teleshopping shall be prohibited.
(c) viewers must be clearly informed of the existence of a sponsorship agreement and/or the
existence of product placement. Sponsored programmes must be clearly identified as such by the
name, logo and/or any other symbol of the sponsor such as a reference to its product(s) or
service(s) or a distinctive sign thereof in a appropriate way for programmes at the beginning,
during and/or the end of the programmers. Programmers containing product placement must be
appropriately identified at the start of the programme in order to avoid any confusion on the part
of the viewer.
2. Audiovisual media services must not be sponsored by undertakings whose principal activity is
the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Further, audiovisual media
services must not contain placement of tobacco products or cigarettes or product placement from
undertakings whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products.
3. The sponsorship of audiovisual media services by undertakings whose activities include the
manufacture or sale of medicinal products and medical treatment may promote the name or the
image of the undertaking but may not promote specific medicinal products or medical treatments
available only on prescription in the Member State within whose jurisdiction the media service
provider falls.
4. News and current affairs shall not be sponsored and not contain product placement.
Audiovisual media services for children and documentaries may not contain product placement.”
6. WHO. FCTC. World Health Organisation - Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control
Please see articles below
1) The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies. See article page.
12
2) Updated status of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. See article page. 21
3) Articles of the FCTC see page 77, 82, 21, 39.
4) REPORT: CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL SAYS TOBACCO INDUSTRY IS
INTERFERING WITH LANDMARK PUBLIC HEALTH TREATY. See article page. 30
7. Advertising Standards Authority
The Advertising Standards Authority is the independent body set up by the advertising industry to police the
rules laid down in the advertising codes. The strength of the self-regulatory system lies in both the
independence of the ASA and the support and commitment of the advertising industry, through the Committee
of Advertising Practice (CAP), to the standards of the codes, protecting consumers and creating a level playing
field for advertisers.

35


Broadcast Advertising Codes 3.1 Unacceptable categories
(d) All tobacco products. Also non-tobacco products or services which share a name, emblem or other
feature with a tobacco product where these are prohibited by law from advertising in other UK media. See the
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brand sharing) Regulations 2004
3.2 Indirect promotion 3) There must be no references to tobacco products or smoking in advertising which
might be of particular interest to children or teenagers. There will be few occasions when their inclusion in
other advertising is acceptable but two exceptions are health-related public service advertising and incidental
images of smoking in clips from films made before the dangers of smoking were widely recognised
8. The cheese & tobacco factory
Whether by corruption or incompetence there seems to be no consistency and no proportionality
Just last week a cheese factory was closed down on public health grounds because of a controversy regarding
anti biotic residues- nobody was killed nobody got sick – why didn’t they keep the cheese factory open and
close the tobacco factory’s which are killing millions of people? If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. Even if
the entire economy collapses and we all have to eat carrots, then so be it, you do not poison children, it is not
acceptable to poison children. See article page. 59, 74-76, 60.
9. Polonium 210 sold in children’s sweet shops
The United States Surgeon General has stated that Polonium 210 in cigarettes is responsible for the majority of
lung cancer cases attributed to cigarette smoking. Logically speaking tobacco should not be for sale, can you
imagine any other consumer product displaying an advert on the packet that says this product is highly
addictive and kills half its consumers? What’s happened to consumer protection? And EC law which states
there should be a high degree of consumer protection?
See article page. 56
10. Catalogue of Political Tobacco Corruption U.K.

36


Smoker friendly Prime Minister Tony Blair- see article page.
Tony Blair’s deal with Rupert Murdoch? See
Bernie Ecclestone Affair see
Stephen Byers- tobacco smuggling
Mafia connections
Silvio Berlusconi see
Tessa Jowell see
David Mills see
Tony Blair’s Secret breakfast meetings with the tobacco industry
Tobacco Smuggling
Tobacco Moguls wined and dined at chequers
Directorships
Allen Millburn Health Minister part time job with company that then got Gov. Contract
Caroline Flint - exemption for actors from smoking ban.
Patricia Hewitt – Donations, Enron? Author Anderson accountants?
Kenneth Clark – Chairman of B.A.T.
Margaret Thatcher Directorship Philip Morris?
BBC. Used to be responsible for 95% of onscreen tobacco advertising
D.T.I. tobacco smuggling
11. Tessa Jowell & David Mills & Tony Blair
They were all involved in the Bernie Ecclestone affair 10 years ago and now they are all involved with Silvio
Berlusconi (who is a smaller but similar figure to Rupert Murdoch) media mogul TV., Films, Advertising,
plus mafia connections (Prime Minister Tony Blair goes on holiday with him.) Tessa Jowell is the Minister
responsible for regulating the Film Industry and smoking in films, her husband along with Silvio Berlusconi
are now on trial in Italy for Money Laundering, Embezzlement, Corruption. Also the financial systems used at
the DCMS for film financing resemble those thought to be used for illegal product placement. see also in the
bundle Tab.1 page 8. The Bernie Ecclestone Affair, Tessa Jowell DCMS.
12. Corporate Crime etc. is a police matter

37


The tobacco holocaust is not primarily a health issue, primarily it is a corporate crime issue the manifestation
of which is the tobacco holocaust, as such this is a matter for the police not the health department or weights
and measures, and because of the Police Commissioners refusal to take action in protecting children from this
holocaust he has failed his duty. The same applies to the Attorney General. See also in the bundle Tab 1. page
10. Role of the Police Commissioner, Role of the Attorney General.
13. In any event
The request for the injunction seems to be supported by law via the judgement of 12/12/06 2003/33/EC.
Please read the judgement on page. 39
Supporting documents index
Grounds…….. page. 1-9e
TVWF…….. page. 10
Human Rights of Multinationals…….. page. 12
WHO FCTC …….. page. 21
Uzbekistan and tobacco tricks…….. page. 32 & 58
Rupert Murdoch Sky TV…….. page. 33 .
The Sun…….. page. 37
Directive 98/43/EC…….. page. 63
Directive 2003/33/EC…….. page. 66
Judgement 12/12/06 of 2003/33/EC…….. page. 39
Polonium 210 in cigarettes…….. page. 56
Tobacco Industry attempts to subvert EC legislation…….. page. 61, 62
Smoker friendly Tony Blair…….. page. 76
Transcript of Blairs meeting with Bernie Ecclestone…….. page.
Pages from Smokefreemovies…….. page. 74-76
ECJ case C- 380/03…….. page. 38A
Directives…….. page.
Shock Anti Smoking Ads…….. page. 56, 56B
Sky TV guide…….. page. 57
Cheese Factory…….. page. 59
Now Showing smoking & nosmoking movies…….. page. 60

38


Tobacco Industry attempts…….. page. 61
Tobacco lobby targeted Blair as “smoker friendly” …….. page. 76
WHO FCTC…….. page. 77
Global Tobacco Treaty Action Guide. …….. page 82
TVF. The following are extracts from the bundle Tab. 16 (Not sure if all the following are in force yet)-
►M1 (d) ◄ ‘surreptitious advertising' means the
representation in
words or pictures of goods, services, the name, the
trade
mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a
TVWF. The following are extracts from
provider of services in programmes when such
representation
the bundle Tab. 16 is intended by the broadcaster to serve advertising
and might mislead the public as to its nature. Such
representation is considered to be intentional in
(Not sure if all the following are in force
particular
if it is done in return for payment or for similar
yet ;
Key words: tobacco, surreptitious, subliminal,
placement, smoking, children,
Consolidated TEXT
Produced by the CONSLEG system
Of the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities
CONSLEG: 1989L0552 — 30/07/1997
Number of pages: 16
Whereas it is necessary to prohibit all television
consideration
advertising promoting
►M1 (e) ◄ ‘sponsorship' means any contribution
Cigarettes and other tobacco products including
made by a public
indirect forms of advertising
or private undertaking not engaged in television
Which, whilst not directly mentioning the tobacco
broadcasting activities or in the production of audio-
product, seek to
visual works, to the financing of television
Circumvent the ban on advertising by using brand
programmes with a
names, symbols or
1989L0552 — EN — 30.07.1997 — 001.001 — 6
other distinctive features of tobacco products or of
▼B
undertakings whose
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image,
known or main activities include the production or sale
its
of such products;
activities or its products;
1989L0552 — EN — 30.07.1997 — 001.001 — 5
▼M1
Article 13
(f) ‘teleshopping' means direct offers broadcast to the
All forms of television advertising and teleshopping
public with
for cigarettes and
a view to the supply of goods or services, including
other tobacco products shall be prohibited.
immovable
property, rights and obligations, in return for payment.
2. Television programmes may not be sponsored by
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image,
undertakings
its
whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of
activities or its products;
cigarettes and
other tobacco products.

39


defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty the
▼M1
principal purpose of which is the provision of moving
Television advertising, sponsorship and
images with or without sound, in order to
teleshopping
inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by
Article 10
1. Television advertising and teleshopping shall be electronic communications networks within
readily recognizable the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of
as such and kept quite separate from other parts of the the European Parliament and of the
programme Council1;
service by optical and/or acoustic means. (b) ‘media service provider’ means the natural or
2. Isolated advertising and teleshopping spots shall legal person who has editorial responsibility
remain the exception. for the choice of the audiovisual content of the
3. Advertising and teleshopping shall not use audiovisual media service and determines the
subliminal techniques. manner in which it is organised;
(ac)‘television broadcasting’ means the initial
4. Surreptitious advertising and teleshopping shall be
prohibited transmission by wire or over the air, including that
by satellite, in unencoded or encoded form, of
………………………………………………………… television programmes intended for reception by
……………. the public. It includes the communication of
programmes between undertakings with a view to
their being relayed to the public. It does not include
tobacco, surreptitious, subliminal, placement,
communication services providing items of
smoking, children, EN EN
V 14.0 Draft for Amended TVWF Directive – information or other messages on individual demand
Consolidated version such as telecopying, electronic data banks
and other similar services;
EN EN
1 OJ L 108, 24.04.2002, p.33
DIRECTIVE [] OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EN EN
AMENDING or ‘television broadcast’ mean a linear audiovisual
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC media service where a media service
on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Provider decides upon the moment in time when a
law, regulation or administrative action in specific programmed is transmitted and
Member States concerning the pursuit of television establishes the programmed schedule;
(bd) ‘broadcaster' means the natural or legal person
broadcasting activities
Text with relevance for EEA who has editorial responsibility for the
composition of schedules of television programmes
(d) all forms of audiovisual commercial
communications and teleshopping for cigarettes and within the meaning of (a) and who transmits
them or has them transmitted by third parties;
other tobacco products shall be prohibited;
means provider of linear audiovisual media services;
(d) all forms of audiovisual commercial
communications and teleshopping for cigarettes and (e) ‘non-linear service’ means an audiovisual media
service where the user decides upon the
other tobacco products shall be prohibited;
moment in time when a specific programme is
2. Audiovisual media services must not be sponsored transmitted on the basis of a choice of content
selected by the media service provider;
by undertakings whose principal activity is
(f) ‘audiovisual commercial communication’ means
the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other
moving images with or without sound which
tobacco products. Further, audiovisual media
accompany audiovisual media services and are
services must not contain placement of tobacco
designed to promote, directly or indirectly, the
products or cigarettes or product placement from
goods, services or image of a natural or legal entity
undertakings whose principal activity is the
pursuing an economic activity;
manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
(cg) ‘television advertising' means any form of
products.
announcement broadcast whether in return for
payment or for similar consideration or broadcast for
Article 13
All forms of television advertising and teleshopping for self-promotional purposes by a public or
private undertaking in connection with a trade,
cigarettes and other tobacco products
business, craft or profession in order to promote
shall be prohibited.
the supply of goods or services, including immovable
property, rights and obligations, in return
CHAPTER I
for payment;
Definitions
(d h) ‘surreptitious advertising' means the
Article 1
representation in words or pictures of goods, services,
For the purpose of this Directive:
the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer
(a) ‘audiovisual media service’ means a service as

40


of goods or a provider of services in
programmes when such representation is intended by
the broadcaster to serve advertising and (c) viewers must be clearly informed of the existence of
might mislead the public as to its nature. Such a sponsorship agreement and/or the
representation is considered to be intentional in existence of product placement. Sponsored
particular if it is done in return for payment or for programmes must be clearly identified as such by the
similar consideration; name, logo and/or any other symbol of the sponsor
(e i) ‘sponsorship' means any contribution made by a such as a reference to its product(s) or
public or private undertaking not engaged service(s) or a distinctive sign thereof in a appropriate
in television broadcasting activities providing way for programmes at the beginning,
audiovisual media services or in the production of during and/or the end of the programmers.
audio-visual works, to the financing of television Programmers containing product placement must be
programmes audiovisual media services with a appropriately identified at the start of the programme
view to promoting its name, its trade mark, its image, in order to avoid any confusion on the part
its activities or its products; of the viewer.
(f j) ‘teleshopping' means direct offers broadcast to the 2. Audiovisual media services must not be sponsored
public with a view to the supply of goods by undertakings whose principal activity is
or services, including immovable property, rights and the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other
obligations, in return for payment; tobacco products. Further, audiovisual media
services must not contain placement of tobacco
(k) ‘product placement’ means any form of audiovisual
products or cigarettes or product placement from
commercial communication consisting of
undertakings whose principal activity is the
the inclusion of or reference to a product, a service or
manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
the trade mark thereof so that it is featured
products.
within audiovisual media services, normally in return
3. The sponsorship of audiovisual media services by
for payment or for similar consideration.
undertakings whose activities include the
(a) audiovisual commercial communications must be manufacture or sale of medicinal products and
medical treatment may promote the name or the
clearly identifiable as such. Surreptitious
image of the undertaking but may not promote specific
audiovisual commercial communication shall be
medicinal products or medical treatments
prohibited.
(b) audiovisual commercial communications must not available only on prescription in the Member State
within whose jurisdiction the media service
use subliminal techniques;
(c) audiovisual commercial communications must not: provider falls.
(i) include any discrimination on grounds of race, sex 4. News and current affairs shall not be sponsored and
not contain product placement.
or nationality;
Audiovisual media services for children and
(ii) be offensive to religious or political beliefs;
documentaries may not contain product placement.”
(iii) encourage behaviour prejudicial to health or to
safety;
Television advertising, sponsorship and
teleshopping
Article 10
1. Television advertising and teleshopping shall be
readily recognizable as such and kept quite
separate from other parts of the programme service by
optical and/or acoustic means.
2. Isolated advertising and teleshopping spots, other
than in sports programmes, shall remain the
exception.
3. Advertising and teleshopping shall not use
subliminal techniques.
4. Surreptitious advertising and teleshopping shall be

prohibited.

41



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/8239/2006
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 1 February 2007
B E F O R E:
SIR IGOR JUDGE
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE
-------
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HOLMES
(CLAIMANT)
-v-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(DEFENDANT)
-------
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-------
The Applicant appeared in person
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
-------
PROCEEDINGS

-------
42


1. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Mr Holmes, good morning. Thank you for coming. We have read your
papers and we now would like to invite you to address us.
2. THE APPLICANT: In terms of weight of harm, this is probably the most important case
that has ever been brought to these courts. It concerns the premeditated killing of one billion
people this century via tobacco addiction, and the intentional enticement of children into that
addiction. The root cause of this holocaust is political corruption, corporate crime and the
enticement of children into addiction via tobacco advertising and promotion.
3. Actors smoking in films are the most potent form of promoting cigarette addiction,
according to the 72 scientific papers in the bundle, tab 3 page 76 -- that is the thick one. Also
on page 67 there is a list of 165 press articles regarding the same. One billion tobacco deaths
this century -- that is one thousand million deaths -- is forecast by the World Health
Organisation. That figure is so large it works out to be more than 15 times the total War dead
of the entire 20th Century, excluding genocide, or one-sixth of the world's population. It works
out to be approximately one death and one new recruit every three seconds, this holocaust being
due to a consumer product sold in children's sweet shops.
4. As stated in the judgments of the European Court of Justice on 12th December 2006, six
weeks ago or so, from Directive 89/552/EC and Article 10 of the European Court of Human
Rights:
"(1) Article 13. All forms of television advertising for cigarette and other
tobacco products shall be prohibited, including indirect advertising.
(2) Surreptitious tobacco advertising is banned on television.
(3) Tobacco sponsorship is banned on television.
(4) Tobacco product placement is banned on television."
5. Also Article 10(2) of European Charter of Human Rights:
"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
should not prevent the State from requiring the licensing of broadcasting
television or cinema enterprises. Part 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since is
carries with it duties and responsibilities."

43


6. -- I have edited this down, your Honour --
"may be subject to such restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety or for the
protection of health."
7. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we have the general thrust of the importance of what you say is
involved in this. What we have to address is the Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act
2002, and see whether your case that the Attorney-General's failure to act can really be seen as
some kind of breach of the statutory provisions.
8. THE APPLICANT: I am getting to that, sir.
9. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we have got there. That is where we need to get to, is it not?
10. THE APPLICANT: Well, as stated in the grounds and the facts relied on in the main
bundle, that wasn't the only part. That was part of the claim. The claim also mentions
"Directives on Television Without Frontiers". That was in the Pre-Action Protocols and it is in
the grounds and the statements of facts relied on, and it's also in the bundle as well. So
basically I have switched routes.
11. SIR IGOR JUDGE: But in the end, what you are seeking is an order that the Attorney-
General should act in accordance with the law; is it not? That is what I think you are saying.
You are saying, "Here is the law; it is being broken and the Attorney-General is doing nothing
about it and he is responsible as the law officer for seeing that the law is enforced".
12. THE APPLICANT: That is part of it, your Honour. The main concern is the massive harm
that's being done.
13. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, that is why you are bringing the proceedings. We understand
that. But the question whether the Attorney-General is or is not in breach of his duty is actually
a pure question of law.
14. THE APPLICANT: That is placed --- OMISSION TRANSCRRIPT PROBLEM?
15. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Your point is well understood. Other people share it; others do not.
But we are not here just dealing with your opinion about the issue. We have to address what
the legal structure is that enables you to say the Attorney-General has failed in his duty as
Attorney-General and upholder of the law.
16. THE APPLICANT: Well, he's failed under Article 10(2) of the European Charter of
Human Rights, and he's failed under Directive 89/552/EC.
17. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Wait a minute --- OMISSION? TRANSCRIPT PROBLEM?
18. THE APPLICANT: Sorry, which incorporates -- the main Directive is the other -- I have
forgotten the name of it.
19. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Fifty-five?
20. THE APPLICANT: Two thousand ...
21. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I may be wrong about this, but was it not the Directive which
eventually produced our Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act 2002?
22. THE APPLICANT: No, that was annulled.
23. SIR IGOR JUDGE: That is a no point, right.

44


24. THE APPLICANT: No, 98/43 was annulled by the European Court of Justice. Just bear
with me a second. (Pause) Yes, your Honour, it is Directive 89/552/EC.
25. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you.
26. THE APPLICANT: I have done the ECHR and I have done 89/552.
27. SIR IGOR JUDGE: And in your written papers you addressed what you describe as the
response of Mr Justice Calvert-Smith's observations.
28. THE APPLICANT: Yes.
29. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think that may be the term of what we have to consider today.
30. THE APPLICANT: I do not agree, your Honour. As I've said -- as I'm about to say, in the
main bundle I have serious doubts about the 2002 Tobacco Advertising Act.
31. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, we can only apply an Act. Judges cannot sit under a palm tree
and say, "We think it would be a good thing for the law to do something".
32. THE APPLICANT: All this will become clear if you let me continue.
33. SIR IGOR JUDGE: There is a limited amount of time you have, and to let you go on
things which may not help you may not be of assistance to you. I think if you focus on the
issue, which is, why the Attorney-General should be ordered to take the process that you want
us to order him to take. That is where we can give you a remedy if we can give you a remedy at
all; and if you want to tell us how serious this is that is up to you, but you are using up time.
34. THE APPLICANT: Well ...
35. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Now it is up to you, Mr Holmes.
36. THE APPLICANT: Basically, actors smoking in films is the most potent form of tobacco
advertising there is; and under Directive 89/552EC it is quite clear under Article 13 all forms of
television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products shall be prohibited. Also actors
smoking is a form of product placement. The only question is: is payment involved? That's the
gray area. Everybody suspects there is payment, but the actual method of payment is unclear.
Personally, I suspect the method of payment is by co-production agreements, whereby third
parties can inject money and remain anonymous; so that is a perfect route for the cigarette
companies to finance cigarette promotions secretly. But this is conjecture, your Honour.
Because the logic is that the film industry are not going to do for free what previously they were
being paid for, so there is something in it for them. And also it's been said that these co-
production agreements is a method of money laundering. That is a very gray area. I am not a
solicitor, and I don't have the facilities to research this in the way it's necessary.
37. SIR IGOR JUDGE: We have no evidence, do we, that there is money laundering involved
in the production of films, and actors and actresses smoking?
38. THE APPLICANT: I don't have any.
39. SIR IGOR JUDGE: At the moment there is no evidence before us.
40. THE APPLICANT: Is there any point in me going through the history of the -- another
main point is the Government's manifesto promise. They promised to ban tobacco advertising
and promotion within the first few weeks of getting into office. There were all sorts of jiggery-
pokery going on, and ten years down the road we are now in a worse position than when they
first made their promise, because today the potency of the tobacco promotions is more potent

45


and also it's increased in volume. Sky Television put out 450 films a week; 80 per cent are
promoting cigarettes. The owner of Sky Television, Rupert Murdoch, is a director of Phillip
Morris, and Rupert Murdoch has done a deal with Tony Blair.
41. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Mr Holmes, you may be right, you may be wrong; and it is far be it
from us to be able to comment one way or another. That is not actually going to help you or us.
You may have a perfectly legitimate point, but that is a matter to be pursued in the political
arena.
42. THE APPLICANT: Well, the Attorney-General, his definition is "defender of the public
interests". Now, it can't be in the public interest for the Attorney-General not to take action to
protect the nation's children -- in fact the world's children.
Your concern is that he should take action by
43. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE:
prosecuting under this Act; is it not?
44. THE APPLICANT: No, my concern is -- what I would presume the correct method would
be, if there is some question about what I am saying to take a precautionary step and take out
injunction to stop actors smoking in films. If it turns out all the scientific evidence is incorrect -
- which is most unlikely -- then there is no harm done because the injunction would not be
detrimental to the film industry.
45. SIR IGOR JUDGE: But in order to do that he would have to present a case that smoking in
films -- the depiction of actors smoking in films is unlawful, would he not? And it can only be
unlawful under this Act, as the law of this country is at the moment.
46. THE APPLICANT: Which Act?
47. SIR IGOR JUDGE: The 2002 Act.
48. THE APPLICANT: No, I thought they got round that, your Honour -- we are now on to
Directive 89/552, and also the European Human Rights Law Article 10(2).
49. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I do not think you have got round it. There is the Act which makes it
an offence. The Directive does not make it an offence, and Article 10 does not make it an
offence.
50. THE APPLICANT: And the Directives make it an offence.
51. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I do not think so. The Directive is a Directive.
52. THE APPLICANT: Let me move on a little bit.
53. SIR IGOR JUDGE: We understand your point. What we are trying to do is to get at
whether there is in truth, in law -- this is all we can apply -- the remedy that you are seeking.
That is what we are after. If you can find it, that is one thing; but if you cannot find it, you
cannot.
54. THE APPLICANT: The objective pursued by the Government was the protection of
children. They identified the problem as being the promotion and advertising of tobacco; so the
objective pursued was to ban tobacco advertising and promotion. That hasn't happened. So the
problem lies with the legal interpretation of the Government's direction or order. Their order
was to protect people, and especially children. If you turn to Tab 8 there are ministers' views --
that is in the big bundle. Several ministers have stated that the idea is to protect people and
children from tobacco advertising and promotion.

