Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury

[1991] 1 All ER 306

Case summary last updated at 06/02/2020 11:52 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury

Someone accused Salman Rushdie of blasphemous libel. The divisional court dismissed the claim on the grounds that blasphemous libel was only available against those who “vilified the Christian religion”, which the Satanic Verses didn’t do. They also said that articles 9 and 14 did not require the crime to be extended to all religions. The court says that the book has not prevented muslims from practicing their religion, while article 14 (non-discrimination) has been interfered with on reasonable grounds, in that to extend the offence of blasphemous libel would lead to great incursions into free speech. Because of its not requiring intentional offence, in reality it would lead to all criticism of religion which people find offensive being banned. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Constitutional Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Constitutional Law Notes

Constitutional Law Notes >>