Article 10: Press freedom and conflict with Article 8 Flashcards
Venables & Thompson v NGN (2001)
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
Carr v NGN (2005)
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
When information about a person is published, what needs to be the case for Article 8 to be engaged?
There needs to be a “reasonable expectation of privacy” about the information
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?
- The extent to which it’s already in the public domain
- Public interest in publication
- Any relevant privacy code
What were the five categories of information in Campbell v NGN?
- That she was a drug addict
- That she’s receiving treatment
- That she’s receiving treament at NA
- Details of her NA meetings
- Covert photographs of her leaving NA
ZXC v Bloomberg (2002)
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
Baroness Hale’s three-part test for balancing rights set out in Campbell:
- Look at the comparative importance of the rights
- Look at the justifications for interfering with each right in the case
- Apply the proportionality test to each
Axel Springer v Germany: five factors to take into account:
- Contribution to a debate of general interest
- How well known the person is and what’s the subject of the report
- Prior conduct of the person
- Method of obtaining the information and its veracity
- If publication has been restricted, then the severity of any sanction
Von Hannover v Germany (No 1) (2005)
Photographs of the applicant shopping, skiing or riding horses with children could not be published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
Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (2012)
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
RocknRoll v NGN (2013)
Injunction granted to new husband of actor Kate Winslet for publication of photos posted to Facebook by his friend
Murray v Express Newspapers (2008)
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
Mosley v NGN (2008)
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
Mosley v UK (2011)
ECtHR finds no duty for states to legislate to ensure newspapers notify people before publishing on their private life
LNS v Persons Unknown (2010)
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
Ferdinand v MGN (2011)
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
PJS v NGN (2016)
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
Hutcheson v NGN (2011)
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
CTB v NGN (2011)
Ryan Giggs is successful in obtaining injunction about affair
There is no public interest in the revelations
Cases with wins for free expression against privacy (3):
- LNS v Persons Unknown (2010) (John Terry)
- Ferdinand v MGN (2011)
- Hutcheson v NGN (2011)
Also: Campbell v NGN (2004) (partly)
Cases with wins for privacy against free expression (5):
- 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)
Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd (2009)
There is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for information published on an online blog