46


55. Now if the Acts have failed to produce the goods, then basically the wool is being pulled
the over the public's eyes, because we expected that the Government was going to protect
children from tobacco persuasions in the form of advertising and promotion, of which actors
smoking is the most potent because it is surreptitious product placement and people's defences
are turned off. When you are looking at an ordinary advert, certain defences are in play
because you are aware that somebody is trying to sell something and somebody is trying to
persuade you, but if these persuasions are in films and are applied surreptitiously, defences are
turned off, which makes them extremely potent. It is a complicated area. Advertising and the
psychology of advertising is a complicated area, but it obviously works, otherwise they
wouldn't do it. And what I'm saying is obviously correct because there's laws against it.
56. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Yes.
57. THE APPLICANT: Where do we go from there?
58. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, I am still not sure that -- I mean we have what you say in
writing, but I think for the purposes of the oral argument, we got what you say about why Mr
Justice Calvert-Smith was wrong. Do you want to develop any points in relation to that? We
have your written response.
59. THE APPLICANT: In the speech that I prepared I refer to my remarks which were in the
grounds, actually, that I felt -- I think I said that ...
60. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we would be most helped if we look at your -- we have read
through your papers. If we come to your response to Mr Justice Calvert-Smith on our page 3, it
is your banner headline to it, it is in the middle of the page in the document which says
"Grounds for Renewing the Application".
61. THE APPLICANT: The thick bundle?
62. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, the small bundle. You have "Grounds for Renewing the
Application", just have a look at what I am looking at, Mr Holmes. That document, "Grounds
for Renewing the Application", then you have "Supporting Documents" and you begin: "One
billion tobacco deaths ..." and then we turn at page 1 at the bottom, we have read through your
preamble, we then go to page 3, which is "Response to Mr Justice Calvert-Smith".
(Adjourned, to deal with another case).
63. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Sorry about that, Mr Holmes.
64. THE APPLICANT: In my original bundle, your Honour, on page 9, I have commented
that ...
65. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Is that page 9 of the first tab?
66. THE APPLICANT: Page 9, tab 1. Under the heading, "The 2002 Tobacco Advertising
and Promotion Act". I will just read it:
"The 2002 Tobacco Advertising and promotion Act was instigated to protect
children from enticement into tobacco addiction. The repeated phrase and general
public perception of the Act is that anything done which has the purpose or effect
of promoting tobacco products is prohibited, this being a proportionate remedial
response to the problem. Either this is the case or the 2002 Act is in effect a
licence to poison children by the film industry, which is now happening in a very
big way. Eighty per cent of top promotional films now promote smoking."
And so on so forth. I have reservations about the evidence which since I wrote this have
increased, because ---

47


67. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: What I think you are saying is that the Act is not wide
enough to encompass this activity as being an advertisement, because ---
68. THE APPLICANT: Worse that than, your Honour -- it is worse than that.
69. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Sorry, just let me explain what I am saying to you.
Something is contrary to this Act if it is an advertisement, and the problem is ---
70. THE APPLICANT: Or a promotion.
71. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Well, the Act does not say "promotion", in that ---
72. THE APPLICANT: It's called the "Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act".
73. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: But the problem is that the depiction of an actor
smoking in a film, unless it is done for the benefit of the tobacco industry, particularly if it was
paid for by them, does not amount to an advertisement within the Act; and so it cannot be
stopped under this Act. Now you say the problem is that the Act does not go as far as it should
have gone.
74. THE APPLICANT: It's not doing the job.
75. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: But that is the Act.
76. THE APPLICANT: It's not doing the job. And also it's worse than what your Honour says,
because Directive 98/43/EC, which was annulled by the European Court of Justice, is evidence
that cigarette companies actually attempted to replace that Act by tobacco industry authored
legislation, and there has been other cases of this sort of behaviour by the tobacco industry.
During the global tobacco treaty the World Health Organisation had similar problems with the
cigarette companies trying to corrupt delegates and corrupt legislation. And it now appears,
because of the bizarre route of the 2002 Act and the bizarre contents of the Act, that this may
well be the case with this Act as well - it may have been got at by the cigarette companies,
because if you read it it doesn't make sense. There is one particular phrase -- if I could just put
my finger on it ...
77. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: In the Act itself?
78. THE APPLICANT: In the Act -- well, let me just read it. Now, this is supposed to be an
Act to protect children; it is called the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act, and the
main phrase is, "Anything done which has the purpose or effect of promoting tobacco products
is prohibited". Now, it states ---
79. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: No, it does not say that. It says that tobacco
advertisement means an advertisement ---
80. THE APPLICANT: I am thinking about section 10, your Honour. If you refer to section
10 of the Act, I think it says there “under sponsorship".
81. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: (Pause) "Sponsorship agreements", yes.
82. THE APPLICANT: "Prohibition of sponsorship", section 10.
83. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Yes.
84. THE APPLICANT:
"A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the
purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a

48


tobacco product..."
Can I read one sentence?
85. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Yes, of course.
86. THE APPLICANT: "There is no intention to catch the private individual who uses his
own money to sponsor an event or activity so as to promote smoking". Now this is the 2002
Tobacco Act; It is saying the exact opposite of what the Act is supposed to be all about. There
is no intention to catch a private individual who uses his own money to sponsor an event or
activity so as to promote smoking. It sounds as if this individual is injecting money into a co-
production agreement. Which was some of the points I was going to make in my prepared
speech.
87. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Fine.
88. THE APPLICANT: Where do we go now?
89. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, we have read your papers. We have closely read your grounds
for renewing the application, which set out your case in some considerable detail. Where we go
from now is, if there is anything further fresh that you want to draw to our attention we will of
course listen to it, otherwise we shall retire and consider what to do with your application.
90. THE APPLICANT: Common sense would dictate, your Honour, even if the scientists are
wrong and I am wrong, but there is a little bit of doubt, in order to prevent this holocaust, this
massive rate of death, the responsible and sensible action would be to, as a precautionary
measure, take out an injunction to stop actors smoking, because it would not result in any harm
to the film industry. In fact, if anything, they would benefit, because most people when
watching a film see -- when they see an actor smoking it is a distraction from the storyline. It
would not take anything away from the film industry, so -- but if they did this, it could well
prevent this one billion death holocaust this century, so if they do not do it there are serious
questions. And in the prepared speech at the end, I say if as a precautionary measure: the
injunction is granted and actors did not smoke any more and later it was found that all the
scientific papers were wrong, then no harm has been done. On the other hand, if the injunction
is not granted and the scientific papers are correct, then the authorities become a party to a
crime against humanity, and a crime against children. This is an extremely serious situation,
your Honour.
91. Also, the Attorney-General -- the Attorney-General gave a donation to Tony Blair, he
received a Lordship from Tony Blair, he then received a top job from Tony Blair as Attorney-
General. Therefore his impartiality is in question. The same applies to the Honourable Calvert-
Smith who knows David Mills' sister-in-law, who is the defendant's husband. There is a
conflict of interest.
92. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you, Mr Holmes, we will adjourn for a moment. You sit down
and wait.
93. THE APPLICANT: The lady I was referring to is Barbara Mills, she was the head of the
DPP and Serious Fraud Office.
1. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you.

49


SPEECH and supporting documents to p.68 (as per transcript page 42)
Judicial review -Oral hearing re-application regarding
A.G.s refusal to stop actors smoking in films & T.V. by injunction.
The injunction would not have a detrimental effect on the legitimate business of the film
industry.
But would prevent enticement into tobacco addiction forecast to kill 1 billion people this
century.
In terms of weight of harm, this is probably the most important case, that has ever been brought to
these courts. It concerns the pre-meditated killing, of One Billion People this century, via tobacco
addiction, and the intentional enticement of children, into that addiction. The root cause of this
holocaust, is political corruption, corporate crime, and the enticement of children into addiction, via
tobacco advertising and promotion. – Actors smoking in films are the most potent form of
promoting cigarette addiction, according to the 72 scientific papers in the bundle. (Tab 3 p.76) also
on page 67, there is a list of 165 articles regarding the same.
One billion tobacco deaths this century, that’s 1000, million deaths, is forecast by the W.H.O. that
figure is so large, it works out to be more than 15 times, the total war dead of the entire 20th century
excluding genocide, or 1/6th of the worlds population. (Approx one death & one new recruit every 3
seconds) this holocaust being due to a consumer product sold in children’s sweet shops.
As stated in the judgement of ECJ. 12/Dec/06. from directive 89/552/EC & Article 10 ECHR.
1. Article 13. All forms of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products
shall be prohibited. Including indirect advertising.
2. Surreptitious tobacco advertising banned on TV
3. Tobacco sponsorship banned on TV
4. Tobacco product placement banned on TV
5.
In addition, article 10(2) of the European Charter of Human Rights. 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.
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.
It follows that Actors smoking in films is either circumventing or in breach of 89/552/EC
In addition, in breach of Article 10 (2) of ECHR as stated in the judgement of the ECJ on 12

50


December 2006 (see Para.
There can be no question, that actors’ smoking in films, promotes smoking. When cigarette
advertising was legal on TV. The method invariably used to promote cigarettes, was to have actors
smoking. In addition, when viewing direct advertising, natural defences are in play, because of the
awareness that somebody is trying sell something to you, and that you are being persuaded, etc.
However, when actors smoke in films, this is not the case, the persuasion is surreptitious, hence the
promotional effect is more potent. (Surreptitious advertising and product placement of tobacco
are banned under directive 89/552/EC & TVWF which is incorporated in the 1990 & 1996
broadcasting Act. -as mentioned in the TA&PA) Also in the bundle, it is well documented, that
actors smoking is the main cause, of children becoming addicted to cigarettes.
Brief History
In 1997 New Labours manifesto promise, was to ban tobacco advertising and promotion, the
objective pursued was to protect people, especially children from tobacco addiction (see Tab 8),
they said they would ban tobacco advertising within the first few weeks of office. (Sec. of State for
health Rt Hon. Frank Dobson MP. see p.2 thin bundle). …but instead of introducing UK law, they
decided to wait for EC directive 98/43/EC, which was to ban all forms of tobacco advertising, which
fulfilled there manifesto promise.
However shortly after getting into power, the Bernie Ecclestone Affair erupted, when the prime
minister was caught, taking a secret donation, of One million pounds, from Bernie Ecclestone, in
return for exempting Formula One racing cars, from the tobacco advertising ban, which was to be
introduced via directive 98/43/EC.
It was Tessa Jowell, The then Health Minister, who negotiated this exemption in Brussels, at that time
her husband David Mills, was a director and chief financial advisor, of Formula One racing cars.
(Conflict of interest). (Presumably having dealings with tobacco advertising etc.)
It has since transpired, that the Bernie Ecclestone Affair, was part of a plot by the tobacco industry to
weaken and defeat directive 98/43/EC, another ploy was to replace directive 98/43/EC, with secretly,
tobacco industry authored legislation. (See thin bundle p.61, 62, ) The WHO, whilst perusing the
Global Tobacco Treaty has experienced similar behaviour. (In Uzbekistan. (Thin bundle p. 32
) Also a previously secret, tobacco industry document names -Tony Blair, as being tobacco friendly,
and might support it’s campaign to derail directive 98/43/EC. The directive 98/43/EC was later
annulled by the ECJ, on the grounds of a false treaty base, after an action by the German Gov. and
Tobacco Industry.
The Government, then decided to fulfil its commitment, via the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion
Bill, but the government failed to bring this bill into force, however, 7 years after the governments
promise, the LibDems re introduced this act, via a private members bill, brought by Lord Clement
Jones. In addition, it was this act that the claimant was partly relying on, in his original claim;
however, The Hon Judge Calvert Smith suggests the act is ineffective, in preventing the promotion
and advertising of cigarettes, in films and TV via actors smoking. The claimant suspected that this
might be the case as per his comments in the fat bundle. (Tab1. p.9)
After directive 98/43/EC was annulled, a replacement directive was introduced, directive

51


2003/33/EC using the same treaty base, again the German Government and Tobacco industry, sought
annulment in the ECJ; but this time, the ECJ rejected their claim, heavily supporting directive
2003/33/EC. Judgement on the 12 December 2006. Page 39.
Because of the above, and because of Justice Calvert Smiths comments, and because of the bizarre
history and content of the 2002 TA&PA, it would not be unreasonable to suspect, the 2002 act as also
being authored by the tobacco industry. Also with regard to the Hon Calvert Smiths comments, as to
the ineffectiveness of the 2002 Act.-If he is correct, this means that the government has still not
fulfilled its manifesto promise, to ban tobacco advertising and promotion. The reality is we are worse
off now than 10 years ago when the government made its manifesto pledge. (Tobacco promotions
are more potent and in greater volume today than 10 years ago! - Sky TV transmit over 450 films
every week, 80% promote smoking. Rupert Murdoch the owner of Sky TV. Is a director of Phillip
Morris, and he has done some sort of deal with Tony Blair!). There is a legitimate expectation that
governments will honour their promises.
The Culpability of the Defendants
After writing numerous letters, to The Met Police Comm. and also Frank Dobson, Patricia Hewitt,
Caroline Flint, Tessa Jowell, and getting nowhere, as a last resort the claimant wrote to the AG.
(Defender of the public interest) On the 4th of July 2006 (Tab 23. p. ) He replied on 7th July 2006
(Tab 23. p. ) refusing to seek an injunction to prohibit actors smoking in films and TV saying he did
not have the power. (In addition, other incorrect reasons as listed in the bundle see Grounds Tab 1.
p.4)
Because of the gravity and urgency of the issue, the claimant sent pre action protocols for JR, to the
AG. (1st Def.) Tessa Jowell (2nd Def.) And The Met Police Comm. (3rd Def.)
1st Defendant the Attorney General
In response to the pre action protocol, the AG reversed his claim, that he did not have the power to
seek the injunction. (He then offered further reasons, which were also incorrect. (Fat bundle Tab 23
p)
Also, the AG.s refusal to seek the injunction requested, to prevent actors smoking in films and TV.
Which entice children into smoking addiction, which is forecast to kill One Billion people this
century is number 1. Irrational. 2. Disproportionate. 3. Unfair. 4. Illegal. And 5. Biased
1. As defender of the public interest, it is irrational, that the AG. Should not take steps to defend the
public, especially children from the tobacco holocaust, the catalyst of the holocaust, and the major
cause of why children start smoking, is enticement via actors smoking in films and TV.
2. Given the weight of harm, it is disproportionate & Irrational that cigarettes should be for sale,
(why are cigarettes being treated as some sort of sacred cow?) they should be withdrawn on
consumer protection grounds. Therefore, it is disproportionate, that the AG does not take action in
the public interest.

52


3. It is unfair on the public, especially children, to allow them to fall into a deadly trap, via
enticement into tobacco addiction- via actors smoking. Therefore, unfair that the AG, not take action
in the public interest.
4. Illegal Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, forbids freedom of artistic
expression, if it is detrimental to public health. (See Thick bundle Tab.4 p.4)… also directives
89/552/EC TVWF (Tab 16,) 2003/33/EC. And possibly the 2002 TA&PA (Tab. 6)
5. Bias the AG is also a friend of Tony Blair, who has been involved in tobacco corruption; also, the
AG has donated money, and received a peerage, and a top job from Tony Blair. Therefore, his
impartiality is in question.
The Hon. Judge Calvert smith knows the sister in law of David Mills so he also is biased.
2nd Defendant
Tessa Jowell Minister of State for the Dept. of Culture Media and Sport
(DCMS)
Tessa Jowells husband, David Mills is a well-connected lawyer, who allegedly has a history, of
murky deals. He has been involved with media moguls, tobacco advertising, finance, mafia
connections, and the creation of secret offshore slush funds, used to bribe, corrupt, and illegally fund
politicians, and bribe judges. He has also been connected with Tessa Jowells work, via co-production
deals, with sylvio Berlusconi, (Tony Blair, goes on holiday with Sylvio Berlusconi, who is said to
have mafia connections, and has been charged with serious crimes. David Mills works for Sylvio
Berlusconi, setting up offshore film companies, and his secret financial empire etc.) David Mills’s
background also includes the film industry, Tax breaks, offshore untraceable accounts, legal
contracts, & negotiating contracts and commercial opportunities, he also socialised with the
influential and the powerful (see press article Ministers, moguls and murky deals-guardian.)
The 2nd Def. Tessa Jowell is responsible for tobacco promotions in films. Also the following
come under her authority; the Film Council, Arts council, BBFC, Film co production
agreements, and Ofcom, plus others.
1. From the website of the Film Council, it looks as if they are touting for Tobacco funding. (The
picture shows a woman smoking a cigarette whispering into the ear of a man smoking a cigar in the
setting of a cinema?
Under co-production contract agreements, persons investing in the production of films, can do so
in secret and hide their identities from the courts, and the media etc.
3. Tessa Jowell as Minister for DCMS. Is responsible for the regulation of the Media, including;
Film and TV. Previously when Minister for Health, she was involved (along with her husband and
Tony Blair) in the Bernie Ecclestone Affair, and recently, all three of them have been involved with
the Sylvio Berlusconi affair. (See Thin bundle p. And attached press articles) £350,000,
2million? Did it originate from the tobacco industry as payment for illegal product placement?
4. The BBFC. Process up to 5 films a day, approx. 80% of these films promotes smoking, the BBFC.
Comes under the authority of Tessa Jowell. & is financed by the film industry.

53


5. In the Treasury Solicitors acknowledgement of claim, it is claimed that Tessa Jowell, “has no
record of receiving any correspondence from the claimant, either directly, or through the Department
of Health”, however the claimant has proof of sending, and receipts when delivered by hand.
6. The 2nd defendant has been involved with Tobacco corruption along with Tony Blair and her
husband David Mills.
To summaries’.
1. “The Bernie Ecclestone affair,”
2. “The Sylvio Berlusconi affair”, (see attached press-Jowell Faces…. & Minister Moguls…& Film
and Co- production), £350,000?
3. Is producing tobacco promotions, via actors smoking in the films that the DCMS produce, financed
by co production agreements, which allow the secret funding of films containing tobacco product
placement (Actors smoking - possibly funded by the tobacco industry?)
4. Has been dealing with persons now charged with serious crime.
5. Has failed to respond to letters.
The role of the DCMS is to regulate and censor the media, and censor tobacco advertising and
promotion.
Here they are, doing the exact opposite. Advertising and promoting smoking in the films they are
producing...
If actors smoking do not entice children into smoking addiction, why has smoking been banned from
Tom & Jerry and other cartoons?
3rd Defendant the Met. Police Commissioner
The 3rd Def. has consistently stated, that public health is not a police matter, and has refused to take
action. The tobacco holocaust, is not primarily a health issue, primarily it is a corporate crime issue,
the manifestation of which, is the tobacco holocaust, as such this is a matter for the police, not the
health department, or weights and measures, and because of the Police Commissioners refusal, to take
action in protecting children from this holocaust, he has failed to execute his duty.
The same applies to the Attorney General. See also in the bundle Tab 1. Page 10. Role of the Police
Commissioner, Role of the Attorney General.
My pre-action protocol mentions tvwf etc. as also mentioned in the grounds, and Statement of
Facts relied on, and also incorporated in the bundle,
If as a precautionary measure, the injunction was granted, and actors did not smoke anymore, and
later it was found, that all the scientific papers were wrong? No Harm has been done.
If on the other hand, the injunction is not granted, and the scientific papers are correct, then the

54


authorities become a party to a crime against humanity, and a crime against children.
THERE IS SOMETHING RADICALLY WRONG WITH THIS ACT
read below:
Section 10: Prohibition of sponsorship (EXPLANATORY NOTES 2002 ACT) 44. Subsection (1)
prohibits anything done pursuant to a sponsorship agreement if the purpose or effect of what is done is to
promote a tobacco product. It applies to both the sponsor and the recipient. The contribution made by the
sponsor must be made in the course of a business; “there is no intention to catch the private individual who
uses his own money to sponsor an event or activity so as to promote smoking.”
HANSARD Lord Clement-Jones: 16 Nov 2001 : Column 808 Any attempt to delimit the word
"advertisement" in the Bill in the ways suggested by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby,
would risk leaving off the list something that could clearly be regarded as an advertisement. So it would do
precisely the opposite of what we all want from the Bill: a reasonable use of the words that would be defined
and refined, if necessary, by the courts, if there were dispute. I am a lawyer myself—some Members of the
Committee may regret that fact as the Bill passes through the Chamber. Lawyers are used to defining matters
such as what is an advertisement.
16 Nov 2001 : Column 810 Lord Clement-Jones: the comprehensive ban on advertising that is envisaged
under the Bill.
I hope I have made myself utterly, stunningly clear. Finally, there is absolutely no intention to put a schedule
to this Bill. I am delighted to hear about "Casablanca", but I hope that no Member of the Committee will put a
schedule of films to this Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I am not surprised by the approach taken to these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord
Clement-Jones, and the Minister. But I remain troubled by this area. I did not put forward the definition
of "advertisement" in order to restrict. Indeed, I said that the amendment included in particular a list of
items, which means that other items can be brought within the scope of "advertisements" when coming
to be interpreted by the courts....I have discussed with the Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord
Clement-Jones, the issue of loopholes....I am concerned at the apparent approach that we must leave the
provision as wide as possible so that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can catch the tobacco product
companies in whatever way we want after the event.
Lord Clement-Jones: 1:30 If they have to go through three schedules to the Bill in order to find out what is
an advertisement, that is precisely why a specific definition would be wrong. We prefer the ordinary
meaning, because if a judge is then faced with a printer who says, "That is what I understood an
advertisement to be", as sure as not the judge will agree.
Mrs. Spelman:13 Feb 2001 : Column 206 It is ridiculous to try to ban conventional tobacco advertising
while leaving an enormous loophole in relation to product placement. It is plain that existing regulations do not
work adequately in the context of a British-produced product over which we have some jurisdiction, and our
purpose was to draw attention to the problem.
Alan Milburn DATE (Secretary of State, Department of Health) The Bill will ban “overt” advertising on
billboards, posters and in the press. It will end, with only limited exceptions, advertising in shops. Only
advertising at the point of sale will be allowed... However, the Bill will not prevent members of the general
public, journalists, writers and others from talking about tobacco products, representing them “on stage or fil
Yvette Cooper DATE (Parliamentary Secretary (Public Health), Department of Health) If he can identify a
loophole that we have missed, I assure him that we will strive hard to close it in Committee, to ensure that the
Bill is as comprehensive as he would like.
In Parliament, Ministers have continued to insist for some time that they treat an advertising ban with the
highest priority. In November 1999, Public Health Minister Yvette Cooper gave the following answer to a
Parliamentary Question.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom. [98965]

55


Yvette Cooper: As part of our comprehensive programme against tobacco, we will implement a ban on
tobacco advertising in line with Directive 98/43/EC [banning tobacco advertising, which was annulled in
2000] as soon as practicabl
It is essential we protect children from the 1 billion smoking deaths forecast this
century (on average 1 death & 1child recruit every 3 seconds) Actors smoking in
films is the main cause of why children smoke.
Under Co-production agreements it is possible that the tobacco industry secretly finance films that
promote smoking .- see below the;
LEGAL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL FILM CO-PRODUCTION by Enric Enrich,
lawyer
“…….The fiscal consequences of adopting one or other form also differ; the advice of a tax
consultant should therefore be sought as a first step. Co-production may be discreet (where
a third party participating with the producer in the results of the production has no
desire to be known to third parties, for example, under a participatory account contract)
or obvious (where the co-producers are known to be such). Given the lack of clear legal norms
regulating this contractual relationship, it is of the utmost importance that the agreements
reached by the parties should be set out clearly in the contract so that the relationship between
the co-producers cannot be determined by a court decision based on legislation that may not
be the most appropriate to the circumstances.”
Tessa Jowells husband David Mills is a well connected lawyer who has a history of murky deals
involving the film industry, media moguls, tobacco advertising, finance, mafia connections, and the
creation of secret offshore slush funds used to bribe, corrupt and illegally fund politicians. He is also
connected with Tessa Jowells work via co-production deals with sylvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair.
background is tobacco advertising, the film industry, and secret finance. Tax breaks, offshore secret
untraceable accounts, legal contracts, negotiating contracts and commercial opportunities, and has a
history of murky deals, mafia connections etc.
This is probably why 80 % of Top grossing films now promote smoking. This activity is illegal
under directives …….. & possibly others & article 10(2) of the ECHR. and possibly others, and
possibly the 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act.
Problems with the AG & Calvert Smith
Tessa Jowell as Ministser for DCMS. Is responsible for regulation of the Media including Film and
TV. previously when the Minister for Health she was involved (along with her husband and Tony
Blair) in the Bernie Eccleston Affair, and recently they have all been involved with the Sylvio
Berlusconi affair.
David Mills was the chief financial advisor and director of Benetton Formula One at the time of the
Bernie Eccleston affair, which would suggest he had workings with the tobacco industry regarding
the cigarette advertising of Formula One, and his wife has had dealings with co production
agreements with Sylvio Berlusconi, for whom David Mills has masterminded his controversial
offshore film & business empire and tax avoidance schemes involving millions of pounds he’s said to
have expertise in law, politics, offshore banking, the sale and purchase of film rights, company law,
offshore tax havens, the fraud squad –bribery & corruption involving Sylvio Berlusconi, corruption
trials, represented companies in the negotiating contracts and commercial opportunities, tax breaks,
benefited from transference of money from the UK.Film council to Medusa several co-production
deals millions of pounds. Received tax breaks and similar tax- advantage schemes from Tessa Jowells
signed deals.
COMPANIES AND POSITION

56


Mackenzie Mills, Carnelutti, Carnelutti Mackenzie Mills CCM + 17offshores very discreet, miasma
of offshores-parent company Fininvest, Horizon BVI., the labyrinth of offshore companies were
allegedly used by Berlusconi to bribe corrupt & illegally fund politicians. Berlusconi co. mills was
company sec. Marcello Dell’Utri was director. Publitalia International in London (advertising co.)
DCMS
As a former Minsiter for health Tessa Jowell is fully aware of the smoking issue and the promotion of
smoking.
She is or should be fully aware that the greatest cause of why children start smoking is because of
smoking promotions in films and also that 90% of smokers become addicted whilst children, and also
that smoking is forecast to kill 1 billion. People this century.
The DCMS is now involve with promoting films globally via co-production agreements with
countries all over the world up to 5 films per day are produced based on statistics from America 80%
of top grossing films promote smoking. And from the films I have observed ( which is a small
sample) it would seem the same or similar applies to the films produced in the UK.
The Ban on tobacco advertising and promotion is being circumvented by the promotion of smoking
via actors smoking in films
It is possible (probable) that the tobacco industry are financing illegal tobacco promotions in films
(actors smoking) via the financing of films through co-production agreements via the DCMS (Tessa
Jowell)
Photo showed executive
smoking cigar with secretary smoking cigarette in
setting of a cinema (touting for tobacco product
placement?)
Funding for Development
Feature funding through the New Cinema Fund
Feature funding through the
Premiere Fund
Tessa Jowells husband David Mills is a well connected lawyer who has a history of murky deals
involving the film industry, media moguls, tobacco advertising, finance, mafia connections, and the
creation of secret offshore slush funds used to bribe, corrupt and illegally fund politicians and bribe
judges. He has also been connected with Tessa Jowells work via co-production deals with sylvio
Berlusconi and Tony Blair. His background is tobacco advertising, the film industry, and secret
finance. Tax breaks, offshore secret untraceable accounts, legal contracts, negotiating contracts and
commercial opportunities, he has all the right contacts;
Under co-production contracts persons giving money to the production of films can hide their
identities from the courts! and the media etc.
The role of the DCMS is to regulate and censor the media and censor tobacco advertising and
promotion.
And here they are doing the exact opposite. Advertising and promoting smoking in the films they are

