English Law and Privacy Flashcards
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 💃 UKSC
Naomi Campbell (supermodel) told everyone she wasn’t doing drugs. But then the Mirror Newspaper found out about her addiction to cocaine. They then stalked her to take a photo of her outside Narcotics Anonymous
The UKSC decided that there was now action called the ‘misuse of private information tort’
(and should be balanced against the freedom of expression)
Why does the UK court reject the ‘highly offensive’ part of the NZ privacy tort?
- It makes the test for a breach of privacy too strict
** - It brings into question, whether something is private matters which should really be about the balancing between the claimant’s rights and the defendant’s right**
English statutes and conventions?
European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 8 – Right to Privacy
- Article 10 – Right to Freedom of Expression
The Human Rights Act 1998 now incorporates these articles
Once a claimant shows that he/she has a reasonable expectation of privacy then Article 8 is “engaged”. Article 8 rights are then weighted against the defendant’s rights under Article 10.
Murray v Big Pictures Ltd ⚡🧹
JK Rowling was pregnant with her second child to Mr Murray (very similar scenario to Hosking), her security officer spotted someone spying on Mr Murray, Mrs Murray and her child at a café
- that person was taking pictures of them
What does Murray v Big Pictures Ltd ⚡🧹 say about the application of the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test
- It is an objective test
- It is assessed from the perspective of the person who is affected by the publicity
- Whether the claimant sought publicity is relevant
What does Murray say about privacy in public places?
A breach of plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy to publish a photograph of a person taken on a public street:
* When the photograph was taken surreptitiously (secretly/covertly)
* When the plaintiff was targeted by the defendant and/or the photographers
* When the plaintiff is a child
What does Murray say about the privacy of children?
- Significance the Court in Murray attach to the fact the plaintiff was a child
(Tips the balance in this case)
The law needs to reflect the special rights of children which have been recognised both internationally and domestically
It essentially defuses the public figure element of a case like this – the children of public figures should be treated no differently to the children of ‘ordinary’ people
Peck v UK [2003] 😔🪦
CC cameras unknowingly captured a man before and after a failed suicide attempt and broadcast it
