Decision not to invite political party leader to participate in television debate was not irrational or unfair

Judicial review – member of a political party challenging the decision of the public service broadcaster not to invite the leader of his political party to participate in a live television debate - public service broadcaster is mandated by statute to inform and educate the public in matters of news and current affairs – history of televised general election debates – broadcaster proposed two debates, one with four leaders and one with seven leaders – significance of participation in the debates – criteria for participation - must have at least three sitting members of the outgoing Dáil - must be a registered Dáil party - must be standing candidates in the general election of 2016 - argued that the first criteria was in breach of the statutory obligations of the public broadcaster - argued that the criteria are discriminatory, insufficiently objective, impartial, unfair and inclusive to satisfy the statutory obligation on the broadcaster, or the Constitutional recognition of the democratic principles - relevant factors - increased fragmentation of political parties in the Irish political landscape as importing a significant challenge to it in achieving fairness and balance in current affairs and news coverage – argued that the exclusion of the party fails to take account of the previous role of the party as partner in government, its specialist contributions on critical public issues, especially those concerning the environment, its position in the international environmental movement, and the fact that it is fielding a candidate in each constituency – statutory framework – positive obligation to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution - freedom of speech - standard of review – argued that the court is not confined to a consideration of whether the criteria are unreasonable or irrational, but that a wider jurisdictional basis for the intervention of the court approach arises because the broadcaster is mandated to positively respect the democratic process and has a central role in informing and educating choice within that process - if it is shown that a particular approach has the potential to interfere with the informed choices of the electorate or elements of the electorate, the court has a duty to supervise and interfere with even a reasonable decision – proportionality – the choice of the criteria for inclusion in the live TV leaders debate arose from an editorial decision that the debate would not be attractive and informative to viewers if the leader of every political party were to participate - High Court can not have any role in that editorial choice - fettered discretion - criteria adopted by the broadcaster for the purposes of the current election do not amount to a policy – broadcaster amendable to review – broadcaster’s decision not unfair, irrational or disproportionate.