57


producing.
Jowell faces new allegations over grants to
Berlusconi film company By Chris Hastings and David Harrison
and Behth Jones Last Updated: 11:51pm GMT 11/03/2007
Tessa Jowell faced further conflict of interest allegations last night after it emerged that a film company owned by Silvio Berlusconi - and
linked to her husband David Mills - benefited from hundreds of thousands of pounds of British Government grants.
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright
A Sunday Telegraph investigation has established that theand must not whichreproduced in any medium
of Telegraph Media Group Limited UK Film Council, for be Ms Jowell, the Culture Secretary, has ultimate
responsibility, has funded productions backed by Mr Berlusconi's giant Medusa Film company, Italy's biggest movie-maker.
without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
Ministers, moguls and murky deals - the curious world of
Mr Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and Mr Mills, the lawyer who masterminded the politician's controversial offshore business
empire, may be charged with corruption after the Italian prosecutor asked a judge on Friday to send them to trial.
David Mills Tax avoidance expertise brought well-connected lawyer into contact with
mafia go-between and corrupt shipping magnate Ed Vulliamy and Sandra Laville
Saturday March 4, 2006
Milan prosecutors want Mr Mills charged with perverting the course of justice, which carries a jail sentence of up to eight years. They
claim that Mr Berlusconi gave him £350,000 in return for silence about the politician's business affairs during the corruption trials in 1997
and 1998.
Guardian
Holding a glass of champagne, David Mills moved effortlessly through a throng which
The files relating to Medusa are among 15,000 pages of documents sent to the Italian judge. The documents, including bank transactions
involving millions of pounds, show that Mr Mills "represented the companyto negotiating contracts and and political
included a cabinet minister, a permanent secretary in the Home Office commercial opportunities" even
before he joined the board in great and good gathered together Dublinreception by theto secure tax breaks for the
commentators; the 1996. Mr Mills played a leading role in Medusa's at a arm, which was set up health thinktank
sister company.
the King's Fund.
That night, less than a year ago, the skilled corporate lawyer dazzled within the heart of a
The same judge has already begun considering a separate prosecution against Mr Berlusconi and Mr Mills over allegations that the
Berlusconi Fininvest media empire evadedWho's of pounds in tax and fraudulently sold television rights.
social court that reads like a millions Who of the New Establishment.
Inquires by thenewspaper have established that several films backed by Medusa's Italian arm receivedin evidence, but the
Today, this suntan, the gold signet ring and the designer suits are still money from the UK Film
Council, a Government-backed body which has invested £20 million a year of taxpayers' money and lottery funds in British films. The
sparkle has dimmed. As the facade of David Mills crumbles around him, his reputed
council paid £110,000 to the British distributors of a Medusa-backed film called Respiro, released in this country in 2003. The money
came out of the council's distribution arm and as questionable as the company henot paid to Medusa directly, the Italian
financial deftness has become went on additional advertising and prints. Although keeps. For, through
giant willBerlusconi,from the increased opportunities offered to the film.
Silvio have benefited Mr Mills' reach has extended into the inner sanctum of Italian power,
bringing him into networks which have included some individuals with questionable histories.
The council has also invested directly in several films in which Medusa is a co-producer. It invested £390,000 in a film called Tickets, a
Medusa co-production with the British companies Fandango and Sixteen Films. Medusa was also one of the companies behind the Oscar-
winning Gosford Park, which received £2 million from thetoday date back to the early 1980s. An Oxford-
The allegations against Mr Mills in Italy body.
educated barrister, he had started working as a solicitor and become an expert in offshore
tax-avoidance schemes. He supplied his services in various guises: initially his own firm,
Both Respiro andMills, then as head ofRespiro took lessbranch million worldwide, while Tickets took only £360,000 - less
Mackenzie Tickets were box office flops. the British than £4.5 of a Milan law firm, Carnelutti, and then,
than the amount it received from the film council. The council is obliged to try to recoup its investment in individual films.
over a crucial period, as director of a company called CMM Corporate Services (Carnelutti
Mackenzie Mills), which - on Mr Berlusconi's behalf - handled the legal affairs of several
offshore companies. CMM acted as company secretary to 17 of them. Mr Mills has told
Also in 2003, Ms Jowell signed the UK-Italy co-distribution agreement, the first of its kind, which gave tax breaks to Italian films if they
were made in Britain. It is likely that several Medusa films benefited from this and similar marked "very discreet".
Italian magistrates that the summary sheet of each would be tax-advantageous schemes.
The Department essence, to devise awas unable to of offshore companies which, although part ofa Mr
He had, in for Culture, Media and Sport miasma say which films had received such assistance, claiming that it was matter
for the Inland Revenue. A spokesman for the council said: "All awards are made to British companies and each decision is made on a film
Berlusconi's empire and its parent company, Fininvest, would hide Mr Berlusconi's
by film basis, independent of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."
ownership. (At one stage, Mr Mills himself became beneficial owner of one TV channel,
through a company, Horizon, registered in the British Virgin Islands.) This kind of service
A spokesman for the department said: "All funding decisions businessmen, and for many council and not by ministers. They
was his speciality - for a clutch of smaller are made by the head of funds at the film Italian clients,
are completelythe designer Valentino. Mills was last night unavailable for comment. When the Sunday Telegraph contacted the
including independent of government." Mr
Dublin office of Medusa Film International Ltd, we were told that the company was "de-registered" and no longer in business at that
address.
58


Ministers, moguls and murky deals - the curious world of
David Mills
Tax avoidance expertise brought well-connected lawyer into contact with mafia go-between
and corrupt shipping magnate
Ed Vulliamy and Sandra Laville
Saturday March 4, 2006
Guardian
Holding a glass of champagne, David Mills moved effortlessly through a throng which included a cabinet
minister, a permanent secretary to the Home Office and political commentators; the great and good gathered
together at a reception by the health thinktank the King's Fund.
That night, less than a year ago, the skilled corporate lawyer dazzled within the heart of a social court that
reads like a Who's Who of the New Establishment.
Today, the suntan, the gold signet ring and the designer suits are still in evidence, but the sparkle has dimmed.
As the facade of David Mills crumbles around him, his reputed financial deftness has become as questionable
as the company he keeps. For, through Silvio Berlusconi, Mr Mills' reach has extended into the inner sanctum
of Italian power, bringing him into networks which have included some individuals with questionable histories.
The allegations against Mr Mills in Italy today date back to the early 1980s. An Oxford-educated barrister, he
had started working as a solicitor and become an expert in offshore tax-avoidance schemes. He supplied his
services in various guises: initially his own firm, Mackenzie Mills, then as head of the British branch of a Milan
law firm, Carnelutti, and then, over a crucial period, as director of a company called CMM Corporate Services
(Carnelutti Mackenzie Mills), which - on Mr Berlusconi's behalf - handled the legal affairs of several offshore
companies. CMM acted as company secretary to 17 of them. Mr Mills has told Italian magistrates that the
summary sheet of each would be marked "very discreet".
He had, in essence, to devise a miasma of offshore companies which, although part of Mr Berlusconi's empire
and its parent company, Fininvest, would hide Mr Berlusconi's ownership. (At one stage, Mr Mills himself
became beneficial owner of one TV channel, through a company, Horizon, registered in the British Virgin
Islands.) This kind of service was his speciality - for a clutch of smaller businessmen, and for many Italian
clients, including the designer Valentino.
By 1992, Mr Mills' firm had, by his own account, hundreds of clients, including Benetton, as well as Fininvest.
By the time Mr Berlusconi was first voted into power in 1994, Milanese prosecutors had begun poring over the
books of Fininvest searching for evidence of "black funds": cash spirited out of Italy so as not to appear on the
balance sheets.
In search of the offshore operation, the investigators commissioned an audit from the accountants KPMG.
Italian court records and KPMG's findings combine to show Mr Mills as integral to setting up the labyrinth of
offshore companies which prosecutors allege was then used by Mr Berlusconi to bribe, corrupt and illegally
fund politicians. Mr Mills has been interviewed in at least two continuing investigations in which Mr Berlusconi
is charged with embezzlement and tax evasion. Committal proceedings are under way in connection with
accusations against Mr Mills of money laundering and tax evasion. Both strongly deny the accusations.
Mr Mills served as company secretary of a Berlusconi company at the same time as Marcello Dell'Utri was a
director. A silver-haired Sicilian who had worked for Mr Berlusconi since the early 1970s, Mr Dell'Utri became
the media tycoon's special secretary in the early 1970s.
In 1985 Mr Mills set up an advertising company, Publitalia International, in London, an affiliate of Publitalia, a
main pillar of Mr Berlusconi's empire. Mr Mills was made company secretary some time before 1992, resigning
in 1997, while Mr Dell'Utri was appointed a director of the London company from 22 July 1985, the day of its
incorporation by Mr Mills, until 1995. Asked whether he knew Mr Dell'Utri, Mr Mills replied yesterday: "No I
didn't. I've never met him in my life. He was appointed by the Fininvest people."
Mr Mills said he made no inquiries into Mr Dell'Utri's standing before putting him on the board. "My client asked
me to appoint somebody, and I trust my client," he said.
While both worked for the company, Mr Dell'Utri was busy dealing with the mafia on behalf of Mr Berlusconi.
An Italian court has heard that the businessman-turned-politician needed votes, while the Cosa Nostra needed
a new political patron. The court found that Mr Dell'Utri had become the go-between.

59


Mr Dell'Utri's mafia links began in his youth, the Palermo court heard, and in 1993 he met with the the mafia's
governing Cupola to successfully solicit its vote-gathering powers on behalf of Mr Berlusconi. That was while
Mr Dell'Utri was on the board of Publitalia International - known from 1997 as Publieurope International Ltd,
billing itself as "an advertising agent and marketing consultant".
In 1996 Mr Dell'Utri was charged with concorso in associazione mafiosa - aiding and abetting the mafia. After a
five-year trial he was convicted and jailed for nine years. Mr Dell'Utri has appealed and is at liberty; no date
has yet been fixed for the hearing.
His trial was dominated by evidence from one of the most senior dons ever to turn prosecution witness:
Antonino Giuffre, known as Manuzza, The Hand, because one of his hands is immobilised through polio.
Giuffre told the court Mr Dell'Utri "was a person very close to Cosa Nostra and at the same time an excellent
reference for Berlusconi ... known as a serious and trustworthy person".
By that time Mr Mills has severed his connection with Publieurope International in London, resigning as
company secretary in December 1997, seven months after his wife, Tessa Jowell, had joined Tony Blair's
euphoric inner circle at Labour's election victory party.
At the time Mr Mills was director of 26 companies and appeared untouchable. A list of his clients makes
colourful reading, among them the Benetton UK retail chain and the Renault formula one team.
Others sprinkled through the list were were much less well known: a residents' management company, Six
Steeles Road Residents; Auschem ,which specialised, it said, in the "preparation and spin of textiles"; and
Libra UK, a film and video production company.
Amid this portfolio of clients, one other name is pertinent: Diego Attanasio.
A Neapolitan shipowner who now lives in London, Mr Attanasio was also in need of the specialist help Mr Mills
offered rich Italians seeking to minimise the wealth they handed over to il Fisco, "the taxman". An offshore
presence was, in any case, very useful in shipping, an international business.
Mr Mills crafted Mr Attanasio a wall with which to keep his dealings from prying eyes. Whether the humour was
intentional or otherwise, it was christened the Hadrian Trust, and formed in Guernsey in September 1996 - but
Mr Attanasio subsequently felt it would be more to his liking if it was based in the Bahamas.
Quite soon, Mr Attanasio would have an even more pressing reason for wanting to keep cash offshore; the
following year he was accused of corruption, arrested, and, in July 1997, put in jail.
The same month, on the 23rd, his trust, administered by Mr Mills, made a transfer that would to come to haunt
both men. The sum of $2m (£1.1m) was sent to an account in Switzerland. Some of the cash then made a
round trip to Gibraltar, before ending up in another account owned by the same company, Struie.
It was not the only strange thing about this second account. Over the next few years, cash, often in huge
sums, was paid into and out of it by at least eight individuals and companies. The individuals, who include
Flavio Briatore, the formula one mogul and former boyfriend of the model Naomi Campbell, have told
prosecutors they knew nothing of these movements.
But they were certainly profitable. Over the three years from 1997 to 2000, as world stock markets rocketed,
the money in the account grew by some 40%.
Several transfers were made to accounts owned by Mr Mills or companies linked to him. But the one that came
to interest Italian prosecutors investigating the trading of TV rights by Mr Berlusconi's offshore empire was one
for $600,000. Chief prosecutor Fabio De Pasquale and his colleague, Alfredo Robledo, have since become
convinced that it was Mr Mills' reward for the evidence he gave earlier in trials involving Mr Berlusconi, and that
it was wrapped into the $2m sent by the Hadrian Trust.
Though he initially agreed, Mr Mills now denies that vehemently, saying all the cash was from Mr Attanasio
and that, by mutual agreement, he received $600,000 of it.
The prosecutors have yet to prove their claim. Indeed, they have yet to bring charges. And, even if they do, the
charges could be thrown out by a judge before the case gets to trial. Or rather, the first trial, for in Italy's
idiosyncratic court system, there may need to be three trials before a conviction and sentence.
By then, a law passed by the Berlusconi government last year may well have aborted the entire exercise -
because corruption is one of several offences for which there is now a much tighter time limit.
The process will nevertheless have served to cast a piercing light into the discreet, intriguing world of a London
lawyer with friends in high and strange places. One of Ms Jowell's fellow MPs suggested this week that the

60


ebullient Mr Mills might have done better to stick to some harmless conveyancing in the Home Counties. That
was never really on the cards.
[1][2]
Tobacco lobby targeted Blair as 'smoker friendly'
Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday October 31, 2004
Observer
Tony Blair was identified by the tobacco lobby as a potential ally more than a decade ago, according to
confidential documents that will reignite the debate about Number 10's links with cigarette manufacturers.
It emerged last week that the Prime Minister and a number of his key allies, including former Trade Secretary
Stephen Byers, had met executives and lobbyists from British American Tobacco (BAT) in 2000, at a time
when the company was being investigated over claims that it was colluding with smugglers.
The revelations raised questions about the power and influence of the tobacco lobby, which is currently looking
to steer the government away from making a manifesto commitment to banning smoking in pubs.
Now, previously unpublished documents show that Blair, a former smoker, had been targeted by the tobacco
industry for almost 15 years. The industry conducted a series of meetings while Blair was a shadow minister
and these continued when he entered Number 10.
In 1991 the Prime Minister, then an MP, was included on a list of politicians, journalists and other key opinion
formers who were viewed as 'friendly' towards the Tobacco Advisory Council (TAC), the pan-industry group
that represents the interests of the cigarette firms and set up the pressure group Forest (Freedom of the Right
to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco).
The list, headlined with the words 'Subject: target list advertising campaign newsletter', was drawn up on 23
August, 1991, by the lobbying and public relations firm, Edelman, on behalf of the TAC. It was sent to
executives working for four cigarette companies, Gallaher, Rothmans, Imperial and British American Tobacco
and identified people who might support its campaign to derail the European Commission's plans to outlaw
tobacco advertising.
Blair, and the current Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, were included under the headline
'TAC friendly MPs', along with scores of other, chiefly Conservative politicians, journalists such as Auberon
Waugh of the Telegraph and Richard Littlejohn of the Sun, and members of the Commons Pipe Smokers Club.
One person who helped draw up the list said Blair may have been included because he had been tacitly
supportive of the tobacco lobby's 'freedom to choose' campaign.
However, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: 'This list was put together by a lobbying firm to impress its
clients. We know of no evidence that the Prime Minister has ever taken an interest in this issue.'
A spokeswoman for the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, which replaced the TAC, said it was impossible
to say why its predecessor had viewed Blair as 'friendly'. But she suggested that the TAC might have taken the
view because Blair's constituency contained a cigarette factory and would have been worried about potential
job losses once the Brussels directive came into force.
The document of 'friendly MPs' was buried in the archives of BAT's library in Guildford, Surrey. The company
was forced to open up the archives as part of a series of lawsuits, but it had failed to implement any index or
classification system. The list emerged only last week after researchers at the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine finished a three-year project to systematise the archive's 6.5 million pages and put it online.
By 1995, six months after he was elected leader of the Labour Party, documents show Blair's name had been
dropped from the list of MPs viewed as 'friendly' by the tobacco lobby.
But Ash, the anti-smoking group, said the Prime Minister's inclusion on the 1991 list was worrying. 'There are
some deeply disturbing names on this list. These lobbyists know their business. They don't put contacts on
without some reason. It would be interesting to find out what the reason was for Mr Blair,' said Ian Wilmore, a
spokesman for Ash.
The pressure group said it was not surprised Martin was considered 'friendly' by the tobacco lobby. Interviewed
in a book. Smoke Ring: Tobacco, Money and Multinational Politics, first published in 1984, Martin talked about
his relationship with Imperial Tobacco, then a big employer in his constituency. 'The wealth of the Imperial
group was created by tobacco workers. We help them when they need us,' he said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

61


Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
http://www.fair.org
Extra! January/February 1998
Media Moguls on Board
Murdoch, Malone and the Cato Institute
By Norman Solomon
Last fall, when News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch joined the board of directors at the Cato Institute,
the announcement went unreported in major media. Perhaps it seemed routine for one of the world's most
powerful media moguls to take a leadership post at one of the most influential think tanks in Washington.
At future meetings, Murdoch can count on rubbing elbows with his fellow media titan, John C. Malone--
president and CEO of Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI), the largest U.S. cable operator--who has been on the
Cato board since 1995. The two men are well acquainted, and their companies have long been intertwined in
media deals involving satellite television, cable TV, program distribution and other big telecommunications
ventures. Now the heads of both firms are formally helping to run a think tank which boasts that it has
"actively promoted the deregulation of the television and telephone industries."
In recent years, the Cato Institute has neared the top tier of think tanks in the United States—on Capitol Hill
and in the nation's news media. In the 1996 book No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations
Changed America's Social Agenda, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado write that the Cato Institute "played a
key role in forming the ideas and policies of the new Republican majority in Congress." These days,
"congressional committee chairmen increasingly look to Cato scholars for testimony."
FAIR's search of major newspaper and broadcast media in the Nexis computer database found that Cato was
one of four think tanks with more than 1,000 citations in 1995 and again in 1996 (see Extra!, 7–8/97). The
Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation were in a virtual tie for first place; Cato followed closely
behind third-place American Enterprise Institute.
By the time the Cato Institute celebrated its 20th anniversary at a Washington Hilton bash with 2,000 guests
last spring, the Washington Post (5/2/97) was declaring that "Cato is now the hot policy shop." The Post
quoted one of the enthusiastic guests, ABC News correspondent John Stossel: "I have no official political
affiliation, but I sure seem to be agreeing with them on a lot of things." (A year earlier, Stossel had been the
keynote speaker at a Cato "City Seminar" in New York.) For corporations eager to stoke the pro-privatization
and anti-regulation fervor of the Cato Institute, it's clearly a good investment.
Government beneficiaries
Broadcasters like Murdoch benefit greatly from federal giveaways. Holding frequency licenses worth fortunes,
they're now receiving free slices of a digital spectrum valued at up to $70 billion. Likewise, cable TV
conglomerates—with Malone's TCI in the lead—continue to expand under the protection of federal regulations
that place severe limits on the power of municipalities to charge franchise fees for the use of public rights-of-
way. While lauding the "free market," Murdoch and Malone rely on the federal government's aid in their quest
for media monopolization. The contradiction doesn't seem to bother the Cato Institute at all.
While it has criticized "corporate welfare," Cato is much more intent on eliminating government programs for
the poor. (See p. 22.) The annual report for 1996 trumpets a statement by Cato's director of health and welfare
studies, Michael Tanner, that "welfare has failed and cannot be reformed. It is time to end it. In its place, the
civil society would rely on a reinvigorated network of private charity."

62


One of Cato's luminaries is José Piñera, co-chair of its Project on Social Security Privatization. According to
Cato's latest annual report, "the project's work was cited by nearly every major newspaper in the United States,
including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal."
The report says that Piñera, a former minister of labor and welfare in Chile, "oversaw the privatization of
Chile's pension system in the early 1980s"-- but does not mention that at the time the Chilean government was
under the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Cato's concern about intrusive government evidently does not
extend to torture and murder.
In terms of commitment to human rights, Cato has found a kindred spirit in Rupert Murdoch, who is fond of
floating lofty rhetoric about his Star TV satellite network. "Satellite broadcasting makes it possible for
information-hungry residents of many closed societies to bypass state-controlled television," said Murdoch,
who touted new media technology as a "threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere." But Murdoch quickly
kowtowed to China's totalitarian regime when Beijing objected to Star TV transmissions of BBC News
reports about Chinese human rights abuses. In 1994, Murdoch's network dropped the BBC from its broadcasts
to Asia. "The BBC was driving them nuts," Murdoch said (New Yorker, 11/13/95). "It's not worth it."
Announcing that Murdoch had joined its board, a Cato news release (9/22/97) praised him as "a strong
advocate of the free market" and quoted his stirring words: "I start from a simple principle: In every area of
economic activity in which competition is attainable, it is much to be preferred to monopoly." (This from
someone with 70 percent penetration of the newspaper market in Australia.)
Smoking hired guns
Murdoch sits on the board of directors of Philip Morris, the tobacco giant recently inducted into INFACT's
Hall of Shame "for exerting undue influence over public policy-making" with the help of 240 registered
federal and state lobbyists—spending as much as $2 million per month to lobby federal officials. Murdoch
publications such as TV Guide reap enormous profits from cigarette ads. And Murdoch's Fox Broadcasting is
cozy with Philip Morris subsidiary Miller Brewing Co., which recently boosted its advertising account with
Fox to about $75 million per year for sports and primetime programs (Advertising Age, 6/16/97).
But Murdoch is just one of many Cato links to Big Tobacco. Although news reporting and media
commentaries often include the Cato Institute's assessments of tobacco-related issues, Cato's direct ties to
tobacco rarely get mentioned. For years, the list of Cato's large contributors has included Philip Morris and
R.J. Reynolds.
As it happens, Cato is a fierce tiger when it comes to advocating for oppressed tobacco firms. Last summer, a
Cato "Policy Analysis" by senior fellow Robert A. Levy denounced state lawsuits against tobacco companies
to recover Medicaid costs for treating people with smoking-related diseases. He claimed that anti-tobacco
politicians were "willing to deny due process to a single industry selected for its deep pockets and public image
rather than its legal culpability."
A month later, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee (7/16/97), Levy sounded a similar theme,
calling a proposed tobacco settlement "a shameful document, extorted by public officials who have perverted
the rule of law to tap the deep pockets of a feckless and friendless industry." For good measure, Levy
excoriated newly proposed restrictions on tobacco advertising as "draconian." And he went ballistic over the
idea that tobacco firms should provide funds for the health care of children without insurance: "To hold a
single industry financially liable is no more than a bald transfer of wealth from a disfavored to a favored
group."
Such pronouncements from the lips of tobacco company lawyers are likely to be taken with outsized grains of
salt by the public. But Levy has consistently received respectful media coverage—without reference to the
links between the tobacco industry he defends and the think tank that employs him.

