Article 10: Press freedom and conflict with Article 8

Question 1

Venables & Thompson v NGN (2001)

Answer 1

Injunction granted protecting new identities of killers of Jamie Bulger on release

Allowing disclosure of their identities would only assist those wishing to track them down, threatening A2 and A3 rights

Question 2

Carr v NGN (2005)

Answer 2

Injunction granted protecting Maxine Carr, girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley

Allowing disclosure of her new identify would only assist those wishing to track her down, threatening A2 and A3 rights

Question 3

When information about a person is published, what needs to be the case for Article 8 to be engaged?

Answer 3

There needs to be a “reasonable expectation of privacy” about the information

Question 4

Under HRA 1998 s12(4), what must the court consider in relation to journalistic, literary or artistic material when making a decision that would restrict publication?

Answer 4

1. The extent to which it’s already in the public domain
2. Public interest in publication
3. Any relevant privacy code

Question 5

What were the five categories of information in Campbell v NGN?

Answer 5

1. That she was a drug addict
2. That she’s receiving treatment
3. That she’s receiving treament at NA
4. Details of her NA meetings
5. Covert photographs of her leaving NA

Question 6

ZXC v Bloomberg (2002)

Answer 6

As a starting point, a person under criminal investigation, prior to charge, generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to information about that investigation

Question 7

Baroness Hale’s three-part test for balancing rights set out in Campbell:

Answer 7

1. Look at the comparative importance of the rights
2. Look at the justifications for interfering with each right in the case
3. Apply the proportionality test to each

Question 8

Axel Springer v Germany: five factors to take into account:

Answer 8

1. Contribution to a debate of general interest
2. How well known the person is and what’s the subject of the report
3. Prior conduct of the person
4. Method of obtaining the information and its veracity
5. If publication has been restricted, then the severity of any sanction

Question 9

Von Hannover v Germany (No 1) (2005)

Answer 9

Photographs of the applicant shopping, skiing or riding horses with children could not be published

This was because the applicant was not a public figure in the relevant sense, such that the photos made no contribution to a debate of general interest

Contrast Hale in Campbell: photos of the applicant popping to the shops to get milk would be allowed

Question 10

Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (2012)

Answer 10

Photos showed the applicant skiing, accompanying an article about her father’s health

This did make a contribution to a debate of general interest - the photo was closely enough linked to the article, which related to the father, who was a genuine public figure

There was a public interest in seeing how his children reconciled obligations of family solidarity with their private life

Question 11

RocknRoll v NGN (2013)

Answer 11

Injunction granted to new husband of actor Kate Winslet for publication of photos posted to Facebook by his friend

Question 12

Murray v Express Newspapers (2008)

Answer 12

Publication of photos of a child on the street, even as part of everyday activity, breached A8

Nonetheless, there could still be an area of routine activity which was not protected by A8

Question 13

Mosley v NGN (2008)

Answer 13

Private sexual activities are clearly within A8 - there was no public interest in publishing these activities (a sado-masochistic orgy with multiple prostitutes)

Had the activities had a Nazi theme, there may have been a public interest, due to Mosley’s position as head of F1

Question 14

Mosley v UK (2011)

Answer 14

ECtHR finds no duty for states to legislate to ensure newspapers notify people before publishing on their private life

Question 15

LNS v Persons Unknown (2010)

Answer 15

John Terry not entitled to super-injunction about affair

Judge found that Terry’s main interest was protecting his sponsorship deals

The information was not that sensitive, as it was already widely known

Question 16

Ferdinand v MGN (2011)

Answer 16

Rio Ferdinand not entitled to injunction about affair

Public interest existed in publication, because:
- Ferdinand had portrayed himself as a family man
- His position as England captain made him a role model

Question 17

PJS v NGN (2016)

Answer 17

Even when information was available online and had been published in Canada and Scotland, an injunction could still be granted

A ‘media storm’ in England & Wales would be a qualitatively different kind of intrusion

This area of law related not to secrets, but to intrusions on privacy

Question 18

Hutcheson v NGN (2011)

Answer 18

Hutcheson fails to prevent publication of his ‘second family’ - He has conducted an argument through newspapers with Gordon Ramsay, which affects his ability to subsequently keep things secret

Question 19

CTB v NGN (2011)

Answer 19

Ryan Giggs is successful in obtaining injunction about affair

There is no public interest in the revelations

Question 20

Cases with wins for free expression against privacy (3):

Answer 20

• LNS v Persons Unknown (2010) (John Terry)
• Ferdinand v MGN (2011)
• Hutcheson v NGN (2011)

Also: Campbell v NGN (2004) (partly)

Question 21

Cases with wins for privacy against free expression (5):

Answer 21

• Campbell v NGN (2004) (partly)
• Mosley v NGN (2008)
• Murray v Big Pictures Ltd (2008)
• CTB v NGN (2011) (Ryan Giggs)
• PJS v NGN (2016) (David Funish)

Question 22

Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd (2009)

Answer 22

There is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for information published on an online blog