As a result of concern about a drop in the number of children being vaccinated with the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella, Parliament has enacted the Measles Prevention Act 2021 ('the Act') (fictitious). Section 2(3) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to 'promote in public theories that the MMR vaccine may potentially cause harm to children'. Conviction of an offence under s 2(3) carries a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000.

Dr Tessa Phillips is a doctor who believes that the MMR vaccine is potentially harmful to children. At a fringe meeting at the annual conference of the British Medical Association open only to doctors, Tessa presents a paper in which she argues that there is credible scientific evidence to support her views. After presenting the paper, Tessa is threatened with prosecution for an offence under s 2(3) of the Act. 

Tessa is shocked as she considers that such a prosecution would infringe her right to freedom of expression.

(a)   Apply the requirements of Article 10 of the ECHR to the above facts, and explain how any English court would protect Tessa's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 were she to be prosecuted.

(b)  If the European Court of Human Rights were to rule that the provisions of the Measles Prevention Act were in violation of Article 10, how may the UK government respond?