63


So, in a news article that appeared a week before Levy testified on Capitol Hill, the Chicago Tribune
(7/10/97) devoted several paragraphs to Levy's views, quoting his claims that federal efforts to regulate
tobacco have been counterproductive. The article identified the Cato Institute only as "a libertarian think tank
in the capital"—though it could have just as accurately been described as an advocacy group paid by the
tobacco industry.
The next month, when the San Diego Union-Tribune published a 1,100-word op-ed article by Levy under the
headline "Rule of Law Is a Loser in Tobacco War" (8/31/97), the identifying blurb mentioned Levy's post at
Cato—but not Cato's relationship with tobacco companies. In that piece, Levy ("a senior fellow in
constitutional studies at the Cato Institute") lambasted "an $11 billion settlement of Florida's war against the
tobacco industry." He called the settlement "shameful" because "it strips a currently unfashionable industry of
basic protections the rest of us take for granted." Ten days later, in USA Today (9/10/97), Levy surfaced again
as a concerned legal scholar writing an opinion piece that decried the persecution of tobacco firms and blasted
"our pervasive regulatory state."
"Funny funding"
Major media outlets have routinely turned a blind eye to the corporate financial backing for Cato and other
large think tanks in Washington. Few reporters or pundits focus on the conflicts of interest involved.
A report by Public Citizen illuminated the industry money behind the major think tanks campaigning to strip
regulatory authority from the Food and Drug Administration: "Seven think tanks—the American Enterprise
Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foun-dation, the Hudson
Institute, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation--received at least $3.5
million between 1992 and 1995 from drug, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco manufacturers and their
corporate foundations." But mainstream journalists paid scant attention to who was paying the piper. "Some of
the country's most renowned think tanks, frequently cited by the American media, are carrying water for the
drug, medical device, biotechnology and tobacco industries," the public interest group reported (Public Citizen,
Fall/96).
Not all media outlets have given short shrift to those realities. Under the headline "FDA's Detractors Get
Funny Funding," the Tennessean newspaper editorialized (7/29/96): "The think tanks named in the report,
including the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, have produced a
steady stream of anti-FDA sentiment, including op-ed pieces and reports over the last several years." The
newspaper noted "a tremendous difference between an independent think tank, which does legitimate research,
and a quasi-academic mouthpiece financed by a regulated industry."
Clearly, the Cato Institute falls in the latter category. The Institute's yearly funding has climbed above $8
million, more than twice what it was in 1992. The organization's most recent annual report exults: "We've
moved into a beautiful new $13.7 million headquarters at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue and have only $1
million in debt remaining on it as we enter 1997." Dozens of huge corporations, eager to roll back government
regulatory powers, are among Cato's largest donors.
In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in
Cato's patron base over the years. Cato's main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch,
Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato "receives most of its financial support from
entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal
Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."
Financial firms now kicking in big checks to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank,
Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy
conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well
as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's

64


pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.
Friends in the media
While serving on Cato's board and making personal donations, TCI's John Malone is among many other media
and telecommunications heavies behind Cato. Big donors include Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth
Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corp- oration, Netscape
Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems and Viacom Interna-tional. It's
understandable that Cato's news releases—while constantly urging privatization of the Internet and other
communications systems—do not mention where Cato money is coming from. But it's inexcusable that media
coverage seldom includes such information.
Even when Malone makes a public appearance for the Cato Institute, reporters seem uninclined to shed light
on the array of corporate funding that makes Cato possible. When Malone spoke on "Telecommunications in
the 21st Century" at a Cato seminar luncheon in Denver, a pair of articles in the next day's Denver Post
(11/15/96) gave extensive coverage to Malone's comments--and identified Cato only as "a libertarian think
tank."
Cato's newest board member, Rupert Murdoch, is a global media giant whose U.S. possessions include the Fox
television network, TV Guide, the tabloid New York Post, HarperCollins book publishers and the Twentieth
Century Fox movie studios. Along the way, lax federal regulation has swelled the profits of Murdoch's News
Corp., now a $28 billion conglomerate. As a 1997 New York Times article noted (3/31/97), his 10-year-old
Fox TV network "could never have succeeded if it had not received generous treatment at the Federal
Communications Commission."
Naturally, turning such big governmental wheels requires lots of political grease. In 1996, Murdoch donated $1
million to the California Republican Party, while News Corp. gave another $654,700 in "soft money" to the
national GOP. In Murdoch's native Australia, News Corp. dominates the mass media. In Britain, Murdoch
controls more than a third of daily newspaper circulation along with much of cable and satellite television.
While using his media outlets to push for the slashing of government social services, Murdoch was a pioneer in
union-busting within the newspaper industry.
Murdoch is likely to have a long and harmonious presence on the Cato Institute's board of directors.
Research assistance: Peter Hart
See FAIR's Archives for more on:
AT&T/John Malone
Murdoch
washingtonpost.com
As Election Looms, Tony Blair Basks In Warmth of the Sun
By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; Page C01
LONDON, May 3 -- Never mind the polls and the speeches and the brutal grilling of national
political leaders on a range of TV and radio shows. If you really want to know what the British public

65


thinks of the general election taking place here Thursday, have a look at Tuesday's Sun.
The front page of Britain's biggest-selling tabloid daily features a full-cover photo of a famously
blond television celebrity named Abi Titmuss with no blouse on, her hands strategically placed over
her physical assets, with the headline "A great pair of Titmusses." And below that: A piece on the
arrest of a popular boxer after he allegedly fled the scene of a car accident.
Election? What election?
Yes, the Sun has decided that its readers are less than enchanted with politics in what has been a
lackluster and fairly predictable campaign. But something even more interesting is going on here that
helps explain why, for all his political problems, Prime Minister Tony Blair and the ruling Labor
Party are widely expected to win a third consecutive term in office. Blair has managed to capture or
else neutralize the tabloids, most of which used to be rabidly anti-Labor, and he has denied the
opposing Conservatives one of their key electoral weapons.
Not so many years ago the Sun, which is owned by Australian-born Rupert Murdoch, was firmly on
the side of the Conservative Party. Its editorials and punchy, hammering headlines helped the
legendary Margaret Thatcher win three successive terms in office between 1979 and 1987. In 1992,
despite its distaste for Thatcher's bland successor, John Major, the Sun stuck with the Tories, and led
a brutal assault on Neil Kinnock and Labor -- "Nightmare on Kinnock Street" was the headline on an
eight-page attack a few days before the election. It was an important factor in Major's narrow
electoral victory, and "It Was The Sun Wot Won It," the newspaper boasted a day later.
In truth it was the Sun's readers, but fair enough. Two other Tory tabloids -- the Daily Mail and Daily
Express -- had also led the charge, but their readers were predominantly Conservative to begin with.
The Sun, whose mainly blue-collar readership tends to skew toward Labor, had done the most
damage.
When Labor's strategists looked back on their defeat, they realized the role that Murdoch's stable of
newspapers had played, and as part of the process of making Labor electable again, they set out to
somehow appease the media magnate. After Blair became party leader, he and his aides flew to the
Australian resort at Hayman Island in July 1995 to attend the annual conference that Murdoch and his
senior executives hold there. Blair managed to convince his audience that "New Labor" would be
fiscally responsible, socially progressive and tough on crime.
Two years later, the Sun carried a piece by Blair headlined "I'm a British Patriot"; the next day, the
Sun endorsed Blair, who went on to win the 1997 election by a landslide. Alastair Campbell, Blair's
right-hand man, has called the endorsement his greatest achievement in politics. The Sun, after all,
sells 3.3 million copies a day and boasts nearly 10 million readers -- more than all of Britain's serious
broadsheets combined.
The Sun wasn't the only newspaper Blair wooed. Piers Morgan, former editor of the Daily Mirror, the
one tabloid that has consistently supported Labor, calculated in his recent memoir that he had 22
lunches, six dinners, six formal interviews, 24 one-on-one chats over tea and biscuits, and
innumerable phone calls with the prime minister. (It didn't do a lot of good -- during the Iraq war, the
Mirror was savagely anti-Blair, although it's returned to the Labor fold for the election.) Blair for a

66


time even managed to forge a wary but respectful relationship with the Daily Mail, Britain's most
rabidly pro-Tory tabloid.
But the Sun was the big prize. During Blair's eight years in office, he and Murdoch have stayed on
reasonably good terms. Critics contend Blair's government has been soft on regulating the British
branch of Murdoch's empire, while adopting policies on immigration, taxation and foreign policy (the
media magnate was a passionate supporter of the Iraq war) that Murdoch was comfortable with. Still,
in recent years the Sun has been tougher on Blair's government, and there was some talk this time that
Murdoch might return to the Conservative fold and endorse the party's new leader, veteran
Thatcherite Michael Howard.
The Sun took its time. Howard made the pilgrimage to Hayman Island last year and won respectable
reviews for his performance. But two weeks ago the Sun spoke; to no one's real surprise it endorsed
Blair for, as the front-page headline put it, "One Last Chance." Being the Sun, it did so in hyperbolic
fashion: sending red smoke up its chimney in a parody of the white smoke that rises from the Sistine
Chapel when a new pope is chosen.
And, this being the Sun, the endorsement didn't mean just a favorable editorial or two, but rather a
barrage of news stories and headlines, virtually all of them weighted toward Blair. On Page 8 on
Tuesday, there's an editorial warning voters to think twice before supporting the third-party Liberal
Democrats, which the Sun characterizes as an "extremist" party that would legalize marijuana and
abolish mandatory prison sentences for drug addicts. Just in case readers miss the point, there's an
accompanying column on the Lib Dems' "Drug Policy Madness" penned by that well-known opinion
writer -- Tony Blair.
This is the way the British tabloids operate: full-blast condemnation of the enemy, whoever he or she
may be. Thus the Daily Mail and Daily Express both devoted their front pages Tuesday to the claim
by the widow of the latest British soldier to die in Iraq that Blair is to blame for her husband's death.
(The Sun managed to publish an interview with the widow and her 7-year-old son without a word of
criticism of Blair.) Inside, the Express's headlines hammered away: "Another soldier betrayed by
Blair's Iraq falsehoods"; "Frazzled and bad-tempered, Blair fails to hide his arrogance on TV";
"Union chief: pupils are out of control," etc.
Even in the venomous world of the Tory tabloids, however, things are not quite as clear-cut as they
used to be. While the Mail and Express have pilloried Blair, they have been less than enthusiastic
over the Tory alternative. The Mail has even published a piece by former Labor cabinet secretary
David Blunkett defending Blair, along with pieces claiming that none of the parties has addressed the
serious issues facing Britain. All of this helps explain why polls indicate Blair is still in the lead.
"If you look at 1997, what the papers did then was not merely trash John Major but they built up this
new iconic figure of Tony Blair and helped make him the inevitable winner," says Roy Greenslade,
journalism professor at City University in London and a former tabloid editor. "This time you see a
trashing of Blair but no equivalent attempt to build up Michael Howard."
The bitter truth is that for the tabloids, the election has been less than a compelling story. A study
carried out by Loughborough University for the Guardian newspaper found that during a 10-day
stretch last month, the election got only a quarter to half the front-page tabloid space it received in the
2001 campaign.

67


Soon it will be over and the papers can get back to the important things: the Michael Jackson trial,
Tom Cruise's fling with Katie Holmes, Prince Charles and Camilla, the latest staff member to spill
dirt about David and Victoria Beckham -- the things that make life worth living and Britain's tabloids
worth reading. © 2005 The Washington Post Company
Ministers’ Views on Tobacco Advertising – How they have changed!
26 June 2001
The Government has shelved legislation to ban tobacco advertising, legislation which was a manifesto commitment in
both 1997 and 2001. Ministers now say that this legislation has been lost because it is a lower priority than other measures
they want to bring in. However, ASH has put together this collection of quotations to show just how far Ministers have
changed their tune in the last six months:
The Bill to ban tobacco advertising was introduced in December 2000. Ministers announced the new legislation with great
enthusiasm:
" Seven out of 10 smokers say they want to give up. Research shows that an advertising ban could eventually
save up to 3,000 lives a year and that the brands most heavily advertised are those are most heavily smoked by
children. This bill will implement our manifesto commitment to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship." Yvette
Cooper MP, Minister for Public Health,
Yvette Cooper, DoH Press Release, 14/12/00. Full text of the release.
This bullishness continued when the legislation was debated in Parliament. The following collection of quotations shows
the very high level of energy and commitment given by Ministers to seuring Parliamentary approval for the Bill:
“We honour the commitments that we have made. The Bill will ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this
country. It will do so to protect public health, to safeguard children and to reduce health inequalities.”
Rt Hon Alan Millburn MP, Sec of State for Health – 2nd reading debate, 22/1/01. Hansard text of Debate
“It is not an exaggeration to say that tobacco smoking is the biggest public health problem that the country faces. It is
literally a public health disaster. I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour that this Government, unlike the previous one,
are determined to do something about it.”
Rt Hon Alan Millburn MP, Sec of State for Health – 2nd reading debate, 22/1/01. Hansard text of Debate
“There is little doubt among informed scientific and medical opinion that tobacco advertising and sponsorship is
nothing less than a recruiting sergeant for children and young teenagers to start the tobacco habit, and it is
precisely to safeguard these children and generations yet to come that we are introducing the ban on tobacco
advertising and sponsorship.”
Rt Hon Alan Millburn MP, Sec of State for Health – 2nd reading debate, 22/1/01. Hansard text of Debate
“The Tories ask for evidence [that advertising encourages people to smoke]. It screams out to them from the billboards
across the country: advertising works, smoking kills. Where the previous Government failed to act, this Government will
now do so. We will act to protect children; we will act to reduce smoking; we will act to save lives.”
Rt Hon Alan Milburn MP, Sec of State for Health – 2nd Reading Debate 22/1/01. Hansard text of debate
“Smoking kills. Advertising and promotion of tobacco products imposes enormous costs on our health service
and does enormous harm to the health of our nation. Its effects are felt most acutely in the poorest parts of our
country.

68


We estimate that, in this country alone, a reduction in smoking following an advertising ban such as that
proposed could save the NHS up to £40 million a year on treating smoking-related diseases. More importantly,
we estimate that 3,000 lives a year will be saved in the UK in the longer term.
The Bill will not prevent individual choice, but it will prevent the tobacco industry from using its mighty financial
muscle to advertise and promote a product that kills. For the sake of the children who will be tomorrow's victims
of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and other diseases, I commend the Bill”
Yvette Cooper, Minister for Public Health 2nd reading debate, 22/01/01. Hansard text of debate
“People have a right to choose to smoke, but smoking is addictive, and they also have a right not to be pressurised by
manipulative, seductive advertising into starting to smoke. They have a right not to be bombarded with advertisements
and pressures not to give up smoking. “
Yvette Cooper, 3rd Reading debate, 13/2/2001. Text of the Third Reading Debate
“The Government have a comprehensive programme to support smokers who wish to quit. So, why do we also
need to legislate on tobacco advertising? There is clear evidence which suggests a link between a ban on
advertising and reduced levels of tobacco consumption. There is a link between the promotion of cigarettes and
the decisions of young people to start smoking”.
Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, 2nd reading debate (Lords), 28 March 2001. Hansard text of debate
“A comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising is part of the jigsaw that we are putting together to help to reduce the level
of smoking in this country and make a dent in the toll of death and ill health caused by tobacco use. Each year 120,000 of
our fellow citizens die from smoking-related diseases. That causes heartache and misery for many, many more. The
Government are determined to tackle this epidemic. I commend the Bill”.
Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, 2nd reading debate (Lords), 28 March 2001. Hansard text of debate
When a General Election was called in May 2001 and the Bill lost, Ministers continued to express commitment to its
urgent re-introduction, and placed the blame squarely on the opposition:
The majority of the British people, doctors and health professionals all want to see this ban in place. It is the Tories and
the tobacco industry who have done everything they can to block this.”
Yvette Cooper, Labour Party Press Release, 11/5/01
Indeed, Government enthusiasm for this legislation, and for tackling the public health consequences of smoking, is
nothing new. In 1998. Ministers published the White Paper “Smoking Kills”, in which they pledged to reduce smoking.
They also acknowldeged the harm caused by smoking:
“In Britain today, more than 120,000 people are going to die over the next year from illnesses directly related to
smoking. And the year after that, and the year after that. Unless we all do something.”
Rt. Hon Tony Blair MP,Prime Minister December 1998 - Preface to "Smoking Kills" White Paper
“Smoking kills. That has been known for years. That is why a lot of adults have given up smoking. But the
number of adults who smoke has stopped falling. Worse still the number of children who smoke is going up, with
more girls than boys taking up this deadly habit.
Smoking is now the principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK. It hits the worst off people hardest
of all. It harms people who do not smoke. It harms babies in the womb. That is why the Government is
determined to turn things round. We want to help existing smokers quit the habit and help children and young
people not to get addicted in the first place”.
Rt Hon Frank Dobson MP, Secretary of State for Health, December 1998: Foreword to "Smoking Kills" White
Paper
In Parliament, Ministers have continued to insist for some time that they treat an advertising ban with the highest priority.
In November 1999, Public Health Minister Yvette Cooper gave the following answer to a Parliamentary Question.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards tobacco advertising in the
United Kingdom. [98965]

69


Yvette Cooper: As part of our comprehensive programme against tobacco, we will implement a ban on tobacco
advertising in line with Directive 98/43/EC [banning tobacco advertising, which was annulled in 2000] as soon
as practicable.
In is extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that Ministers have chosen now to row back from the statements they have
been making since they were first elected in 1997. ASH has written to Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health,
summarising these Ministerial statements, and urging the Government to reconsider their decision to shelve the ad-ban.
See letter to Secretary of State for Health, 18 June 2001
No longer in force
DIRECTIVE 98/43/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 July 1998
on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 57(2), Article 66
and Article 100a thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty (3),
(1) Whereas there are differences between the Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions
on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products; whereas such advertising and sponsorship transcend
the borders of the Member States and the differences in question are likely to give rise to barriers to the
movement between Member States of the products which serve as the media for such advertising and
sponsorship and to freedom to provide services in this area, as well as distort competition, thereby impeding
the functioning of the internal market;
(2) Whereas those barriers should be eliminated and, to this end, the rules relating to the advertising and
sponsoring of tobacco products should be approximated, whilst leaving Member States the possibility of
introducing, under certain conditions, such requirements as they consider necessary in order to guarantee the
protection of the health of individuals;
(3) Whereas, in accordance with Article 100a(3) of the Treaty, the Commission is obliged, in its proposals
under paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, to take as a
base a high level of protection;
(4) Whereas this Directive must therefore take due account of the health protection of individuals, in particular
in relation to young people, for whom advertising plays an important role in tobacco promotion;

70


(5) Whereas in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market the Council adopted, on the basis
of Article 100a, Directive 89/622/EEC (4) and Directive 90/239/EEC (5) concerning the labelling of tobacco
products and the maximum tar yield of cigarettes, respectively;
(6) Whereas advertising relating to medicinal products for human use is covered by Directive 92/28/EEC (6);
whereas advertising relating to products intended for use in overcoming addiction to tobacco does not fall
within the scope of this Directive;
(7) Whereas this Directive will not apply to communications intended exclusively for professionals in the
tobacco trade, the presentation of tobacco products offered for sale and the indication of their prices, and,
depending on sales structures, advertising directed at purchasers at tobacco sales outlets and the sale of third-
country publications which do not satisfy the conditions laid down in this Directive, provided, however, that
they comply with Community law and the Community's obligations at international level; whereas it is for the
Member States, where necessary, to take appropriate measures in these areas;
(8) Whereas, given the interdependence between the various forms of advertising - oral, written, printed, on
radio or television or at the cinema - and in order to prevent any risk of distorting competition or
circumventing rules and regulations, this Directive must cover all forms and means of advertising apart from
television advertising already covered by Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (7);
(9) Whereas all forms of indirect advertising and sponsorship, and likewise free distribution, have the same
effects as direct advertising, and whereas they should, without prejudice to the fundamental principle of
freedom of expression, be regulated, including indirect forms of advertising which, while not mentioning the
tobacco product directly, use brand names, trade marks, emblems or other distinctive features associated with
tobacco products; whereas, however, Member States may defer application of these provisions to allow time
for commercial practices to be adjusted and sponsorship of tobacco products to be replaced by other suitable
forms of support;
(10) Whereas, without prejudice to the regulation of the advertising of tobacco products, Member States
remain free to allow the continued use, under certain conditions, for the advertising of products or services
other than tobacco products, of a brand name which was already in use in good faith both for such products or
services and for tobacco products before this Directive entered into force;
(11) Whereas existing sponsorship of events or activities which Member States may continue to authorise for a
period of eight years after the entry into force of this Directive ending not later than 1 October 2006 and which
will be subject to voluntary-restraint measures and decrease of expenditure levels during the transitional period
should include all means of achieving the aims of sponsorship as defined in this Directive;
(12) Whereas Member States must take adequate and effective steps to ensure control of the implementation of
national measures adopted pursuant to this Directive in compliance with their national legislation,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The objective of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the

71


Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
1. 'tobacco products`: all products intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed inasmuch as they are
made, even partly, of tobacco;
2. 'advertising`: any form of commercial communication with the aim or the direct or indirect effect of
promoting a tobacco product, including advertising which, while not specifically mentioning the tobacco
product, tries to circumvent the advertising ban by using brand names, trade marks, emblems or other
distinctive features of tobacco products;
3. 'sponsorship`: any public or private contribution to an event or activity with the aim or the direct or indirect
effect of promoting a tobacco product;
4. 'tobacco sales outlet`: any place where tobacco products are offered for sale.
Article 3
1. Without prejudice to Directive 89/552/EEC, all forms of advertising and sponsorship shall be banned in the
Community.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Member States from allowing a brand name already used in good faith
both for tobacco products and for other goods or services traded or offered by a given undertaking or by
different undertakings prior to 30 July 1998 to be used for the advertising of those other goods or services.
However, this brand name may not be used except in a manner clearly distinct from that used for the tobacco
product, without any further distinguishing mark already used for a tobacco product.
3. (a) Member States shall ensure that no tobacco product bears the brand name, trade mark, emblem or other
distinctive feature of any other product or service, unless the tobacco product has already been traded under
that brand name, trade mark, emblem or other distinctive feature on the date referred to in Article 6(1);
(b) the ban provided for in paragraph 1 may not be circumvented, in respect of any product or service placed or
offered on the market as from the date laid down in Article 6(1), by the use of brand names, trade marks,
emblems and other distinguishing features already used for a tobacco product.
To this end, the brand name, trade mark, emblem and any other distinguishing feature of the product or service
must be presented in a manner clearly distinct from that used for the tobacco product.
4. Any free distribution having the purpose or the direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product shall

72


be banned.
5. This Directive shall not apply to:
- communications intended exclusively for professionals in the tobacco trade,
- the presentation of tobacco products offered for sale and the indication of their prices at tobacco sales outlets,
- advertising aimed at purchasers in establishments specialising in the sale of tobacco products and on their
shop-fronts or, in the case of establishments selling a variety of articles or services, at locations reserved for
the sale of tobacco products, and at sales outlets which, in Greece, are subject to a special system under which
licences are granted for social reasons ('periptera`),
- the sale of publications containing advertising for tobacco products which are published and printed in third
countries, where those publications are not principally intended for the Community market.
Article 4
Member States shall ensure that adequate and effective means exist of ensuring and monitoring the
implementation of national measures adopted pursuant to this Directive. These means may include provisions
whereby persons or organisations with a legitimate interest under national law in the withdrawal of advertising
which is incompatible with this Directive may take legal proceedings against such advertising or bring such
advertising to the attention of an administrative body competent to give a ruling on complaints or to institute
the appropriate legal proceedings.
Article 5
This Directive shall not preclude Member States from laying down, in accordance with the Treaty, such stricter
requirements concerning the advertising or sponsorship of tobacco products as they deem necessary to
guarantee the health protection of individuals.
Article 6
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with this Directive not later than 30 July 2001. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be
accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such
reference shall be laid down by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of domestic law which
they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

73


3. Member States may defer the implementation of Article 3(1) for:
- one year in respect of the press,
- two years in respect of sponsorship.
In exceptional cases and for duly justified reasons, Member States may continue to authorise the existing
sponsorship of events or activities organised at world level for a further period of three years ending not later
than 1 October 2006, provided that:
- the sums devoted to such sponsorship decrease over the transitional period,
- voluntary-restraint measures are introduced in order to reduce the visibility of advertising at the events or
activities concerned.
Article 7
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social
Committee not later than 30 July 2001, and subsequently every two years, a report on the implementation of
this Directive, with particular reference to the implementation and effects of Article 3(2) and (3) and Article
6(3). Where appropriate, it shall submit proposals for the adaptation of this Directive to suit developments
identified in the report. Such adaptation shall not affect the periods provided for in Article 6(3).
Article 8
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.
Article 9
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1998.
For the European Parliament
The President
J. M. GIL-ROBLES

For the Council
74


The President
R. EDLINGER
(1) OJ C 129, 21.5.1992, p. 5.
(2) OJ C 313, 30.11.1992, p. 27.
(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 11 February 1992 (OJ C 67, 16.3.1992, p. 35), confirmed under the
Article 189b procedure on 3 December 1993, Council Common Position of 12 February 1998 (OJ C 91,
26.3.1998, p. 34) and Decision of the European Parliament of 13 May 1998 (OJ C 167, 1.6.1998). Council
Decision of 22 June 1998.
(4) OJ L 359, 8.12.1989, p. 1. Directive as amended by Directive 92/41/EEC (OJ L 158, 11.6.1992, p. 30).
(5) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990, p. 36.
(6) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 13.
(7) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23. Directive as last amended by Directive 97/36/EC (OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p.
60).
Haut
Managed by the Publications Office
Tobacco advertising ban, harmonization and the internal
market: Case C-380/03
The Court of Justice handed down an interesting and important judgment on
using Article 95 EC as the legal basis for prohibiting tobacco advertising. In its
judgment in Case C-380/03 Germany v. European Parliament and Council, the
Court upheld the legality of two key provisions of Directive 2003/33/EC.
The judgment is both a classic one and a bit of surprise. Here's why.
Germany had been successful back in 2000 in its attempt to have annulled

75


Directive 98/43/EC on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The
Court annulled Directive 98/43/EC by its judgment in Case C-376/98 Germany
v. Parliament and Council. That was quite a complicated judgment but to
simplify it outrageously, the Court had held that Article 95 EC (Article 100a EC
as it was numbered at the time) could not be used as a legal basis for the
outright ban of certain forms of tobacco advertising.
Then the European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2003/33/EC to
replace Directive 98/43/EC that had been annulled.
So Germany had a go at annulling the new Directive in Case C-380/03. And this
time it failed.
In Case C-380/03 Germany sought the annulment of two articles prohibiting:
(i) the advertising of tobacco products in the press and other printed
publications, in information society services and in radio broadcasts and
(ii) the sponsorship of radio programmes by tobacco companies. Only
publications intended for professionals in the tobacco trade and publications
from non-member countries which are not principally intended for the
Community market are exempted.
Germany claimed that those prohibitions could not be adopted on the basis of
Article 95 EC. That provision allows the EC to adopt measures for the
approximation of national provisions which have as their object the
establishment and functioning of the internal market. But Germany claimed that
neither of the two prohibitions in the new Directive contributes to eliminating
obstacles to the free movement of goods or to removing appreciable distortions
of competition and consequently the conditions justifying recourse to Article 95

76


EC were not met.
This time round, the Court of Justice dismissed the action by Germany and held
that Directive 2003/33/EC was validly based on Article 95 EC.
The Court found that at the time of the Directive’s adoption, disparities existed
between national rules on advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco
products which justified action by the Community legislature. Those disparities
were such as to impede the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide
services. They also meant that there was an appreciable risk of distortions of
competition(see Joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health
and others at paragraph 30). The Court also held that held that, provided that
the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fulfilled, the
Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on
the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be
made (see Joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and
others at paragraph 31).
Interestingly, the Court held that the different national measures prohibiting or
restricting the advertising of tobacco products are liable to impede access to the
market by products from other Member States more than they impede access
by domestic products. It also held that such measures restrict the ability of
undertakings established in the member States where they are in force to offer
advertising space in their publications to advertisers established in other
member States, thereby affecting the cross-border supply of services (see, to
this effect, Case C-405/98 Gourmet International Products, paragraphs 38 and
39).

