Case studies
Privacy
Privacy
• Privacy: Is an EU law Article 8 of human right
which says every individual has right to a
private life. It came into force in the UK in
2000, and overrides British law.
• UK: Public interest
Timeline of famous cases and Privacy
• In 2001, just after the human rights
act was introduced in 2000. The
lawyers of the killers of Jamie Bulger
asked the killers Robert Thompson
and Jon Venables, to have their
identify protected. This was the first
case in UK which tried to push for a
privacy law to protect the media from
publishing of their assumed names,
whereabouts, photographs and
descriptions of their appearances.
The Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,
president of the High Court Family
Division rules under Article 2 Right
For Life.
2004
• Naomi Campbell tried to sue the
Mirror for publishing pictures of
her leaving narcotics anomalous.
She first lost her case against the
paper who won in favour of the
public interest, then in 2004, she
had previous judgment over turned
and she won based on a breach of
confidentiality, like Micheal and
Catherine Zeta Jones did not win on
privacy, but again on a breach on
confidentiality.
• Naomi’s case was important as it hinted at a
change in the law, from where there was once
now no privacy law. This case hinted that the
UK unlike other countries who have a history
of privacy was no moving in that direction.
Catherine Zita Jones Micheal Douglas
2003: Catherine Zita Jones
and Michael Douglas try and
sue Hello for publishing
pictures of their wedding day.
The judge did not rule in
favour of privacy, but in favour
of breach of confidentiality, as
they had already signed a
contract with OK magazine, so
when hello published these
pictures they were acting
unlawfully and the contract
was not with Hello.
Privacy or public interest.
• In 2008, Formula one boss
Max Mosley today won
£60,000 in his privacy action
against the News of the
World after the Sunday
tabloid had falsely accused
him of taking part in a "sick
Nazi orgy".
• The newspaper believed that
publishing the pictures was in
the public interest, but the
judge rules in favour of
privacy
The Judge found in favour of Mosley and
said: "But there was no public interest or
other justification for the clandestine
recording, for the publication of the
resulting information and still
photographs, or for the placing of the
"In the face of Max Mosley, all the
video extracts on the News of the World newspapers lost their bottle and settled
website – all of this on a massive scale.
everything because they recognised that there
was a change in law," said Mark Stephens, a
media lawyer.
Ashley Cole
• Ashley Cole tried to
use the same
defence as Max
Mosley when he
said that his private
life had been
intruded when the
Daily Mirror
reported he had
been cheating on
his wife. The court
ruled again
Judge rules in favour public interest
•
John Terry failed to use an
injunction to stop a
newspaper publishing the
married father of two had an
affair with a former teammate’s girlfriend. An injunction
is viewed as a backdoor
privacy law. This is because
unlike Moseley where the
pictures were published, an
injunction happens before the
paper goes to print. This was
the first case since Moseley
which went in the favour of
public interest rather than an
injunction, which is viewed as
a backdoor privacy law.
“This judgment is very, very important – it is a
landmark decision. It sets a precedent which
should prevent unnecessary restraint on
cases which are in the public interest,” said
Lord Lester QC, one of the country’s leading
media lawyers.
The judge in the case Mr Justice
Tugendhat said that freedom of
expression outweighed Terry’s right to
suppress the reporting of his affair, which
will cast doubt on his England captaincy
and could affect his multi-million- pound
sponsorship deals with Samsung, Umbro
and Nationwide
Why Terry’s case was important
• Before John Terry celebrities since Max Moseley
were specifically winning their cases based on
privacy law. This meant newspapers were scared
that if they published something they could be
sued, and that their public interest defence was
being over taken by privacy law. Terry case was
important because it changed the balance back
to the newspapers and press freedom. This can
be seen with an excelation of stories about
Vernon Kay and Ashley Cole after Terry lost his
case.
News of the world phone hacking
2011
• Public interest and press freedom is winning the
debate, however the news of the world has just
issued a statement to apologise about the phone
hacking and have set up a 20million
compensation fund for celebrity victims of this
scandal. This controversy shows that the press
are acting beyond their reach
• In 2009, the PCC investigated the News of the
world and found there was no evidence to
suggest phone hacking. Interestingly it is believed
that
PCC phone hacking
• The guardian newspaper published in 2009, it
believed phone hacking was widespread in the
industry, and after the PCC report into this which
found no evidence, many were critical o f the
report, because they see it as editors investigatind
themselves.
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger rubbished the
findings saying they were "worse than pointless"
and called for the powers of the "weak" regulator
to be enhanced to establish some form of
investigatory mechanism
Super injunctions
• Celebrities are now using super injunctions to
stop the press even printing. This means that
they do not have to claim after the event to
the PCC, they instead go to court to stop the
paper from printing the story. If super
injunctions continue this means the PCC are
not able to fulfil their objective to regulate
and deal with complaints on the general
publics.
Problems with PCC being ineffectual
• Its seen as unaccountable because run by
editors this was one criticism raised by an MP
• The fact that celebrities are taking their
complaints to the court rather than the PCC,
which suggests there are problems with the
system.
Today-Cameron Uneasy about a
privacy law.
•
•
•
David Cameron hinted yesterday that Parliament
may step in and take over the creation of privacy
laws from judges. He said Parliament's failure to
act has meant judges have used the European
Convention on Human Rights to build up privacy
law.
His comments come after a number of
celebrities used injunctions and superinjunctions to prevent details of their private
lives being published.
Asked for his views while he was campaigning in
Luton for the local elections, Mr Cameron said:
"What's happening here is that the judges are
using the European Convention on Human Rights
to deliver a sort of privacy law without
Parliament saying so. The unspoken attitude of
ministers has been that they want a law that will
curb tabloid intrusion into private lives, but do
not want to be seen to be the ones bringing it in,
in case the public thinks they are trying to
protect themselves.