Phone-in host loses challenge over on-air 'Nazi' jibe

A RADIO presenter who called a councillor a "Nazi" live on air yesterday lost his legal challenge to Ofcom's decision to uphold complaints against him.

Jon Gaunt, who made the comments on his daily Talksport radio show in November 2008, said that the media watchdog's stance constituted an unlawful interference with his freedom of expression.

The heated interview with councillor Michael Stark about Redbridge Council's decision to ban smokers from becoming foster parents — for which Gaunt later apologised — drew 53 complaints from listeners.

Mr Stark had said that the welfare of young children should outweigh the needs of foster families, but Gaunt, who was in care when he was a child, accused him of being a "Nazi", a "health Nazi" and an "ignorant pig".

He argued that children's chance of finding a foster home would be lost under the new policy.

Gaunt claimed that Ofcom's finding in June 2009 — that the interview contained material which might cause offence which was not justified by its context — was incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides freedom of expression.

However, Sir Anthony May and Mr Justice Blair dismissed his judicial review proceedings at the High Court in London.

Sir Anthony said: "The broadcast was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience.

"The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification."

Gaunt was refused permission to appeal, although he can renew his application directly to the Court of Appeal.

Listeners had complained that the tone of the interview was "oppressive" and "intimidating" and they felt Mr Gaunt — who was suspended by Talksport that afternoon and later had his contract terminated — was "shouting like a playground bully".

Following an investigation, Ofcom imposed no sanction on either Talksport or Mr Gaunt.

Mr Gaunt and his lawyers yesterday said that they intended to challenge the ruling which, if allowed to stand, might have "a chilling effect on robust political interviews".