77


In contrast to its judgment in Case C-376/98, the Court held in this case that
because of the disparities in national laws likely to affect trade between member
States, the EC could "approximate" national law on the basis of Article 95 EC by
definitively prohibiting the marketing of the product in question.
The Court took the precaution of stating:
"Recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis does not presuppose the existence of
an actual link with free movement between the Member States in every
situation covered by the measure founded on that basis. As the Court has
previously pointed out, to justify recourse to Article 95 EC as the legal basis
what matters is that the measure adopted on that basis must actually be
intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the
internal market (see, to this effect, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-
139/01 Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, paragraphs 41 and 42, and Case
C-101/01 Lindqvist, paragraphs 40 and 41).
For other cases on the use of Article 95 EC see our previous posts here and
here.
December 12, 2006 in Goods: Free movement, Institutional | Permalink
Communications Act 2003 Chapter 21 PART 3, TELEVISION AND RADIO
SERVICES - continued
CHAPTER 4 REGULATORY PROVISIONS Power to proscribe unacceptable foreign
television and radio services
329 Proscription orders
(1) Where- (a) a foreign service to which this section applies comes to OFCOM's attention,
and
(b) they consider that the service is unacceptable and should be the subject of an order under
this section,

78


they must send a notification to the Secretary of State giving details of the service and their
reasons for considering that an order should be made.
(2) A service is not to be considered unacceptable by OFCOM unless they are satisfied that-
(a) programmes containing objectionable matter are included in the service; and
(b) that the inclusion of objectionable matter in programmes so included is occurring
repeatedly.
(3) Matter is objectionable for the purposes of subsection (2) only if-
(a) it offends against taste or decency;
(b) it is likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime;
(c) it is likely to lead to disorder; or
(d) it is likely to be offensive to public feeling.
(4) Where the Secretary of State has received a notification under this section in the case of a
service, he may make an order-
(a) identifying the service in such manner as he thinks fit; and
(b) proscribing it.
(5) The Secretary of State is not to make an order proscribing a service unless he is satisfied
that the making of the order is-
(a) in the public interest; and
(b) compatible with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
(6) The television and sound services to which this section applies are-
(a) television licensable content services provided otherwise than by broadcasting from a
satellite;
(b) digital television programme services;
(c) digital additional television services;
(d) radio licensable sound services provided otherwise than by being broadcast from a satellite;
(e) digital sound programme services; and
(f) digital additional sound services.
(7) A service to which this section applies is a foreign service if it-
(a) is a service capable of being received in the United Kingdom for the provision of which no
Broadcasting Act licence is either in force or required to be in force; but
(b) is also a service for the provision of which such a licence would be required-
(i) in the case of a service falling within subsection (6)(a) to (c), if the person providing it were
under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Television without
Frontiers Directive; and
(ii) in any other case, if the person providing it provided it from a place in the United Kingdom
or were a person whose principal place of business is in the United Kingdom.
========================================

79


LEGAL ASPECTS OF
INTERNATIONAL FILM CO-PRODUCTION
By Enric Enrich, lawyer
The text was originally prepared in Spanish as a presentation for a course on
international co-production and sale of animated series (Nov. 2004).
It was reviewed and translated by the European Audiovisual Observatory with a
view to presenting it at the 19th Conference on International Audiovisual Law,
12-13 May 2005, Cannes
LEGAL ASPECTS OF
INTERNATIONAL FILM CO-PRODUCTION
By Enric Enrich, lawyer
I. INTRODUCTION
In a co-production contract, two or more persons agree to:
a) collaborate and pool goods, rights or services in order to produce an
audiovisual work of some kind,
b) attribute ownership of the rights in respect of the audiovisual work
resulting from such collaboration, and
c) make use of the work jointly, and share the ensuing profits (or losses) in
agreed proportions.
Co-production makes it possible to combine forces and consequently achieve a
work that either of the co-producers alone would find it difficult to achieve in any
other way.
A distinction must be drawn between co-production and ordinary financial
participation, in which the “financial partner” (also called the “financial coproducer”)
participates in the results of exploiting the audiovisual work without
being a co-owner of its constitutive elements. Moreover, not all producers who
participate in a production are in fact co-producers – it is only those persons
who have specifically agreed to this by means of a contract.
The legal nature of co-production may vary considerably, depending on the
various forms that may be agreed by contract (a non-registered company, a
corporation, a partnership, a contract of share in the accounts) and they may
even take on different forms at successive stages (for example, an irregular
company at the start and then a community of goods once the negative has
been produced). The fiscal consequences of adopting one or other form also
differ; the advice of a tax consultant should therefore be sought as a first step.
Co-production may be discreet (where a third party participating with the
producer in the results of the production has no desire to be known to third
parties, for example, under a participatory account contract) or obvious (where
the co-producers are known to be such). Given the lack of clear legal norms
regulating this contractual relationship, it is of the utmost importance that the
agreements reached by the parties should be set out clearly in the contract so
that the relationship between the co-producers cannot be determined by a court
decision based on legislation that may not be the most appropriate to the
circumstances.
The present document takes the form of a checklist, setting down and
commenting on the main points that must be borne in mind when negotiating an
international co-production contract.
a) International co-production
International co-production means co-production in which the co-producers are
from different countries. The case may arise of a foreign producer merely
making a contribution but not being qualified as a co-producer, or again he/she
may be considered as such but the audiovisual work of which he/she is a coproducer
is not considered as having the nationality of his/her country.
International co-production has the advantage of the audiovisual work being
produced by persons who are established in the various countries and are well
acquainted with the national markets where the work is to be shown; the work
also has the advantage of being considered a "national audiovisual work" (and
therefore may receive aid and subsidies) in the various countries of the coproducers.
Its disadvantage is that it is more complex in both practical terms
(different languages, ways of thinking and working, physical distance) and legal
terms (different legal systems have to be harmonised).
b) International co-production agreements
International co-production agreements, whether they are bi- or multi-lateral,
enable an audiovisual work produced by a number of producers established in
the States party to the agreement to be considered a "national audiovisual
work" in each State, and the work may thus obtain advantages and aid from
each State.

80


The European Audiovisual Observatory has just published information about all
bilateral European co-production agreements existing between the various
countries in Europe on its website. The available co-production agreements can
be downloaded from the Observatory's freely consultable IRIS MERLIN
database: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/
by searching under the topic: Film - Co-production
For each co-production agreement the database gives a summary of the
content as well as contact details in each country for further information and the
date on which the agreement entered into force. In addition, the full text version
of each agreement (where available) can also be downloaded (in many cases in
both languages).
II. CLAUSES USUALLY FOUND IN INTERNATIONAL CO-PRODUCTION
CONTRACTS
1.- Prior documents
In the course of negotiations between the parties, it is usual for an agreement in
principle to be reached on the basic elements of the future co-production
agreement. To give substance to the agreement, documents called, for
example, deal memo, M.O.U. (memorandum of understanding), letter of intent,
etc should be signed. These documents may have one of two very different
consequences:
a) they may constitute mere proposals or rough drafts and not be binding,
being subject to the negotiation and signature of a contract in which the
definitive conditions are set out in detail, or
b) they may be binding, although the details are to be set out in the
subsequent contract.
It is necessary to be very aware of the nature of the document being signed and
of its effects, whether binding or not, so that these truly match the intentions
behind signature of the document in question.
Also, to avoid the possibility of confusion, the contract should indicate that it
constitutes the final agreement of the parties and replaces any other earlier
document.
2.- Parties to the Contract
Not all the parties to the co-production contract need be producers; they may be
television channels, distributors, banks, private investors, etc. In any
international contract, particularly in those in which one of the parties is a
multinational company with subsidiaries established in a number of countries, it
is particularly important to specify and ensure which contracting party will
assume the obligations of the contract (to ensure that it is indeed the party with
whom the contract is wanted); a very solvent parent company and its subsidiary
which may not have the same solvency may well not be equally reliable. A
check should also be made on the powers of the person signing the contract, to
ensure that that person is entitled to commit the company.
3.- Background
This part of the contract will explain what each party does, what they hope to
achieve by the contract and, for example, if the parties want to apply for the
benefit of the clauses of an international agreement for the audiovisual work.
Although this background information does not constitute rights and obligations,
it can be of help in interpreting any obscurely worded sections of the contract.
4.- Object of the contract
The object of the co-production contract is:
a) to define the audiovisual work exactly, including details that are normally
set out in a detailed appendix (see following point);
b) to list the various tasks, responsibilities and contributions or investments
on the part of the co-producers and third parties in the pre-production,
production and post-production stages of the audiovisual work;
c) to apportion the quotas of ownership of all the elements of the
audiovisual work, including the intellectual property rights in respect of
the work;
d) to specify how commercial and derived exploitation of the audiovisual
work is to be achieved; and
e) to lay down the rules for the distribution of income (or losses) from
exploitation of the audiovisual work.
5.- Definition of the audiovisual work
The audiovisual work, as the object of the co-production contract, must be
defined in detail in the contract and its appendices. For example, one appendix
will specify its content (title, theme, type or genre, screenplay) and give details
of the various authors (scriptwriter, producer, composer) and technical points
(medium, format, duration, versions, subtitles, dubbing, technical staff,
laboratory, final version), specifying the nationality of each one to check the
existence of the quotas necessary for obtaining the benefit of the agreements.
These are called the "key elements" of the work being co-produced.
Another appendix will include the budget for the audiovisual work and all its
component parts, and the financing or payment schedule, which will cover the
contributions to be made by the contracting parties (see section 8) or third

81


parties (pre-sales, aid and subsidies). A third appendix will include the
production plan.
In this way the audiovisual work covered by the co-production contract will
remain completely fixed; there should also be a clause indicating that no
changes may be made without the unanimous agreement of the co-producers,
as this will avoid any confusion if either co-producer should unilaterally decide
to make any changes.
6.- Intellectual property rights and rights in respect of personal
portrayal
6.1. Acquisition of rights in respect of pre-existing works and rights in
respect of personal portrayal
The use of any pre-existing work in the audiovisual work to be produced will
require the transfer of the rights held by its author or other rights-holder in the
case of a novel, screenplay or music; if the image of a person is used (face,
physical representation, name, voice, etc), the person's consent must be
obtained. If this consent or transfer of rights has been obtained by one of the
co-producers, the co-production should have the benefit of this.
6.2. Rights of the author of the audiovisual work and of the performers
The definition of who are the authors of an audiovisual work will depend on the
law applicable to the work. The various legal systems may have different
standards for attributing rights, despite the various Community Directives
designed to harmonise this aspect, at least in terms of the principal director.
Thus under the Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Art. 88), the authors of an
audiovisual work are:
1. the director-producer;
2. the authors of the story line, adaptation, screenplay and dialogues;
3. the composers of the musical compositions, with or without words,
created specifically for the audiovisual work.
Apart from the extra complication of the question of who is the producer in an
animated audiovisual work, what happens in the case of a co-production where
composers are not considered as authors in one of the countries in question?
In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for instance, the producer of the film is
considered at law to be its author, whereas in France a list is drawn up of all the
people involved in creating the film and whose creative contributions cannot be
exploited separately (the photographic director, for example). The co-producers
will have to specify in the contract the people they consider as authors (taking
as a minimum what is laid down by law), and give details of the chain of title – if
one of the co-producers is the person who signed a transfer of rights with the
authors (for the screenplay, for example, or a pre-existing work), this should be
stated in the contract, with a guarantee that the rights have been duly acquired
("chain of title") and, obviously, the rights contributed to the community.
Account should also be taken of the intellectual property rights of the performers
(in animated works, mainly the characters' voices).
7.- Assignment of the responsibilities of the contracting parties
Each co-production will have its own special features, and each of the parties
will have its own functions and responsibilities. More particularly decisions
need to be made on who is to be the executive or delegated producer and what
the scope of that person's responsibility is (with the possibility of requiring
assurance of completion from the other co-producers), who is to sign contracts
with staff and insure them, artistic responsibilities, technical tasks,
commercialisation, etc, and it must be stated whether or not there is to be any
specific payment in this respect.
8.- Representation in respect of third parties
It is important to establish if and under what conditions any of the co-producers
may subscribe contracts in the name of all the others (eg contracts for
commercialising the audiovisual work).
9.- Contributions by the contracting parties and by third parties
The co-production will only be possible if each of the contracting parties does
indeed contribute what it has undertaken to contribute. Contributions may be:
- monetary,
- non-monetary, consisting of goods or rights (usually rights in respect of a
pre-existing work, options, rights in respect of a screenplay), or
- production or commercialisation services, in which case they may
receive a fee (eg commercialisation commission) or count this as a
contribution in exchange for rights in respect of the audiovisual work.
Keeping to the schedule for contributions is a prerequisite for being able to
complete the production; in case one of the parties should fail to make its
promised contribution, the contract should include a list of agreements enabling
the co-producer(s) meeting their obligations to continue with the production.
For example, a mechanism may be set up according to which, if the defaulting
party fails to contribute what is due within eight days of being summoned to do
so, the remaining co-producers may terminate the contract (without prejudice to
the possibility of claiming damages in reparation) and substitute another coproducer
from the same country for the defaulting party; the defaulting coproducer

82


would then become a creditor of the production in respect of the
contributions already made. The credit would be held as a last resort, even if
the replaced co-producer had recovered his/her contribution. It is important to
consider what would happen if the production were to exceed its budget.
The contributions made by third parties not involved in the co-production
(financial contributions, for example) may be conditional on obtaining
guarantees from the co-producers, or on the fact of completion of the
audiovisual work being guaranteed by a third party (completion bonds).
10.- Co-ownership of copyright and integral elements of the audiovisual
work
One key element of the contract is that, on condition that the co-producers have
made the promised contributions, they are the co-owners of the intellectual
property rights due to a producer in respect of an audiovisual work (copyright)
and all the integral elements of it – brand names, masters, cuts, sketches,
characters, sequel rights, remakes, spin-offs, etc – in proportion to their
respective contributions. This community of goods will be governed by the
agreements laid down in the contract (and subsidiarily by the rules governing
community of goods in the law applicable to the contract). The fact of owning
these rights and goods justifies the receipt and sharing of income in the same
proportion. This means that at law the chain of events in the co-production is
that the total contribution made by each co-producer determines the proportion
of the goods and rights arising out of the co-production and consequently the
resulting income from exploitation and the weight of each co-producer's voting
in agreements reached among the co-producers.
The contract should contain clauses protecting the co-producers from action
that could enable creditors to instigate proceedings against a single co-producer
with a view to taking over ownership of the audiovisual work (for example, in
such circumstances, the creation of purchase option rights in favour of the
remaining co-producers).
It should also be determined which of the co-producers is to carry out the
formalities required to activate the rights (such as registration with a copyright
office).
11.- Method for adopting agreements among the co-producers
The contract should include a clause that states the method for adopting
agreements among the co-producers – which agreements must be adopted by
a majority vote, whether simple or qualified, and which require unanimity (with
the risk of producing a block). It is important to state the form required for
decisions on the definitive version ("final cut") of the audiovisual work.
12.- Accounting and documentation, and access to the same
If one of the co-producers keeps the accounts of the co-production, that person
is required under the contract to:
- keep them in a clear form, separate from the rest of his/her accounts. In
the case of co-producers with other audiovisual works in production at
the same time, the rules for the work's participation in overhead costs
should be set out very clearly. In international co-productions it is
important to check whether accounting practices and rules in force in the
country of the co-producer keeping the accounts are different from those
of the other co-producers, and what effect such a difference could have.
It should also be stated how the types of exchange are to be calculated
in the case of co-producers from countries with different currencies;
- use a separate bank account;
- designate an auditor for the co-production;
- inform the other co-producers and provide them with the necessary
documentation;
- allow the accounts to be checked (even if there is an auditor for the coproduction)
should any of the co-producers so desire, the cost of any
such check being payable by either party according to whether the check
shows that the accounts are being kept correctly or not.
Also, if one of the co-producers is empowered to subscribe a contract in the
name of all the others, copies of any such contracts should be sent to the other
co-producers.
13.- Division of revenue from exploitation
It should be pointed out that this is a key clause in the contract because it
specifies the way in which the basis for dividing revenue from exploitation
among the co-producers is to be determined.
Once the total cost of the audiovisual work has been determined (cost of all the
expenses actually paid or owing in respect of the pre-production and production
of the audiovisual work and publicity, up to completion of the standard copy)
and this amount has been recouped, the co-producers will be able to share the
net income (it is necessary to define clearly which expenses may be deducted
from gross revenue before any division is carried out). Revenue obtained from
state subsidies may correspond to a single co-producer or form part of the
shared revenue.
14.- Attribution of specific rights for given markets or countries, or

83


specific type of exploitation
Given that each co-producer knows his/her own market well, it is usual for
100% of the exploitation rights in respect of the audiovisual work within that
market to be reserved for that co-producer exclusively. Thus, for example, in
the case of a co-production with a French producer contributing 80% and a
Spanish producer contributing 20%, the following arrangement could be made:
- exploitation rights for France (and all French-speaking territories in
Europe and overseas): exclusively for the French co-producer, who
would assume the full cost of commercialisation in those countries and
receive all the income obtained by any means of exploitation;
- exploitation rights for Spain (and possibly territories where Castilian is
spoken): exclusively for the Spanish co-producer, who would assume the
full cost of commercialisation and receive the income exclusively;
- other territories: income would be shared in the proportion 80:20; if one
of the co-producers were responsible for commercialisation (on his/her
own behalf or for a third party), he/she would receive commission of, for
example, 25%.
The case may also arise of one co-producer being assigned the revenue from
one mode of exploitation to the exclusion of all the others, eg a television
channel participating as a co-producer being assigned the television rights, in
which case it would receive all the revenue from television exploitation
(possibly limited to the national territory in question) exclusively and in
exchange would not have a share in revenue obtained from the other modes of
exploitation in its national territory or from any mode of exploitation in other
countries. It is necessary to check the separation of territories and modes of
exploitation and set up any "hold-backs" that may be necessary.
In the case of audiovisual works with a soundtrack of music composed specially
for the work, the co-producer involved in the selection and hiring of musicians
and music may reserve editorial (publishing) rights (although in many cases it is
whichever co-producer who is quickest off the mark who obtains these),
including the right to use the soundtrack as a phonogram.
15.- Information and meetings of the parties
In addition to indicating which actual person representing each of the coproducers
is the contact person for the others (and noting whether that person
is authorised to approve those elements that require approval), the form of
transmitting information and the intervals at which the parties are to meet in the
course of the co-production must also be set down.
16.- Deposit and access
As co-owners of the article resulting from the production, ie the audiovisual
work, the co-producers must designate by mutual agreement the laboratory
where the work is to be deposited and may be accessed, either jointly or
individually, in the form provided for in the contract.
17.- Credits
The credits of the audiovisual work will be laid down in the contract, and they
may be different in each of the countries involved. For example, a work with
French and Spanish co-producers will be announced as being "Spanish and
French" in the Spanish copies and "French and Spanish" in the French copies,
the local co-producer being the first named in each case.
18.- Aid and subsidies from each of the co-producers' countries;
condition precedent
If the co-production satisfies the criteria for being granted the benefit of an
international co-production agreement, the audiovisual work will have the
nationality of each of the party States, and will be able to obtain aid and
subsidies from those States as if it were an audiovisual work produced by a
national producer on his/her own. The contract should state if this type of
revenue belongs to all the co-producers jointly or only to the producer of the
State from which it is obtained.
It could happen that the co-producers would not be able to complete the
production if they did not obtain the benefit of the applicable co-production
agreement. The validity of the contract may therefore be made conditional on
approval by each State authority; if this does not happen, the contract will be
totally void or could be terminated by the other co-producer, who would then
have to repay the co-producer from the country which did not grant aid those
amounts paid out previously.
19.- Publicity, promotion and attendance at markets and festivals
The parties should agree on the form this should take, and it is important to plan
the promotion of the audiovisual work and the details of attendance at markets
and festivals, with the possibility of the co-producers each carrying out such
action as they see fit, at their expense, in the markets assigned to them.
20.- Insurance
The co-producers will have to insure the production of the audiovisual work and
the negative against the usual risks of loss and civil liability. If distributors or
broadcasters (usually Anglo-Saxon) participate in the production of the
audiovisual work, they will demand the subscription of "errors and omissions"

84


insurance to guarantee cover of the risk of any infringement of third-party
intellectual property rights or of a "completion bond" as assurance of
completion. The premiums for such insurance will be accounted as production
costs, and it is necessary to decide who will subscribe and who will be the
beneficiaries.
21.- Participation of third parties in a co-producer's share; transfer of
the share to a third party
A co-producer may in turn share his/her part of the co-production with a third
party, and it is necessary to state in the contract if this requires authorisation
from the other co-producers. It would be conditional on the original producer
meeting the obligations assumed in respect of the others; it also needs to be
stated whether or not it is to be possible for a co-producer to transfer all his/her
rights to a third party.
22.- Duration of the contract
The co-production contract can be divided into two stages:
a) the first stage includes all those activities and contributions necessary for
completing production of the audiovisual work (which will be listed in the
production schedule appended to the contract), and
b) the second stage covers the period of time during which the audiovisual
work may generate exploitation revenue, which means that this stage may
last indefinitely and is independent of the duration of the intellectual
property rights held by the co-producers in respect of the audiovisual work,
which, under the Spanish Intellectual Property Act (Art.125), is fifty years
starting on 1 January of the year following the year of its production. Even
after rights have lapsed, the audiovisual work may continue to be exploited
and generate income. It is important to check how long rights are protected
under the various legislations applicable to the audiovisual work.
23.- Early termination
The contract may contain conditions allowing for early termination, ie before its
stated expiry date (in addition to termination by mutual agreement, which is
always a possibility), in the following cases:
- failure to perform the obligations set out in the contract (and more
particularly failure to perform the obligation to make the promised
contributions – see paragraph 8);
- one of the parties suspending payments or going bankrupt (in which case
it must be determined what is to happen to the share of the failed party –
for example, a purchase option right in favour of the remaining coproducers
may be stipulated).
24.- Other agreements
The agreements mentioned above are the main specific agreements of the coproduction
contract, and they should be completed by other agreements that
should as a general rule be included in any international contract, not just those
covering co-production, eg:
- declarations and guarantees by each of the parties;
- force majeure;
- notifications;
- protection of personal data;
- confidentiality;
- authoritative version in the event of the contract being translated.
25.- Law applicable to the contract
There can be no contract without law, and contracts are binding because there
is a law under which they are born and which lays down the conditions for their
formation, conclusion, nullity, grounds for termination, etc. It has already been
said that the more detailed the contract the less necessary it is to state which
laws might be applicable. This is already a complex matter in the case of a
national co-production, and it is even more so in the case of an international coproduction
since the two (or three) legal systems involved may differ
substantially. To avoid any ambiguity and legal insecurity, the parties may state
in the contract which law they choose to have govern the co-production;
normally it is that of the country of the principal producer. The law applicable to
the contract is independent of the law applicable to the audiovisual work; it may
or may not be the same.
26.- Competent jurisdiction and arbitration
In an international contract it is important to state to which jurisdiction or
arbitration board the parties must submit any disputes that may arise. To avoid
lengthy discussions caused by each co-producer wanting to designate the
courts of his/her own country, it is advisable to reach a formula that is a priori
neutral and effective – that the matter should be submitted to the jurisdiction of
the court of the place of domicile of the defendant party. In this way
enforcement of the ensuing court order will be more effective and proceedings
will not need to be brought in two countries, once for the main dispute and
subsequently (in the country of the defendant party) for enforcement of the
court's order.
Provision may also be made for a system for resolving disputes before they

85


come to court (eg by referring to a "tiebreaker" – a person independent of the
parties and trusted by both), including consideration of the possibility of
submitting such matters to arbitration, which may be of the general institutional
type (eg through the Chamber of Commerce in Madrid or the Arbitration Board
in Barcelona) or specific to the audiovisual sector (eg the IFTA (International
Film and Television Alliance) or the AFMA (American Film Market Association)
Received on 22 March 2007 (Delayed release of approx 6 weeks by Judge)
CO/8239/2006
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 617 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Thursday, 1 February 2007
B E F O R E:
SIR IGOR JUDGE
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE
-------
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HOLMES
(CLAIMANT)
-v-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(DEFENDANT)
-------
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
-------
The Applicant appeared in person
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
-------
JUDGMENT
(As Approved by the Court)
-------
Crown Copyright

86


1. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: The claimant in this case, Mr Stewart Holmes, renews
his application for permission to apply for judicial review after refusal on paper by the single
judge.
2. Mr Holmes is a sincere and committed anti-smoking campaigner. He believes that a major
contributory factor to the continued habit of tobacco smoking, and particularly of young people
taking up and continuing the habit, is the depiction of smoking in films and the like. He
supports that claim in various ways, and is by no means alone in holding his very strong views.
He relies on some research, including American research conducted by a Professor Glantz who
campaigns under the banner "Smoke Free Movies". He heads much of his correspondence and
paperwork with the striking assertion in bold typeface "Actors Smoking will cause 1 billion
deaths this century", and he describes this state of affairs as causing a "holocaust".
3. Mr Holmes relies on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2000, on a provision of
the European Convention of Human Rights and on a European Community Directive.
4. The 2000 Act, in essence and with very minor reservations, bans tobacco advertising. The
Act creates a number of offences committed by those who are in breach of the prohibition. Mr
Holmes seeks judicial review of the refusal of Her Majesty's Attorney-General to institute
prosecutions under this Act of those who produce films in which actors are depicted smoking,
or otherwise to act so as to prevent such depiction in films. He also seeks judicial review
against the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for its failure to respond to his
correspondence to that department on this topic, and also of the failure of the Commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police to take steps by way of prosecution to enforce the law.
5. The Act provides under the heading "Meaning of 'tobacco advertisement' and 'tobacco
product'" as follows:
"In this Act - "tobacco advertisement" means an advertisement -
(a) whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product, or
(b) whose effect is to do so, and
'tobacco product' means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and
intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed."
By section 2, headed "Prohibition of tobacco advertising", it is provided:
"(1) A person who in the course of a business publishes a tobacco advertisement,
or causes one to be published, in the United Kingdom is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who in the course of a business prints, devises or distributes in the
United Kingdom a tobacco advertisement which is published in the United
Kingdom, or causes such a tobacco advertisement to be so printed, devised or
distributed, is guilty of an offence.
(3) Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic
form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission."
6. Mr Holmes relies also on the provisions of section 10 of the Act, headed "Prohibition of

sponsorship":
87


"A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence ..."
- and "sponsorship agreement" is defined in subsection (2) of that section, including the
reference to a party making a contribution in money or other form.
7. Reference can also be made to section 12, which provides that the Act does not apply to
television programmes; and also to the enforcement provisions contained in section 13, which
prescribes that in England and Wales the enforcement authority is a weights and measures
authority; but that by subsection (3) the appropriate minister, who is the Secretary of State for
Health, may discharge that function himself.
8. It seems to me that there are a number of obstacles in the path of Mr Holmes in seeking
judicial review. The first -- which I regard as an obstacle to any reliance on the Act -- is that I
do not consider it arguable that the depiction of an actor smoking a cigarette or a cigar in a film
constitutes a tobacco advertisement. The term "tobacco advertisement", is defined as I have
indicated in section 1 of the Act. But the word "advertisement", is not itself defined in the Act.
Mr Holmes has helpfully included in his bundle the explanatory notes issued together with the
Act. They are not part of the Act itself but they do give some assistance in respect of the
meaning of the Act and in dealing with the definition section of "tobacco advertisement". It
reads as follows:
"The Act defines 'tobacco advertisement' as an advertisement whose purpose or
whose effect is to promote a tobacco product. The term 'advertisement' is not
defined and bears its natural meaning. The Act covers direct advertising (for
example posters, billboards and press advertising) and other forms of promotion,
such a direct marketing. It also covers so-called brandsharing"
- and the note sets that out.
9. The Act also covers media other than paper, eg electronic communication such as the
internet and video. It does not cover television and radio, which were already subject to
regulations under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 or other means.
Mr Holmes in his extensive researches on this topic has shown us the Draft Directive of the
European Parliament and Council of Europe called the TVWF Directive, TVWF being the
acronym for Television Without Frontiers. This Draft Directive itself contains a number of
definitions and, in relation to this topic, it provides as follows, bearing in mind this is a Draft
Directive:
"'television advertising' means any form of announcement broadcast whether in
return for payment or for similar consideration or broadcast for self-promotional
purposes by public or private undertaking in connection with a trade, business,
craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services, including
immovable property, rights and obligations, in return for payment."
11. Mr Holmes also refers to "surreptitious advertising", which is defined in the Directive in
this way:
"'surreptitious advertising' means the representation in words or pictures of goods,
services, the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a
provider of services in programmes when such representation is intended by the
broadcaster to serve advertising and might mislead the public as to its nature.
Such representation is considered to be intentional in particular if it is done in
return for payment or for similar considerations."
12. Mr Holmes relies also on the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10, which is
the freedom of expression article; and he relies in particular on paragraph 2 of Article 10.

88


However, in my judgment, that article cannot impose a duty on the Attorney-General. What
Article 10(2) does is it sets out the necessary reservation or modification of what would
otherwise be the blanket human rights provision of 10(1); it cannot create an obligation on the
Attorney-General. Nor, in my judgment, can the European Community Directive 89/552, to
which Mr Holmes has extensively relied.
13. The summary grounds of defence submitted by the first and second defendants, through the
Treasury Solicitor, raises the definition of the term "advertisement", with which I have already
dealt. It takes a number of other points, namely: that the enforcement authority is not the
Attorney-General but the weights and measures authority; that in any event the Attorney-
General has a discretion in relation to the steps he should take in the public interest to enforce
the law; that there is no decision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (the second
defendant) to which the claim for judicial review can attach; and that Mr Holmes, as a member
of the public -- albeit one who takes a very close and detailed interest in the subject -- does not
have any specific standing to bring a claim for judicial review.
14. In my judgment, quite apart from the advertisement issue, each of those points constitutes
an obstacle which Mr Holmes, as a matter of law, however sincere and committed he is to the
cause which he seeks to promote, cannot hope to surmount. In my judgment, neither is there a
ground for any judicial review of the refusal of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to
take action. There is, in fact, no discernible reason that I can see for naming him in particular,
in relation to a matter which is of national rather than merely London dimensions.
15. The single judge, in refusing permission to proceed, referred to the various sections of the
2000 Act which create offences or classes of offender, and went on:
"1. ... None are concerned with 'promotion' or television or radio programmes.
They concern advertisements, coupons, sponsorship, breaches of regulations
concerning emblems etc, obstructing officers and the liability of company
directors etc.
2. The mere showing of a film in which a person is smoking cannot amount to
advertising a tobacco product as defined in Sections 1 & 2.
3. The appropriate body to take action if criminal breaches of the Act are
suspected is a weights and measures authority.
4. In any event the Attorney-General has a discretion whether to intervene to
injunct persons who have declared an intention to commit a crime. The courts
will not interfere with that discretion."
In my judgment the single judge formed a correct judgment and I find no grounds in the
voluminous material subsequently submitted and orally argued before us to indicate that he was
wrong.
16. I would therefore refuse the renewed application.
SIR IGOR JUDGE: In my judgment, Mr Holmes' passionate concern for what his submissions
suggest are the desperate consequences of smoking is manifest. However, for the reasons given
by my Lord the legal remedy he is seeking is not available. In truth, if Mr Holmes is to succeed
with his crusade against the evils of smoking, and in particular to achieve a prohibition against
the depiction of smoking in films, he and those who agree with him must capture hearts and
minds to the extent that the democratic process results in legislation which will achieve their
objective. To date it has not.
18. Accordingly, I agree with my Lord that this renewed application must be refused.

89


19. Thank you Mr Holmes, for your assistance.
20. THE APPLICANT: Am I allowed to appeal?
21. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, I am afraid this, so far as the legal system is concerned, is the end
of the road.
22. THE APPLICANT: Can I not take it to the Court of Appeal?
23. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, we have refused you leave to make the application, so I think that
really is the end of the road.
24. THE APPLICANT: I am not happy, because you stopped me from saying what I was
going to say; but I have made a copy of the speech which I would like to give you for your
perusal.
25. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Very well, thank you.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Speech by Sir Igor Judge President of the Queen's Bench
Division “Public Protection” Lecture at King’s College
London Monday, 20th November 2006
I shall begin by asking you all to ponder the answer to a simple question. What, in your view, is
the duty of a judge?
My answer is that the primary duty of a judge is to uphold the rule of law. Indeed I argue that every
aspect of the duties of a judge is governed by his duty to uphold the rule of law. Before you suggest
that this is mere legal gobbledygook, perhaps you will remember the force of words attributed to
Thomas More by Robert Bolt, chiding his son-in-law:
“This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – and if you cut them down – do you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then”?
The rule of law protects us all from anarchy. And when I say that the judge’s duty is to uphold the
rule of law it is of particular importance when the judge is dealing with the laws which protect the
community from crime, and each one of us, as individuals from abuse of process, or power, whether
carried out maliciously, or through ignorance. In this context the judge’s primary responsibility is the
protection of the public. Public protection has two distinct aspects. The first is directed at the interests
of the community as a whole. The community must be protected from crime, and, where the exercise
of this responsibility arises, the judge should have and does have public protection at the forefront of

90


his mind. I can confidently say that I do not know any judge who does not. Any other view is based
on misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The second is concerned with each member of the
community as an individual. When he is suspected of crime, the laws which protect his rights, and the
safeguards to avoid a miscarriage of justice must be applied by the judge fearlessly, without fear or
favour.
This is not the occasion to develop the second of my two themes, that is, the protection given by the
law to each individual. If however you find anything in what I have to say tonight of interest, bear in
mind that the second theme is no less critical to my thesis on public protection than the first theme,
which I want to address in more detail.
Two preliminary, but important considerations:
First, the vast bulk of the laws which govern our lives as citizens are made not by judges in courts,
but by Parliament. Believe it or not, judges could not and did not incorporate the ECHR into domestic
law. We do not apply the Convention on a judicial whim, or to spite those who disagree with its
provisions. We apply it because Parliament enacted that we should do so. And we shall continue to do
so unless Parliament repeals the Human Rights Act. Laws are made by Parliament. Judges should not
and cannot apply anything more than the laws which Parliament has seen fit to enact. In the end
ministers, too, are subject to Parliament and the rule of law, not, I emphasise, the rule of judges, but
the laws which govern us all.
The role played by the courts in the protection of society is, in truth, fairly limited. The judiciary is
not directly responsible for the prevention of crime, nor for its investigation after a crime has been
committed, nor is the judiciary responsible for bringing the alleged perpetrator to justice, or to
arrange for his or her proper prosecution. It is perhaps worth emphasising that the most salutary form
of deterrence is the certainty of being caught, and the most effective form of prevention starts in
childhood, in proper upbringing and education, and the love and discipline, or loving discipline,
which should be the birthright of every child. Before the offender can be sentenced he must either
admit his guilt, publicly, or a jury must equally publicly, declare itself satisfied of his guilt. All this is
obvious, but a sentencing decision does not arise until all these various steps have been taken. And if
the judge decides that the offender is dangerous and that he should be imprisoned for public
protection, or for life, once he has fixed the minimum period to be served, the release of the prisoner
is totally out of the judge’s hands. It then rests with the Parole Board. With any other sentence, the
offender will be released after he has served half the period pronounced by the judge. That is what I
mean by emphasising the limitations on the judge’s powers.
Those two preliminary points set aside, but not forgotten, I want to begin by looking at how things
stood 150 and more years ago. My purpose is not an essay in history, but rather to examine some of
the critical issues without the almost inevitable emotional overlay which current analysis of these
issues seems to ignite. Time gives perspective.
I am indebted to “The Punitive Obsession” by Giles Playfair for much of the historical information.
In 1863 Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, writing at a time when it was commonly believed, and
certainly believed by the judiciary that the “salutary dread of the recurrence of punishment” would
provide the best means of deterring the criminal, cautioned against
“Too great a tendency to forget that the protection of society should be the first consideration of the
law giver”.
He reflected a common view that the justification for punishment imposed by the court was the
deterrence of crime.
“Its proper and legitimate purpose being not to avenge crime but to prevent it”
For each offence the appropriate degree of punishment would be sufficient to repress it.
“More than this would be a waste of so much human suffering; but to apply less out of consideration
for the criminal is to sacrifice the interests of society to a misplaced tenderness to those who offend
against its law. Wisdom and humanity, no doubt, alike suggest that if, consistently with this primary
purpose, the reformation of the criminal can be brought about, no means should be omitted by which
so desirable an end can be achieved. But this, the subsidiary purpose of penal discipline, should be
kept in due subordination to its primary and principle one”.
Lord Cockburn accepted that barbaric sentencing practices were unacceptable.
“Punishment should be made as rigorous as is compatible with due regard for humanity, and
consistent with the health of body and mind of those subjected to it”.

91


So, punishment and deterrence, but not inhumanity to the criminal, and his possible reformation.
Does anyone quarrel with that?
One of his contemporaries, Lord Wensleydale, advocated the retention of capital punishment by way
of hanging, for a rather surprising, and although I am not advocating them, series of challenging
reasons.
“There are punishments which are capable of a much greater deterrent effect than death, but they are
punishments which the public would not for a moment endure, such as mutilation, cutting off of all a
man’s members, depriving him of his eyesight, depriving him of his power of hearing, cutting off his
limbs, confining him in a small place without the light of day, and so on. Punishments of that kind
would deter much more than the taking away of life, but I am sure that the public would not endure
them.”
It was, of course, a public which endured public flogging, the pillory, the stocks, and transportation.
I have taken some time with nineteenth century judges, not in order to suggest that we should return
to the nineteenth century, but because their comments illustrate the tension between effective
punishment as a means of contributing to the protection of society from crime, and the limitations to
which it should be subject, represents one of the most perennial problems in criminal justice. And one
of the reasons why it is perennial is that the attitude of society is itself in a constant state of flux. I
suspect that each one of us changes his or her views over a lifetime. Moreover it is a topic on which
each individual is not only entitled to have views, but exercises that entitlement, sometimes with great
vehemence, not always demanding heavy punishment, but rather focusing instead on rehabilitation
and reformation. What is more, everyone has a view about which case requires which form of
disposal.
Here, at King’s College London, we have a very good example of changing attitudes in the
depressing example of Professor Maurice. He was summarily dismissed from his chair a few years
before Lord Cockburn expressed himself so trenchantly. He challenged the very deeply held view,
based on the then current understanding of Christian belief, that in the ultimate analysis, the Almighty
would reflect on the activities on this earth of every single soul who had departed from it, and punish
those who had transgressed. Hell fire was an essential aspect of this belief. Because it was believed
that Professor Maurice minimised the “evilness of sin and the awfulness of its doom”, his teaching on
the subject of eternal punishment was regarded by the Council as “of a dangerous tendency and
calculated to unsettle the minds of theological students”. It would be difficult to find very many
people in this hall today, or in any comparable group of people meeting in a similar hall, who would
not be marginally uncomfortable with the reality of eternal damnation in hell fire as the ultimate
sentence for sinners. Indeed this amazing change in our fundamental beliefs may – I emphasise that
“may” – have itself contributed to an increased value which we now attach to each individual human
life. The thesis would be that if we genuinely believed that the end of bodily life on this earth
represented not finality, but simply the continuation of the journey of an immortal soul, we should
value the way in which the life had been lived at least as much as its actual length. But, at any rate, I
trust you will agree with me, that we should respect the views of Professor Maurice, and the moral
courage which led him to express views which were so unacceptable when he taught them, but which
are now taken entirely for granted. No wonder Charles Darwin waited so long before publishing the
results of his analysis of the Origin of Species.
And, if I may, I respectfully suggest two essential principles to grasp. You should never assume, first,
that contemporary society has banished intolerance of those who take a view which contradicts the
passionately held beliefs of the substantial majority of the rest of society, and second, that
contemporary society has achieved ultimate knowledge and wisdom, and that our contemporary ways
will always be thought of as best, and right. They will not. Ideas are on a constant journey. Which, I
wonder, of our most cherished beliefs today will turn out to be misplaced, and the subject of derisory
laughter in fifty years or one hundred years time? We really should be modest.
We can probably all agree on a number of basic principles. Sentencing judges are expected to do
whatever they can to achieve the protection of life and body, and indeed property. They must do what
they can, within the strict limitations already identified, to achieve the reduction of crime to what may
be described as the “irreducible minimum”. For this purpose, a system for punishment and deterrence
is essential. If the system itself is to command public confidence, which it must, it must be perceived
to produce justice, where just deserts are required, and mercy, where mercy is appropriate. Whether

92


everyone wants the education and rehabilitation of the offender may slightly depend on whether we
are addressing the problem from the point of view of the offender, in which case some at least would
describe the adherents of that view as “bleeding heart liberals”, or from the point of view of the
community, in which case education and rehabilitation may themselves serve to produce greater long
term public protection from the offender by achieving his reform.
Why do I say that the system must be perceived to produce justice? The consequences if it does not
are disastrous. Some victims of crime do not report them, because they see no point. So the offender
can commit yet more offences. People become disproportionately frightened of crime, basing their
fear not on reality but on perception. Most important of all, people believe that if the law will not give
them protection, they must take it into their own hands. That is a direct route to anarchy, and the
collapse of the rule of law.
The critical difficulty is that we all differ in our views of which cases demand justice, and which
persuade us to mercy. What combination of individual circumstances causes the balance to come
down on one side or the other?
Judges believe that sentencing decisions in each individual case are their responsibility, but they are
not making their decisions in a vacuum. Can we just reflect for a moment on what Parliament
requires of sentencing judges. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 required that the court dealing with an
offender “must have regard” – notice the “must” – to five identified purposes of sentencing. Each one
of these is a specific purpose. They are:
• The punishment of offenders; The reduction of crime (including its reduction by
deterrence); The reform and rehabilitation of offenders; The protection of the public and The
making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
These are all purposes of sentencing. The court must address each of them. Notice that the
punishment of offenders is a distinct purpose from the protection of the public and the reduction of
crime.
Notice this too. The court has to consider the seriousness of the offence. And that means the
offender’s “culpability” in committing the offence, and the harm which the offence caused, was
intended to cause, or might foreseeably have caused.
There is a restriction on the imposition of a prison or custodial sentence. The court is not allowed to
pass such a sentence unless it concludes that the offence, or a combination of the offences before the
court, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence “could be justified”. In other
words if a non-custodial sentence could be “justified”, a custodial sentence cannot be passed. And if a
custodial sentence is to be passed, then the custodial sentence “must” be for the shortest term that in
the opinion of the court is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence”.
So Parliament tells us that a custodial sentence is the last resort, and if imposed it must be for the
shortest possible time. That is the statutory framework. It is the law laid down by Parliament. Judges
must apply it.
If the offence is a specified violent or sexual offence, the court has to address provisions applicable to
dangerous offenders. If one of these specified offences is committed, and the court concludes that
there is “significant risk to members of the public of serious harm” occasioned by further offences,
then the court must impose either life imprisonment (which in fact is reserved for only the most
serious offences in specified circumstances) or a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. This
provision came into force in April 2005. It only applies to offences committed after that time. Notice,
this is not punishment for past offences. This sentence is directed at the future, and the significant risk
of future harm represented by the offender. Since this power was given to courts, I understand that
something over 1,500 orders have been made. The courts are also required to set the minimum period
which must elapse before the offender can even be considered for release. In fixing that term, the
shortest period still has to be applied, and then, if appropriate, reduced for the guilty plea. And that
figure has to be halved, and the period on remand before sentence has to be deducted. None of these
matters are discretionary. If the judge is to uphold the rule of law, and follow the statute, he has no
alternative.
So let me return to the purposes of sentencing. Punishment is about retribution for the offence. The
offender must be punished according to his deserts. The punishment should fit the crime, and, of
course, its impact on the victim. But punishment in a developed society should not be inflicted for or
reflect private vengeance. It is for society itself, first, to see that so far as practicable each individual

93


is protected from injury by criminal conduct, and second, when it has failed to provide that
protection, to identify the offender and mete out the appropriate punishment. Ferocity of sentence, as
Lord Wensleydale pointed out, does not answer all the questions. In 1628, a boy aged 8 years was
hanged for setting 2 barns alight. It was suggested that if he was old enough to start a fire, he was old
enough to pay for the consequences. To us that is shocking. What it certainly has not done is to
prevent arson. In 1785, a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported that “the late increase
in the number of public executions” (that is a euphemism for hanging) had “produced no other effect
than the removal of the offenders in question”. This addresses incapacitation, but as the Committee
went on to acknowledge, crimes continued to “multiply in defiance of the severest exercise of
justice”, again meaning hanging. Transportation, first to the colonies in America, as they then were,
and later to Australia, was founded on the belief that first, it was a merciful alternative to hanging,
and second if you could despatch criminals out of the country altogether, the effect would be that
crime overall would diminish. Some then thought transportation a soft option. But then listen to this
comment by the Inspector of Prisons in 1875, recalling that a sentence of 100 lashes with the “cat” for
an assault on an officer was remitted to 50 lashes: “Were proof required of the exceeding mildness of
the rule under which Milbank was governed we should have it here. But, really, all milk and water
tenderness is misplaced in the management of criminals”
These were not soft times. The sentencing process involves retribution and punishment. It is foolish
to pretend otherwise. Each generation sets its own standards about the levels of punishment which
may be appropriate. Some crimes demand the most severe punishment. For murder, the sentence is
life imprisonment. It is mandatory. It reflects public abhorrence of the crime. Lord Denning’s
evidence to the Commission on Capital Punishment explained that:
“The punishment for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the majority of
citizens for them…..the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but it is the
emphatic denunciation of the community of a crime”.
This principle is well understood.
There are offences at the other end. The old age pensioner, of impeccable good character, who, at the
age of 76, pinches a couple of tins of salmon from a store is almost certainly crying for attention and
help. 200 years ago or so, the theft of tins of salmon, worth, say, £3 would probably have condemned
the old man or woman to capital punishment. Even then, the chances are that the jury would have
acquitted, to express its own revulsion of such punishment, and if the offender were convicted, he or
she might have had the penalty commuted to transportation. Today, could anyone argue that a non
custodial order designed to help this particular sad individual would be inappropriate.
Somewhere between the most heinous of crimes, and the saddest of crimes, there is the vast grey
area. And it is in this vast area that the reduction of crime, including its reduction by deterrent, but not
excluding any other form of reduction, and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, as well as their
punishment, fall to be considered.
The concept of the reformation of offenders is not new. In 1779 prisons run by central government
were authorised, for the first time. They had two purposes,
“Deterring others from the commission of crimes, but also of reforming individuals, and inuring them
to habits of industry”.
Reformation or rehabilitation may simply be an acknowledgement that the ultimate future safety of
society from the depredations of some offenders at any rate is best served by his or her rehabilitation.
Of course, a balance has to be provided, so that the process of rehabilitating one offender does not
convey a misunderstood message which would diminish the element of deterrence to other offenders.
Let us examine real examples. Some men (and it usually is men) gain sexual gratification from doing
the most dreadful, unspeakable things to a child or children. No one doubts that offenders like these
should be locked away probably for the rest of their lives, possibly until they are so old as to be
utterly harmless. Yet, consider a 17 year old backward, immature boy, himself the victim of
childhood abuse, who on the underground puts his hand on the bottom of a woman over her coat.
That is an indecent assault and should rightly be punished. However, to send this particular offender
to custody will do nothing for him. He will not mature. He may well leave his custodial sentence
more muddled and dangerous than before. The imperative is his rehabilitation and education before
he commits a more serious offence. Supervision in the community, with expert attention directed at
his problems would probably provide the best future protection for the public. If the judge made such


94



an order, he would not be “soft”: he would be directing his attention to that long term protection.
Take, for example, drugs: one of the most pernicious factors in crime. Numerous offences of violence
are drug related: so are large swathes of offences of dishonesty, and burglary and robbery in
particular. In the first group, the drugs have reduced inhibition, or produced increased aggression: in
the second group, the goods are stolen to fund the purchase of drugs. There are some remarkably
effective drug treatment projects. Some, indeed, are available in prison: but others are not. In cases
like these, the first question for the sentencer is, what is the appropriate punishment for the crime?
The second, however, is how can future crime by this offender be reduced, diminished, and ultimately
extinguished? There are many cases where the better prospect for the future will be provided not in
custody, but outside in the community, under strict supervision by high quality, responsible men and
women. It is very salutary to visit a well run drug treatment and testing order. There will, inevitably,
be failures. But every success, and there are many, provides long term public protection.
And perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that public protection comes at a cost to the public. In 1933
the Prison Service cost a total of just over £1.25 million to run. At the end of 1968, the figure had
risen to just over £37 million. Without accounting for inflation, the annual running cost of the Prison
Service to the community is now just over £2 billion.
There is only so much public money available. No one begrudges the cost of a prison to incarcerate
those convicted of the most dreadful crimes, even if that might delay the building of a new hospital,
or a new school. But people do question, although they would all come up with different answers,
whether the cost of building a new prison at the expense of a new hospital is appropriate, if those
incarcerated in the new prison, might reasonably have been dealt with by way of a community
punishment, doing useful work for the community, in their own time, and at no public expense. Last
year no less than 5 million hours of such free service were provided. Again, as with everything else,
the value of the work depends on individuals. But I have seen what I thought were remarkably
effective community orders.
The issue always is, where in each individual case the line between custody and non custody should
be drawn. Some might say that a shoplifter should not be incarcerated, but how many times should
the same offender be allowed to commit shoplifting before a custodial sentence is imposed? Others
would say that every shoplifting offence merits a custodial sentence, because the number of such
offences that go undetected, and the cost of employing security to keep the number of these offences
within bounds, adds considerably to the cost at the tills. On the other hand each place in prison costs
the community something like £40,000 annually. So, and I know this is superficial, instead of paying
the costs at the tills, you pay for them in your taxes. And, in any event, you wonder whether it would
stop shoplifting. When petty theft was a capital offence, it continued. These are all legitimate
considerations.
My thesis is that in the part of the criminal justice process for which judges are responsible, the
judicial obligation to have in mind and contribute to the protection of society is clear. There can be no
dispute about the principle. The real issue is how best that objective can be fulfilled in each individual
case. Lock him up and throw the key away may be an inelegant way of approaching the worst kind of
case and the most dangerous offenders. But surely, only for such offenders. Every other offender will
one day be released. How best then, to protect the public from him and the risk that he may pose?
Even when our sentencing policies were of a ferocity which would be unacceptable nowadays, it was
recognised both by Parliament and by judges that reform of the offender was itself highly desirable.
That is not altruistic. It acknowledges the reality that public protection in the long term, and with a
significant number of offenders, may best be achieved by reform and rehabilitation. Sometimes,
punishment is the only feature: sometimes a non-punitive sentence is right. For most cases, the
requirements of justice and mercy have to be balanced. And the decision making process in these
cases should always reflect the reduction of crime and the protection of the public. So the argument is
not about the principle, nor about the judiciary’s perception of its responsibility, but the best way to
achieve it. Ends
Please note that speeches published on this website reflect the individual judicial office-holder's
personal views, unless otherwise stated. If you have any queries please contact the Judicial
Communications Office. Back to contents page |Close window and go to www.judiciary.gov.uk

95


EXTRACTS FROM BUNDLE
3
Appeal to the House of Lords
page references in extracts do not refer to pages of this bundle

96


SKELETON ARGUMENT Appeal To-The House Of Lords- CO/8239/06 Stuart
Holmes v Attorney General & Others (Minister of DCMS and Met. Police
Comm.)
Submitted to CAO & Defendants 28-2-07
SKELETON ARGUMENT page 1. COMMON SENSE POINTS p 2. INDEX for supporting documents – p4.
1. a) The Attorney General – Defender of the Public Interest.
b) Tobacco will kill One Billion people this century 1/6 of the world’s population. WHO.
c) Smoking in Films entices children into addiction. (Scientific papers state it is the main cause why
children start smoking. And is the catalyst of the holocaust)
d) The AG. Refused to seek an injunction to stop actors smoking in Films and TV.
2. There is a legitimate expectation that the government will keep its promise see ministers views
page - either the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act does the job, or it does not do the job?
If it does not do the job then the government has not achieved the objective pursued and therefore the
public have been deceived.
3.Hon Calvert Smith is not correct. 1) When he says that section 10 is not concerned with
promotion. (See back cover of thin bundle. 2) When he says the court will not interfere with the
Attorney Generals discretion. – Discretion has to be fair reasonable proportionate etc and the courts
can interfere when that is not the case. Discretion should be biased towards the public interest and the
protection of children.
4.Television & Radio Section 12 of the 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act incorporates the
1990 &1996 Broadcasting Act which incorporates TVWF (television without frontiers) which
incorporates directives 89/552/EC, 97/36/EC, and possibly 2003/33/EC (see ECJ European court of
Justice judgement page 39 thin bundle also ITC. Page 51, 52, 54. (Radio is covered
by directive 2003/33/EC -p.66 Thin bundle)
5. Human Rights Act. Article 10(2) states Freedom of expression cannot be used if it is detrimental to
public health. See ECJ. Judgement. page 55 para. 154-160 Thin bundle. & Tab 4 p.4 Fat bundle.
6. On weight of harm alone (One Billion deaths this century) case CO/8239/06 should have gone to
a full hearing as it raises a serious arguable case.
7. As the injunction requested would not be detrimental to the legitimate business of the film industry
(the public don’t pay to see actors smoking) there is no excuse not to allow this injunction, which
would stop the ongoing enticement of children into addiction and death. (Approx one new recruit and
one death every 3 seconds)
Submitted CAO & Defendants 28-2-07

97


Appeal To The House_Of_Lords Of Lords CO/8239/06 Stuart Holmes v Attorney
General & Others
Common sense points of massive public importance regarding unprecedented
weight of harm (If the appeal is granted then perhaps I will be able to get a solicitor who can
make legal points etc.)
1.
Under TVWF (Television without Frontiers) incorporated in the 1990 (1996?) Broadcasting
Act. The following are prohibited – All forms of tobacco advertising, tobacco product
placement, surreptitious ads. Subliminal technique, encourage behaviour prejudicial to
health & safety.
2. Unnecessary delay by the A.G. and the courts- since 4th July has cost in the order of 4
million lives and 4 million newly recruited children into tobacco addiction (one new recruit and
one death every 3 seconds.) Global figures are used because if the UK stops’s smoking in
Film and TV. It is likely that Europe and then the rest of the world will follow.
3. On the 4th July 2006 The Attorney General was asked to seek an injunction to stop actors
smoking in films. He refused giving false reasons. Judicial Review was then taken out against
the A.G., Tessa Jowell, and the Met Police Commissioner; Judge Hon. Calvert Smith refused
Permission for a full hearing on 21 Dec. and also Judge David Clarke L.J. & Judge the Hon. Sir
Igor Judge, refused permission on 1st Feb. The W.H.O. forecast one billion tobacco deaths this
century. (1/6 of the world’s population)
4. There is no question that actors smoking in films advertises or promotes smoking. When
TV cigarette advertising was legal the method invariably employed was to have actors
smoking.
5. There is no question that actors smoking in films are the main cause of children starting to
smoke. See the 72 scientific papers tab 3 page 76 also p.67 (165 articles) fat bundle.
6. Enticement of children into smoking addiction via onscreen smoking is immoral,
offensive and not acceptable. The injunction requested, to stop actors smoking in Films and
TV, addresses the breach in the criminal law, which comprises of “doing anything which has
the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product in the U.K.”- As stated in section
10(1) of the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. Which states-
7. 10(1) a person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the
purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco
product in the United Kingdom. (Please note in Section 1&2 of the 2002 Act. The word
advertising has not been defined in order to give it as wide an interpretation as possible (from
Hansard)
8. By refusing to seek an injunction to stop smoking product placement, and surreptitious
tobacco advertising, the Attorney General is not fulfilling his role as Defender of the Public
Interest. (One Billion tobacco deaths this century W.H.O.)
9. The injunction would not be detrimental to the legitimate business of the film industry. The
public don’t pay to see actors smoking.
10. Tobacco/smoking Product placement and surreptitious advertising is in breach of TVWF

98


directive.
11. Onscreen smoking is in breach of Article 10 (2) of ECHR. Article 10 – Freedom of
expression1 10(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.
12. On weight of harm alone (one billion deaths this century) the case CO/8239/06 should
have received permission for full hearing as it raises a serious arguable case.
13. Section 12 of the 2002 tobacco advertising and promotion act incorporates the 1990 and
1996 Broadcasting acts. Which incorporate Television without Frontiers TVWF, which
incorporates Directive 89/552/EC, and 97/36/EC which prohibits Tobacco Product placement
and surreptitious advertising and all forms of tobacco advertising and indirect cigarette and
tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship etc. see attached extracts from TVWF
14. The governments promise (manifesto pledge 1997) was to ban tobacco advertising and
promotion, in order to protect people especially children, from tobacco addiction and death, as
per Ministers views Tab 8. P 1. There is a legitimate expectation that governments will honour
their promises, 10 years on 40 million? Deaths later, they have failed to fulfil the objective
pursued.
15. The 2002 Tobacco advertising and promotion act, according to the judgements of 21st
December 2006 and 1st of February, does not fulfil the stated objective pursued to protect
people especially children from tobacco addiction and death. (It does not do the job?) There is
a legitimate expectation that governments will honour their promises.
16. Unfair Trial – In terms of weight of harm case CO/8239/EC is the most important case
ever brought to court? As such it deserves more than a cursory glance, at the ½ hour oral
hearing, which was interrupted by another case; the claimant was only allowed to deliver, less
than 3 minutes of his prepared speech.
17. The grounds of his renewal of claim were article 10(2) of ECHR, and directive 89/552/EC,
these were deemed not applicable and the judgement again recited the ineffectiveness of the
2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. (There are questions regarding the integrity of
the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act.)
18. There is a Prima Facie case for an Injunction to stop actors smoking in films and TV. And
because the injunction would not be detrimental to the legitimate business of the film industry
there is no excuse for refusing this injunction. Whereas an injunction will stop the harm to the
children who continue to be exposed to smoking promotion via actors smoking in films and
TV.
19. Please see the latest legal thinking on this as in the judgement from the European Court of
Justice on 12 December 2006 regarding directive 2003/33/EC case number C-380/03. Page 39
thin bundle. (Paragraphs 40-43, 64, 93, 106, 109, 115, 141-143, 154-160. and then the rest.)
20. Under section 177 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State may make an order proscribing a foreign satellite television service that repeatedly
transmits programmes containing matter that offends against good taste or decency (replaced
by harmful or offensive 2004) or is likely to offend public feeling, and might seriously impair

99


the moral, mental or physical health of minors, as allowed in article 22.1 of the "Television
without Frontiers Directive", 89/552/EC, amended by 97/36/EC. See page 56
Addition 5-March 2007
The following come under TVWF (& hence 1990 & 1996 Broadcasting Act’s) concerning
prohibition of smoking & possibly the 2002 Tobacco advertising Act as mentioned in Section 12
of that Act.
1. imitable technique ?
2. all forms of tobacco advertising-promotion
3. product placement
4. subliminal technique
5. surreptitious ads
6. tele-shopping
7. harm & offence
8. impairing physical development of minors
9. protection of minors
10. sponsorship
11. indirect ads
12. brandsharing
13. must not cause physical or moral detriment to minors
14. must not prejudice health or safety
15. circumvention of the ban
There is a Ligitimate expectation that government will protect children from harm using whatever
method or law necessary without delay. It is important therefore that the authorities and judges assist
in public interest cases rather than oppose them, in that they should inform litigants in person of the
relevant legislattion etc

100


INDEX of SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Recent Press-Bolywood, John Wayne, Children, Ash….. p. 5
List of approx 200 articles-smoking infilms…………… p. 58
2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act………… Tab 6 Fat bundle
Judge Calvert Smiths Judgement………………………. Back cover of Thin bundle
ECHR Article 10…………………………………………. Tab 4 page 4 Fat bundle
W.H.O. One Billion Deaths this Century…………. Tab 12 page 1 Fat bundle (Dr. Lee....
John Wayne Film or advert? or promotion?……….. 6A
TVWF……………………………………………….. Tab 16 Fat bundle & p.10 Thin bundle
Directive 89/552/EC ……………….. p. 19
Directive 97/36/EC …………………….. p. 29
Directive 98/43/EC …………………….. p. 63
Directive 2003/33/EC ……………………… p. 66 Thin bundle
Transcript Co. explaining why no
Transcript of Judgement……………………… p. 40
European Court of Justice –
Judgement of Directive 2003/33/EC -12 Dec. 06…… p. 39 Thin bundle
Rough guide to content of judgement (dir. 2003/33/EC) p. 64
Proscription Article ………………………… p. 51, 56
Broadcasting Act 1990 & 1996 & ITC……………. p. 51-56
Other Directives concerning tobacco control ………… p. 52
Ministers Views……………………………… Tab 8. p.1 Fat bundle
Transcript of Proceedings……………………………… p. 41
Prepared speech & doc’s handed to judge David Clarke.. p. 62
Letter explaining delay of Judgement………… p. 63

101


From : Slidders, Simon
Sent : 02 April 2007 16:06:46
To :
Subject : certified point
Attachment : Holmescert.doc (0.27 MB)
Dear mr Holmes I attach a letter that is being sent out to you by post. Please acknowledge receipt
Simon Slidders
Administrative Court Office Lawyer
Tel: 020 7947 7317
Fax: 0207 7947 6031
Email: simon.slidders@hmcourts-service.x.gsi.gov.uk

* NO PROTECTIVE MARKING *

102



STUART HOLMES
C/O BRIAN O CALLAHAN
1 HAWTHORN COTTAGES
REAR OF 204 PALATINE ROAD
DIDSBURY, MANCHESTER
M20 2TT
And by e-mail to stuart277@hotmail.co.uk
DATED 4 JUNE 2007 ATTACHED TO EMAIL SENT 2 APRIL? Our ref: CO/8239/2006
Your ref: In Person
Error! Unknown character in picture string.
Dear Mr Holmes,
Re The Queen on the application of HOLMES v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to our recent telephone conversation and confirm that the Court has now considered
your application for points of law of general public importance to be certified, and refused to certify
and points of law. Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, commented “Leave to
appeal was refused – this included our decision that there was no certifiable point of law.”
As you already have the order of the Court of 12th February, 2007, which reflects the fact that
the Court refused to certify , there is no need to have any further order drafted and sent out.
I confirm that in view of the orders made by the Court, it is not possible for you to apply to the
House of Lords for leave to appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Slidders
ACO lawyer
The Administrative Court Office will not accept service via email. When using the above email address it should be noted that mail sent after 4.30 p.m.
may not be opened until 9.00 a.m. on the following working day. Court users should not send confidential or restricted information over the public
Internet.
103


CASE NUMBER CO/8239/06
3rd April2007
stuart277@hotmail.co.uk
Slidders, Simon
Solicitor ACO.
Dear Mr Slidders
With ref. To your letter dated 2nd April 2007 and the courts failure to find a point of law of general
public importance.
I have not received a reply to the skeleton argument and the common sense points of massive public
importance lodged at ACO. 28th February 2007.
If you recall our conversation I was informed by yourself that as I was a litigant in person with no
legal training and unable to secure a solicitor the court would transpose the points of common sense
into points of law, it would appear that this has not been done?
Also I don't recall receiving a court order dated the 12th February could you please email this
document?
Yours Sincerely,
Stuart Holmes. Anti smoking campaigner.


104



RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
“Smoking in Films”

105


Movies significantly influence teens to smoke
9 May 2007
Two new studies by Dartmouth Medical School pediatrician researchers
underscore the significant impact that movies have in influencing teens
to smoke.
The studies show that movies deliver billions of smoking impressions to American teens; and that
even teens outside the U.S. are affected by smoking images in films distributed internationally by
American studios.
In a report published in today's Pediatrics, "Exposure to Movie Smoking Among US Adolescents
Aged 10 to 14 Years: A Population Estimate," Dr. James Sargent and his co-authors, researchers at
Norris Cotton Cancer Center, used a nationally representative sample of 6,522 U.S. adolescents aged
10-14 years, and assessed their exposure to 534 popular contemporary box-office hits. Three out of
four movies (74%) studied contained smoking, for a total of 3,830 smoking images. Based on the
number of U.S. adolescents seeing each movie and the smoking contained in each, the researchers
estimated that these movies delivered 13.9 billion gross smoking impressions. Sixty one percent of
these impressions were delivered by youth-rated movies. Of the group of movies surveyed, some 30
of the movies delivered more than 100 million smoking impressions each. Many of these high-impact
movies were rated PG-13. "The apparently free delivery of star smoking to a young teen population is
a tobacco marketer's dream," said Dr. Sargent.
More than 3,000 actors appeared in these movies, and 500 of them smoked on screen. Yet 30 of the
top stars, mostly male, delivered more than 25% of the total smoking images. At the same time, many
other top actors starred in five or more of these movies without smoking in any. "If just one of these
popular stars decided to quit smoking in movies it would make a major difference on adolescent
exposure," said Dr. Susanne Tanski, one of the authors.
Just as with their American peers, German adolescents are highly influenced by the on-screen
smoking behavior of U.S. movie stars, according to the second study co-authored by Dr. Sargent and
published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The study, "Exposure to Smoking
in Popular Contemporary Movies and Youth Smoking in Germany," tested whether teens in a society
where tobacco advertising is still prevalent, and where smoking is still socially acceptable, are
influenced by smoking in movies.
After controlling for demographic, media, and psychosocial factors, investigators found that teens
who had seen the most smoking in films (mostly U.S. blockbusters) were nearly twice as likely to
have tried smoking than those who saw the least amount results that mirror previous U.S. findings.
"Viewing smoking in globally distributed movies is a risk factor for smoking in European
adolescents," says Reiner Hanewinkel, PhD, Institute for Therapy and Health Research, principal
investigator in the German study. "Limiting exposure to movie smoking could have important
worldwide public health implications."
Internationally distributed movies, the majority of which are produced and distributed by Hollywood
studios, comprise over 80% of the German film market, and 80 to 90% of these movies contain
smoking. The school-based, cross sectional study of 5586 German adolescents assessed exposure to
398 internationally distributed popular movies, 98% of which were produced and distributed by U.S.
studios. Exposure to smoking in these movies was associated with trying smoking and current
smoking among the adolescents, with high exposure adolescents being 1.8 times more likely to have
tried smoking and 1.7 times more likely to be a current smoker. http://www.dartmouth.edu

106


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 10, 2007
FILM RATING BOARD TO CONSIDER SMOKING AS A FACTOR
Los Angeles – The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) today announced that the rating
system is enhancing the amount of information provided to parents on the issue of smoking in films.
In the past, illegal teen smoking has been a factor in the rating of films, alongside other parental
concerns such as sex, violence and adult language. Now, all smoking will be considered and
depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or
other mitigating context may receive a higher rating.
The MPAA oversees the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) on a joint basis with the
National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO). Today, MPAA Chairman and CEO Dan
Glickman issued the following statement:
“The MPAA film rating system has existed for nearly 40 years as an educational tool for parents to
assist them in making decisions about what movies are appropriate for their children. It is a system
that is designed to evolve alongside modern parental concerns. I am pleased that this system
continues to receive overwhelming approval from parents, and is consistently described as a valuable
tool they rely upon in making movie-going decisions for their families.”
“With that in mind, the rating board chaired by Joan Graves will now consider smoking as a factor—
among many other factors, including violence, sexual situations and language—in the rating of films.
Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society. There is broad awareness of
smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine’s highly addictive nature, and no parent
wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more
information to parents on this issue.
“This action is an extension of our current practice of factoring under-age smoking into the rating of
films. Now, all smoking will be a consideration in the rating process. Three questions will have
particular weight for our rating board when considering smoking in a film: Is the smoking pervasive?
Does the film glamorize smoking? And, is there an historic or other mitigating context?
Additionally, when a film’s rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, that rating will now include
phrases such as ‘glamorized smoking’ or ‘pervasive smoking.’ This ensures specific information is
front and center for parents as they make decisions for their kids.
“Some have called for a ‘mandatory R’ rating on all films that contain any smoking. We do not
believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue.
Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become heavily politicized, and many
inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing this proposal are no doubt wellintentioned,
it is important that there is an accurate understanding of the declining prevalence of
smoking in non-R rated films. The rating board has comprehensively reviewed depictions of
smoking in every rated film over the past several years. From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage
of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of
those films, 75 percent received an ‘R’ rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that
contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated ‘R.’
“In our regular dialogue with parents, they frequently note that depictions of smoking in films have
significantly declined in recent years. They often tell us that they cannot recall a recent incident in
which they took their child to a G, PG or PG-13 film and found a scene involving smoking that was
objectionable. Moreover, parents are very clear to us that they—not the industry and certainly not
the government—should determine what is appropriate viewing for their kids. What they want is
information, and that is the action we are now taking.”
About the MPAA
The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) serves as the voice and advocate of the
American motion picture, home video and television industries from its offices in Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C. Its members include: Buena Vista Pictures Distribution; Paramount Pictures; Sony
Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLLP;
and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
###For more information, contact: MPAASeth Oster (818) 995-6600

107


AMA: MPAA Gives Lip Service to Rating Movies With Smoking
Movies with smoking should have mandatory R-rating
CHICAGO, May 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement
by Cecil B. Wilson, M.D. of the American Medical Association:
Statement attributable to: Cecil B. Wilson, M.D.
AMA Board Chair
"The Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) decision to
'consider smoking as a factor' when rating movies does nothing to ensure
that children and teens are not exposed to and influenced by on-screen
smoking. By failing to implement a mandatory R-rating system for smoking in
movies, the MPAA has ignored the gravity of the health threat that
on-screen smoking poses to children and teens.
"Research studies show that smoking in movies is associated with youth
starting to smoke. Each day, a staggering 4,000 kids try their first
cigarette, 1,000 of whom will become daily smokers. It is time for the MPAA
to do what is right and implement evidence-based policies for R-ratings
that will substantially reduce adolescent exposure to on-screen smoking."
SOURCE American Medical Association
PDF File:
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2003/moviesmoking.pdf
STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers of the following States and Jurisdictions: Arkansas • California •
Colorado • Connecticut • Hawaii • Illinois • Maine • Maryland. Massachusetts • Minnesota • Mississippi. Northern
Mariana Islands • New Hampshire. New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania.
Tennessee • Utah • Vermont • Washington • West Virginia
August 26, 2003
Jack Valeriti, President Motion Picture Association of America 15503 Ventura Boulevard Encino, California 91436
Dear Mr. Valenti:
We, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to ask you, with your longstanding prominence and influence in the
American motion picture industry, to exercise your exemplary leadership to effect potentially far reaching benefits for
public health. A Dartmouth Medical School study released last month confirms what other research has suggested:
reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking in motion pictures could significantly decrease the initiation of smoking in
youth. With this new evidence of how effective reducing smoking in motion pictures would be in preventing youth
smoking, the motion picture industry stands in a uniquely powerful position to bring about a profoundly beneficial impact
on the health and well-being of millions of Americans.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in each of our states and across the country, accounting for the death of

108


over 400,000 Americans each year--more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides
combined.
The good news is that smoking rates have declined -- attributable directly to the major efforts undertaken and sustained at
the federal, state and local levels. State attorneys general sued the major tobacco manufacturers resulting in the 1998
historic settlement under which the tobacco companies agreed not only to pay the states $206 billion dollars but also to
make unprecedented changes in the way cigarettes are sold, advertised, and marketed -- especially when it comes to
youth. The battle to decrease smoking, especially among our youth, has been waged by public health initiatives at every
level of government, by the American Legacy Foundation, and by increases in cigarette excise taxes.
However, despite the declines in youth smoking rates across the country, our teens continue to smoke at an unacceptable
rate. Given our knowledge that almost 90% of current adult smokers began smoking as teens, we are disheartened that
28.5% (over 4.5 million) of all high school students smoke, with an estimated 2,000 young people (under age 18)
becoming new daily smokers every day. These numbers translate into a horrifying projection: more than 5 million
children alive today will die prematurely from their smoking.
Mr. Jack Valenti August 26, 2003 Page 2
Attorney General Bill Lockyer recently wrote to you asking for industry cooperation on World No Tobacco Day. The
motion picture industry holds an enviably powerful position to build upon efforts to reduce youth smoking in this country
in a way no one else can. In June, and the impetus for our letter to you now, a research team from the Dartmouth Medical
School published the broadest research to date in the growing body of uncontroverted scientific evidence that exposure to
smoking in motion pictures has a significant impact on youth initiation of smoking. The study, published in The Lancet,
provides additional "strong evidence that viewing smoking in movies promotes smoking initiation among adolescents."
With funding by the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Madeline Dalton and her research team found that the children, ages
10-14, who watched the highest amount of smoking in movies were almost three (2.71) times more likely to start smoking
than those children who watched the least amount of smoking in movies.
While recognizing the need for further study, the researchers offered the following insight:
The effect of exposure to movie smoking is important, both because the effect on smoking initiation is moderately strong
and because the exposure is almost universal. Based on the lists of 50 randomly selected movies, only five (0-2%)
participants were unexposed to movie smoking. If the link between exposure to smoking in movies and smoking initiation
proves to be causal, our data suggest that eliminating adolescents' exposure to movie smoking could reduce smoking
initiation by half
The motion picture industry, therefore, is uniquely situated to bring about sweeping change to prevent youth smoking.
Simply by reducing the depiction of smoking in movies, the industry can protect our nation's youth from the known perils
of smoking. Mr. Valenti, you have demonstrated your leadership and willingness in the past to join forces to protect our
youth from violence in the media. We are hopeful you will use your best efforts again here to rally the motion picture
industry to move from being a source of the problem to being recognized as a critically important force in solving the
nation's deadly problem of youth smoking.
We look forward to hearing your ideas about how the motion picture industry will pursue this tremendous opportunity.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this important matter. Very truly yours, Attorney General J.
Joseph Cunan, Jr.
Attorney General of Maryland
Mr. Jack Valenti August 26, 2003 Page 3
Attorney General Mike Beebe Attorney General of Arkansas
Attorney General Ken Salazar Attorney General of Colorado
First Deputy Richard T. Bissen, Jr. First Deputy of Hawaii
Attorney General G. Steven Rowe Attorney General of Maine
Attorney General Mike Hatch Attorney General of Minnesota
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Attorney General of California
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General of Connecticut
Attorney General Lisa Madigan
Attorney General of Illinois
Attorney General Tom Reilly
Attorney General of Massachusetts
Attorney General Mike Moore
Attorney General of Mississippi
Mr. Jack Valenti August 26, 2003 Page

109


ratings criteria affected By Carl DiOrio May 11, 2007 Filmmakers might get an R
rating as a thank you for smoking. now in MPAA's eyes: The MPAA said Thursday that
its rating board will consider film depictions of smoking among the criteria for assigning
movie ratings. Anti-tobacco activists have been pressing for an automatic R rating for films
with smoking scenes, but MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman rejected the proposal
for a more nuanced approach. "The MPAA film rating system has existed for nearly 40
years as an educational tool for parents to assist them in making decisions about what
movies are appropriate for their children," Glickman said. "It is a system that is designed to
evolve alongside modern parental concerns." In line with that evolution, the MPAA ratings
board "will now consider smoking as a factor among many other factors, including violence,
sexual situations and language, in the rating of films," he said. "Clearly, smoking is
increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society," Glickman said. "There is broad
awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive
nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the
rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue.
Glickman described the move as an extension of the MPAA's practice of factoring underage
smoking into the rating of films. The ratings board will ask three questions, he said: Is the
smoking pervasive? Does the film glamorize smoking? Is there a historic or other mitigating
context? Also, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will
include such phrases as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking." In a related
announcement, the MPAA and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers said they
were joining Hollywood Unfiltered, a smoking-awareness health initiative aimed at educating
members of the industry about the potential harm from onscreen glamorizing of smoking. The
project is an initiative of the Entertainment Industry Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to
education, health and social issues.
"Some have called for a mandatory R rating on all films that contain any smoking," Glickman
said. "We do not believe such a step would further the specific goal of providing information to
parents on this issue. Unfortunately, the debate on this extreme proposal has become heavily
politicized, and many inaccurate statements have been made. While those pushing this proposal
are no doubt well-intentioned, it is important that there is an accurate understanding of the
declining prevalence of smoking in non-R-rated films." From July 2004-July 2006, the

110


percentage of films that included "even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" dropped from 60% to
52%, and 75% of those fetched an R rating for other factors, he said. The DGA was among
several organizations issuing statements of support for the MPAA moves. "The DGA supports
the MPAA's announced enhancements to the ratings system and applauds their effort to provide
parents with increased information on the depiction of smoking in movies," the guild said. "We
appreciate that they, like us, are working to find the delicate balance between addressing
important health concerns and safeguarding free expression." SAG also gave a statement of
support.
"As advocates for both creative rights and child-protection legislation, we believe this is a
reasonable approach to deal with a serious health issue," SAG deputy national executive director
Pamm Fair said. American Cancer Society CEO John Seffrin said he was pleased by the MPAA's
"substantive effort to eliminate tobacco use as a cause of death and disability." Seffrin cited
"evidence that children and youth are particularly vulnerable to the images of tobacco use on
movie screens." But not all the reaction was rosy. American Legacy Foundation said the new
MPAA ratings policy "falls short and fails to implement the meaningful recommendations set
forth by numerous organizations." Washington-based ALF states its mission as being "dedicated
to a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit." Hollywood has been under
increasing pressure to take steps to ease the purported effect of entertainment content in several
areas, from smoking to child obesity. Next week on Capitol Hill, the Senate Commerce
Committee begins its examination of the effect violent content has on children.
Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is expected to introduce legislation giving the FCC the power to
regulate such content -- much as it does indecent content on television. In April, the FCC
approved a report on TV violence that asked lawmakers for the requisite enforcement powers. A
Senate-FCC industry task force has been convened to identify ways of forcing content producers
to encourage children to eat healthy foods. Meanwhile, the MPAA's announcement on smoking
comes the day after Jack Valenti, longtime head of the MPAA and the architect of its movie-

111


ratings system, was buried in Arlington Cemetery. In responding to any suggestions that the
MPAA ratings were less than perfect, Valenti would regularly observe that the ratings could be
amended but should never be discarded.
"(P)arents are very clear to us that they -- not the industry and certainly not the government --
should determine what is appropriate viewing for their kids," Glickman said Thursday. "What
they want is information, and that is the action we are now taking."
Brooks Boliek in Washington contributed to this report.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from the The Journal News.
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Hollywood kicks the habit, rules that movies with smoking could go from
PG to R rating
By FRANK AHRENS
WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER
(Original Publication: May 14, 2007)
Would "Casablanca" have been rated XXX?
Depictions of smoking in movies will now be a factor when deciding what a film's rating will be, possibly
making a PG-13 movie R-rated, the Motion Picture Association of America said yesterday. The policy affects
only new movies.
Along with violence, depictions of sex, adult language and other content considerations, ratings
organizations will examine new releases to determine if they glamorize smoking or if it is pervasive through
the films, even among adults. Underage smoking has always been considered when rating a film.
"Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society," Dan Glickman, chairman of the
motion picture association, said in a statement. "There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public
health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the
habit."

112


A number of groups have called for almost all movies that depict smoking to automatically receive an R
rating, a plan the movie studios oppose. Children under 17 are not allowed in R-rated films unless they are
with an adult.
Cigarettes were once an indispensable movie prop — something for actors to do with their hands and to
establish character traits, such as "edgy" and "rebellious." Sex symbols such as Humphrey Bogart and
Bette Davis helped make smoking seem sophisticated. A leading man was not a gentleman unless he lit a
lady's cigarette.
But in recent years, public policy and sentiment have turned against smoking, as its health hazards have
become plain. The motion picture association's policy is the latest move against smoking, following the
multibillion-dollar settlement with the tobacco industry in 1998.
Tobacco industry giant Philip Morris USA said yesterday it supported the new policy and has for years
refused requests to use company products in films.
Washington bars and restaurants enacted a smoking ban in January, following those in other major U.S.
cities and countries around the world. Some California municipalities have banned all public smoking.
The new policy for the movies allows for mitigating circumstances in which smoking may not affect a
rating, the trade group said. For instance, the rating on historical films — such as 2005's "Good Night, and
Good Luck," set in 1953, when indoor smoking seemingly was required by law — would not be affected.
Foreign films will also fall under the new ratings criteria. New versions of French art films, such as the 1960
classic "Breathless," in which even the main character's dying breath is seen in a puff of smoke, could be
particularly hard hit.
The movie ratings system was put in place by former motion picture association chairman Jack Valenti in
1968 to head off threats of federal regulation in response to rising public concern over violent and sexual
images in films.
Today, groups such as the American Legacy Foundation — created as a result of the 1998 tobacco
settlement — the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization have called for films
with smoking to receive an automatic R rating unless the smoking is historically necessary or portrayed in
an unfavorable fashion. The foundation called the new policy "wholly inadequate" because it falls short of
slapping an automatic R on films that contain smoking.
In a March interview on National Public Radio, Stanton A. Glantz, a University of California at San Francisco
professor of medicine who started the Smoke Free Movies campaign, said research shows that children who
see a great deal of smoking in movies are three times more likely to start smoking than children who do
not.
Over a recent two-year period, the number of new films that included even a fleeting image of smoking
dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent, reports an MPAA study, and 75 percent of those films already
received an R rating for content other than smoking.
Christopher Buckley's 1994 satirical novel, "Thank You for Smoking," follows a tobacco lobbyist's efforts to
counter the anti-smoking tide by encouraging Hollywood to include more smoking in movies. The film
version of Buckley's book depicts no smoking.

113


Of the policy, Buckley wrote by e-mail: "I can only hope this means that the MPAA will strip such films as
'Casablanca,' 'To Have and Have Not' and 'Sunset Boulevard' of their G-ratings and re-label them for what
they were: insidious works of pro-smoking propaganda that led to millions of uncounted deaths. Bravo."
MPAA RATINGS POLICY FAILS TO ADDRESS YOUTH EXPOSURE
TO SMOKING IN THE MOVIES
Statement from the American Legacy Foundation®
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today's announcement from the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) to “consider smoking” when rating movies falls short and fails to implement the meaningful
recommendations set forth by numerous organizations in the nation’s public health community.
"This announcement is wholly inadequate and will cost countless lives," said Legacy’s President and
CEO Cheryl Healton, Dr. P.H. "Since more than 80 percent of smokers start before turning 18, youth
exposure to smoking in youth rated movies is a vital concern for our nation's health."
Parent, youth and public health groups, including Legacy, the American Medical Association and
AMA Alliance and American Academy of Pediatrics have been urging the MPAA to rate any new
movie with smoking R to reduce youth exposure to film smoking.
Research published earlier this week in the journal Pediatrics found that U.S. films deliver billions of
smoking impressions to 10-14 year olds in the U.S. – the ages at which youth are likely to begin
experimenting with cigarettes. The study – the first to directly examine youth’s exposure to movie
smoking–supports previous findings that youth-rated movies deliver proportionally more smoking to
adolescents because they are less likely to see R-rated movies.
Several key factual statements in MPAA's letter to state attorneys general are at odds with
independent research on this subject: According to April 2007 data from the University of California-
San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, 72 percent of all U.S. produced
live action films that grossed at least $500,000 from 2004 – 2006 depicted smoking. Also, between
2004 and 2006, only 42 percent of movies that depicted smoking were already R rated, not the 75
percent claimed by the MPAA.
The MPAA quotes the 2006 Monitoring the Future Study and states that “the percent of smoking
during a monthly period was down about 60%, 50% and 40% in grades eight, ten and twelve
respectively.” What it doesn’t say is that the comparisons were to youth smoking rates in the mid-
1990s when they reached a peak. MPAA's letter also fails to mention that the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has stated four times in the last five years that high levels of smoking in
movies are responsible for the fact that youth smoking remains as high as it is and that there was no
decline in daily youth smoking rates between 2005 and 2006.
The MPAA makes a general claim that “parents are very clear to us that they – not the industry and
certainly not the government – should determine what is appropriate viewing for their kids.” To the
contrary, a February survey from Mississippi State University and the American Medical Association
Alliance indicates that 81 percent of adults in the United States agree adolescents are more likely to
smoke if they watch actors smoke in movies, and 70 percent support a new R-rating for any movies
with on-screen tobacco imagery, unless the film clearly demonstrates the dangers of smoking. The
Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control is an annual scientific poll of public attitudes about
tobacco control policies.
The American Legacy Foundation® is dedicated to building a world where young people reject
tobacco and anyone can quit. Located in Washington, D.C., the foundation develops programs that
address the health effects of tobacco use, especially among vulnerable populations disproportionately
affected by the toll of tobacco, through grants, technical assistance and training, partnerships, youth

114


activism, and counter-marketing and grassroots marketing campaigns. The foundation’s programs
include truth®, a national youth smoking prevention campaign that has been cited as contributing to
significant declines in youth smoking; EXSM, an innovative public health program designed to speak
to smokers in their own language and change the way they approach quitting; research initiatives
exploring the causes, consequences and approaches to reducing tobacco use; and a nationally-
renowned program of outreach to priority populations. The American Legacy Foundation was
created as a result of the November 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) reached between
attorneys general from 46 states, five U.S. territories and the tobacco industry. Visit
www.americanlegacy.org.
###
Contact: Julia Cartwright, 202-454-5596, jcartwright@americanlegacy.org
May (insert day here), 2007
Dear Editor,
On Thursday, May 10, 2007, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sent a public statement
announcing they would “consider [cigarette] smoking as a factor” in rating a movie. Their message is a
disappointment and essentially a way to hedge promises against genuine action.
The MPAA film rating system was created almost 40 years ago as a mechanism for educating parents about
which movies were suitable for their children to watch. As a parent it would be irresponsible of me to accept
that images of smoking tobacco in a G, PG or PG-13 films “may receive a higher rating.” With 80 percent of
smokers starting before the legal smoking age of 18, our children’s exposure to tobacco imagery in youth rated
movies should not be underestimated and should receive an R rating.
The MPAA makes a general assertion that “parents are very clear to us that they – not the industry and
certainly not the government – should determine what is appropriate viewing for their kids.” As a parent and
caregiver, I want to see the youth of the world grow up happy and healthy, without a cloud of smoke
surrounding them. The “R” rating I am demanding for films including tobacco images is a way to assist
parents, and a nation of concerned persons, in keeping our children safe. Simply put, it will save lives.
Sincerely,
P.S The MPAA should not be in a position to determin the lives of a billiion people who will be
murdered this century by tobacco addiction! There is something radically wrong with the
politics!
Back to Story - Help
Rated 'S' for smoking
Wed May 16, 6:43 AM ET
What do Academy Award winner Nicholas Cage, superstar singer Beyonce and teen heartthrob Adam Brody
have in common? All smoked in their most recent films. Each helped glamorize a habit that kills. None had a
good reason to do so.

115


Ever since Humphrey Bogart made smoking the epitome of cool in 1942's Casablanca, the cigarette has been
a staple in Hollywood. While adult and teen smoking has dropped dramatically in recent years - along with
cigarette's cool quotient - actors still light up in far too many movies. And, according to several studies,
impressionable teens are more apt to take up the habit when their film idols smoke.
Last week, under pressure from public health groups and about three dozen state attorneys general, the
Motion Picture Association of America said smoking will be a factor in deciding ratings for new films.
Along with violence, sex and adult language, raters will consider whether smoking is "pervasive" or
"glamorized." That might push a film from a PG-13 rating to an R rating, meaning children under 17 would not
be allowed in without an adult.
The change is unobjectionable, but it's not a very effective weapon. Nor, as some public health advocates
want, is slapping an R rating on almost any film that depicts smoking.
Where would that lead? Special ratings for depictions of every potentially unsafe activity? An F rating for films
with characters who eat fatty foods? An A for movies that depict adultery? Perhaps a CP (couch potato) for
films that don't promote exercise?
Better that Hollywood just cut back. The number of films that depict smoking is in dispute. Anti-smoking
advocates say cigarettes permeate films; the industry says they're now declining.
But this much is certain: Except for period pieces, smoking in films is usually gratuitous. Does it really tell us
anything that Cage's character in the new thriller, Next, lights up while playing cards in Las Vegas?
No one wants to regulate artistic expression or smother creativity, but smoking doesn't have much to do with
either. In real life, smoking kills 400,000 people a year. If movie stars refused to do anything that might add
their most easily influenced fans to that number, the whole issue would be extinguished.
« View all web results for actors smoking in films news
Rated 'S' for smoking
Yahoo! News - 4Watched Stars Smoking Billions Of Times
US Kids Have hours ago
But this much is -certain: Except for period pieces, smoking in films is usually gratuitous.
The Ledger, FL 4 hours ago
Free Expressionus anything that Cage's character in the new ...
Gets Smoked
Does it really tell note that many actors appear to have "chosen not to smoke" in their films --
The researchersDC - 2 hours ago
Human Events,
MPAA: Policing What People See - May 16
for example, Ben Affleck (who hasmore kids seeing films with smoking. If the MPAA were
So you could actually end up2007 been photographed smoking ...
- 16 May with
Beyond Chron, CA for youngsters taking up smoking
US films blamedclear preferences of parents, this change might be ...
responding to the
First, Hollywood 7 May 2007 pressure from big tobacco companies to feature scenes with
Scotsman, UK - succumbs to Images of Smoking Encourage Teens to Light Up
Hollywood's
actors smoking cigarettes.journalthe Motion Picture Association of ... scenes were in youth-
According to a report in the Now, 15 May 2007 per cent of smoking
Voice of America - Pediatrics, 61
US Films 'Encouraging Youngsters To Smoke' ...
rated films. The research found that up to30 actors, images of smoking in American films that are seen by
just billions of
Life Style Extra, UK - 7 ratings adds
Sargent says2007
it
Smoking kills... film Maythe world. "So it is a big international problem to ...
kidssource of smoking imagery and teenagers are nearly three times as likely
around
"Films are aSouth Africa - 14 May 2007
iAfrica.com, major B: From journalist to filmmaker
Jaya regularly
to try the act ofifsmoking itself watch actors smoke. ... featuring extensive smoking scenes
Now tobacco Rediff, India - 16 May included and films
they will be 2007
Voice of He has a certainstamped US movies and he ... a good performer. In my last two films, I had
Smoking warnings for with an R rating that
or glamourising puffing may be innocence in his face is
America cast newcomers.- ButMayGundamma I needed good actors. ...
BBC News, UK 11 2007
for
Some critics of smoking in films have said all films showing tobacco use should be given
an R rating - meaning only over-17s could see the film unless ...
BBC News
Rediff

116


Posted on Thu, May. 17, 2007
email this
print this
Do movie smokers lead children to the habit?
Amy Jordan
is director of the media and the developing child sector of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania
The Motion Picture Association of America will now consider smoking when it rates movies.
"Depictions that glamorize smoking, or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of a historic or other mitigating
context," may lead to a higher rating by the industry panel that decides whether a film deserves a G, PG, PG-13 or an R.
Smoking joins violence, sex, profanity and drug use as a red flag used by raters to judge the age-appropriateness of films.
Why smoking? Why now?
The historic "master settlement" of 1998 required the big tobacco companies, such as R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, to
pay hundreds of billions of dollars to states to spend on prevention programs. It also prohibited them from targeting youth
with ads, promotions and marketing (including bans on paid-for product placements on TV and in movies).
But researchers tracking the prevalence of smoking in film since 1998 have found that tobacco use has actually gone up 50
percent. Indeed, eight out of every 10 PG-13-rated movies, such as Blades of Glory and The Pursuit of Happyness, contain
tobacco use, according to a University of California-San Francisco tracking Web site (www.smokefreemovies.
ucsf.edu).
Do movie portrayals with characters smoking lead young audiences to take up the habit? Research from Dartmouth
pediatrician James Sargent, who has been studying this subject for years, seems to indicate that the more children are
exposed to movie smokers, the higher the likelihood they'll start smoking as teens.
Are movies using smoking as shorthand for a character trait? For example, is it only the bad guys who smoke? Sargent
finds that all kinds of characters whom kids admire smoke, from Drew Barrymore to Leonardo DiCaprio.
We don't know exactly why youth are influenced by media portrayals of smoking. Perhaps movies (and the celebrities who
star in them) make smoking seem cool. Kids who want to be like Sean Penn will imitate the way he talks, dresses - and
smokes. Another line of thinking is that pervasive smoking makes cigarette use seem normal - something "everybody"
does when stressed out or at a party.
Finally, movie portrayals of smoking may actually teach young people how to smoke - how to light up; how to inhale; how to
flick the ashes.
After the 1998 master settlement, anti-tobacco advocates were delighted to see fewer teenagers taking up the smoking

117


habit.
Unfortunately, the number of youth who try smoking - and go on to become addicted - remains too high. The American
Legacy Foundation estimates that 2,000 American teenagers become regular smokers each day. One third will eventually
die from tobacco-related illnesses.
How hard will it be for moviemakers to adjust to the MPAA's new guidelines? Take The Devil Wears Prada as a case
study. This PG-13 movie grossed more than $300 million. Despite taking place in the fashion (and smoking) capitals of the
world - New York and Paris - there was no smoking at all. And no one missed it.
Some might argue that the industry's new position on smoking in films is tantamount to censorship. I might agree, but since
its inception, the ratings system has been giving higher ratings to movies that use profanity, and the public isn't
complaining about that. Indeed, I have yet to see research that shows that exposure to curse words is even detrimental to
children. Unlike smoking, no one ever died from having a potty mouth.
Contact Amy Jordan at ajordan@asc.upenn.edu
Sign in
Googl
e
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 15,600,000 for smoking in films news. (0.21 seconds)
News results for smoking in films news
- View today's top stories 31 May 2007
Bollywood adopts no smoking mantra - Economic Times - 3
hours ago
Variety.com - Smoking in movies to affect ratings
"Is the smoking pervasive? Does the film glamorize smoking? ... said of the
announcement: "The good news is that studios were forced to do something. ...
www.variety.com/article/VR1117964655.html?categoryID=13 - Similar pages
Smoke in MPAA's eyes: ratings criteria affected
Also, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will include ...
Latest news ». Save; Print; Email; Reprints. Advertisement ...
www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic39ac604ab41fd2187aaf2487abdd48
b - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
FOXNews.com - MPAA Adds Smoking as Film-Rating Factor - Celebrity ...
MPAA Adds Smoking as Film-Rating Factor , Smoking will be a bigger factor in
determining film ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America said ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271499,00.html - 51k - 29 May 2007 - Cached - Similar
pages
Smoking In Hollywood Movies Strongly Linked To Increase In Global ...
New research reveals how the incidence of smoking in US-made movies is influencing
teenagers in countries far beyond American shores.
www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71340 - 39k - Cached - Similar
pages
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Smoking warnings for US movies
The US film ratings board announces it will now take smoking into account when
classifying movies.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6646345.stm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

118


BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anger at Indian film smoking ban
Indian filmmakers condemn a government move to ban images of smoking in films and on
TV.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4598829.stm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from news.bbc.co.uk ]
San Jose Mercury News - Film smoking warning doesn't go far enough ...
Film smoking warning doesn't go far enough, critics say. THEY SAY LACK OF R
RATINGS HELPS STUDIOS, NOT PUBLIC. By Bruce Newman Mercury News ...
www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6000035 - 55k - Cached - Similar pages'R' Rating
Urged for Smoking in Movies
'R' Rating Urged for Smoking in Movies. New Push to Fight Movie Industry's Sway over
Teen Smoking. By Daniel J. DeNoon WebMD Medical News ...
www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20061009/r-rating-urged-for-smoking-in-movies - 91k -
30 May 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
Dartmouth News - Dartmouth researchers study trends in
how movies ...
Dartmouth researchers have determined that youth-rated movies contain more images of
cigarette smoking than R-rated films. A report of the findings, ...
www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2006/07/13.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Hollywood set to filter on-screen smoking - Los Angeles
Times
For decades, some of Hollywood's most memorable films featured smoking by the likes of
Bette Davis, Lauren Bacall, ... ADVERTISEMENT. More Movies News ...
www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-
moviesmoking11may11,1,1684799.story?coll=la-headlines-ent... - 29 May 2007 - Similar
pages
Alan Milburn (Secretary of State, Department of Health) The Bill will ban “overt” advertising on billboards,
posters and in the press. It will end, with only limited exceptions, advertising in shops. Only
advertising at the point of sale will be allowed... However, the Bill will not prevent members of the
general public, journalists, writers and others from talking about tobacco products, representing them
“on stage or film
Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary (Public Health), Department of Health) If he can identify a loophole
that we have missed, I assure him that we will strive hard to close it in Committee, to ensure that the
Bill is
as comprehensive as he would like.

119


Web Results 1 - 10 of about 152,000 for blair campbell deal with murdoch. (0.34 seconds)
BBC News | UK | Labour's year on the news-stands
Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's spokesman, has taken control not only of the Downing ... Rupert Murdoch:
advised over Italian deal by Tony Blair ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/84341.stm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
BBC News | UK Politics | Blair "most dangerous man in Britain?"
And, in March 1997, Alastair Campbell agreed that Mr Blair would write an ... No one believes that Mr Blair did a deal
with Mr Murdoch over the euro in ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/119095.stm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Penalty of a dodgy relationship Independent, The (London) - Find ...
Let us deal first with the opening half, which was controversial enough. Blair and Alastair Campbell were absolutely right
to woo Murdoch in advance of the ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980908/ai_n14169652 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
Blair and Bush
Blair's press secretary, Alastair Campbell, briefed British journalists that the story that Blair had intervened on Murdoch's
behalf was "a complete joke" ...
sideshow.me.uk/annex/blairtheory.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Rupert Murdoch is ...
Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair's cabinet ... are bought and read by classic swing voters - on the face of
it, too good a deal to pass up. ...
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1810266,00.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
Blair War Clique Runs Anti-LaRouche Slander Drive
Alastair Campbell and Phillip Bassett had been forced out as Blair's number one and two ... The Inquiry's findings were
leaked to media lord Rupert Murdoch, ...
www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3416hogg_duggan.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
Blair War Clique Runs Anti-LaRouche Slander Drive
Alastair Campbell and Phillip Bassett had been forced out as Blair's number one ... (previously head of programming at
Murdoch's British Sky Broadcasting, ...
www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/14/blair_clique.shtml - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Political Opinions - All The Views, Straight To You
That gave a clue that someone must have done a deal with Murdoch to replace .... He got the full backing of Alastair
Campbell's media, which was no mean ...
politicalopinions.co.uk/page/blog/blogid/161 - 195k - 4 Jun 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair's cabinet « Dissident
The genesis for this — and for the current Blair-Murdoch campaign against ... read by classic swing voters - on the face of
it, too good a deal to pass up. ...
dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2006/07/01/rupert-murdoch-is-effectively-a-member-of-blairs-cabinet/ - 74k - 4 Jun 2007 -
Cached - Similar pages
Murdoch backs 'courageous' Blair over Iraq | Special Reports ...
'Gordon Brown may sell Channel 4 in £1bn deal' · Campbell calls for ... Asked whether the Sun considered Tony Blair too
"old Labour", Mr Murdoch said: "The ...
politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,893370,00.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
120


Results 1 - 10 of about 149 for jowell mills blair berlusconi films co production corruption.
Web
(0.32 seconds)
Did you mean: jowell mills blair berlusconi films co production cooperation
Ministers, moguls and murky deals - the curious world of David ...
Mr Mills served as company secretary of a Berlusconi company at the same time as ... Tessa Jowell, had joined Tony
Blair's euphoric inner circle at Labour's ...
politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1723182,00.html - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
Backword: Dave Weeden's weblog | March Archives
Mr Mills and Mr Berlusconi could now face a corruption trial in Italy. ..... But not Ms Jowell and Mr Mills, or Tony Blair
and Ms Booth. Berlusconi has ...
backword.me.uk/2006/March/ - 220k - Cached - Similar pages
Iain Macwhirter Now and Then: April 2006
Blair and Berlusconi bonded in the great enterprise that was the Iraq war. .... were planning to seize their means of
production, and were able to film ...
iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
Anna Chen: news and blog - Me and My Big Mouth
Yet they've closed ranks around Tessa Jowell while critics like Glenda Jackson and .... having gone through Blair's flings
with Berlusconi, Murdoch, Aznar, ...
www.annachen.co.uk/news/index.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
A Working Class Hero
British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic .... for Mr Berlusconi and Mr Mills to be sent
for trial charged with corruption ...
aworkingclasshero.blogspot.com/ - 68k - Cached - Similar pages
ConservativeHome's ToryDiary: Whiter than white?
This is yet further evidence that proves, whether we have Blair or Brown, ...... Rather than a detailed discussion of the
Jowell-Mills household's appetite ...
conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/whiter_than_white/index.html - 171k - Cached - Similar pages
7 year free, searchable film and television news archive
29/03/2006, ZOO FILMS AND ATOMIC CARTOONS TO CO-PRODUCE ‘BOLLYWOOD ROAD’ ..... ITALIAN
PROSECUTORS REQUEST MILLS AND BERLUSCONI FACE CORRUPTION CHARGES ...
www.4rfv.co.uk/archive.asp?date=20063 - 74k - Cached - Similar pages
Aaronovitch Watch: March 2006
Is the world ready for a long hymn of praise to Tony Blair's foreign policy ...... A joke which obviously would need to be
adapted for the Jowell/Mills ...
aaronovitch.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html - 140k - Cached - Similar pages
The Daily Star: Internet Edition Sun. March 05, 2006
British Culture Minister Tessa Jowell and her husband David Mills, ... Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi, have decided to
separate, Mills's lawyerannounced ...
www.thedailystar.net/2006/03/05/index.htm - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

121


Blood & Treasure: March 2006
With Blair and Berlusconi, there’s also a reflexive dependence on a larger, ...... Let's get this straight - Jowell and Mills'
defence is that they got the ...
bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2006/03/index.html - 291k - Cached - Similar pages

122