Misuse of private information Flashcards
Publishing of address.
Mills v News Group International.
Heather Mills sought injunction to prevent publication of address/photos. Held that the risk to Mills was slight and that it was well-known that she lived in the area. The freedom to impart the information outweighed Mills’ rights. Also held that the mere publication of an address is not confidential information or, of itself, an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Venables & Thompson v News Group International
Held that the Claimants were uniquely notorious and at risk of serious physical harm, and that they were entitled to protection from extending the law of confidence to protect their identities and whereabouts under Article 2 (right to life). Injunction restraining publishing was granted.
This was meant to be an exceptional order, but similar orders have been granted to Mary Bell and Maxine Carr.
We can draw a contrast between cases where the publication of confidential information puts someone in danger, and the rest of the case law . The concern in cases such as Venables & Thompson v News Group International is safety from attack (which will involve the assessment of the extent of that risk). The right to life (article 2) which is engaged is an absolute right and therefore not subject to the same balancing act as qualified rights, such as right to a private and family life (article 8). Privacy, usually involving Article 8, is not granted the same protection as the right to life, Article 2.
Publication of address of celebrity vs criminal?
We can draw a contrast between cases where the publication of confidential information puts someone in danger, and the rest of the case law. Privacy, usually involving Article 8, is not granted the same protection as the right to life, Article 2.
The concern in cases such as Venables & Thompson v News Group International is safety from attack (which will involve the assessment of the extent of that risk). The right to life (article 2) which is engaged is an absolute right and therefore not subject to the same balancing act as qualified rights, such as right to a private and family life (article 8).
Mills v News Group International.
Heather Mills sought injunction to prevent publication of address/photos. Held that the risk to Mills was slight and that it was well-known that she lived in the area. The freedom to impart the information outweighed Mills’ article 8 rights. Also held that the mere publication of an address is not confidential information or, of itself, an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
- REMEMBER THAT PUBLIC INTEREST DOESN”T MEAN “INTERESTING TO THE PUBLIC”!!!
Venables & Thompson v News Group International
Held that the Claimants were uniquely notorious and at risk of serious physical harm, and that they were entitled to protection from extending the law of confidence to protect their identities and whereabouts under Article 2 (right to life). Injunction restraining publishing was granted.
This was meant to be an exceptional order, but similar orders have been granted to Mary Bell and Maxine Carr.
Note that the right to life (article 2) is an absolute right and therefore not subject to the same balancing act as qualified rights, such as right to a private and family life (article 8).
Article 2 ECHR
Right to life. This is an absolute right and therefore not subject to the same balancing act as qualified rights.
Article 8 ECHR
Right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. This is a qualified right and therefore subject to a balancing act.
Article 10 ECHR
Right to freedom of expression and information. This is a qualified right and therefore subject to a balancing act.
Right to life
Article 2 ECHR. This is an absolute right and therefore not subject to the same balancing act as qualified rights.
Right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.
Article 8 ECHR. This is a qualified right and therefore subject to a balancing act.
Right to freedom of expression and information
Article 10 ECHR. This is a qualified right and therefore subject to a balancing act.
Jersild v Denmark
ECtHR case.
Neither article 8 nor article 10 has any pre-eminence over the other when balancing public interest in disclosure with individual’s right to respect for their private life. Interference with convention right must be proportionate to a legitimate aim pursued.
HRH Prince of Wales v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
- The fact that there was a breach of a contractual duty of confidence was “a significant element to be weighed in the balance” between Articles 8 and 10.
- The test was not simply whether publication was in the public interest but whether it was in the public interest that the duty of confidentiality should be breached. It was not.
Douglas v. Hello! Ltd
- Although apparently trivial, pictures were protectable because they held commercial value.
- Information available to one person or group and not generally available to others will be confidential as long as those who possesses the information don’t intend it for it to be available to others.
- Every individual photograph capable of confidentiality, so confidentiality existed for the as yet unpublished photos.
Flitcroft v MGN
- Public figures who have “courted public attention” have less grounds to object to the intrusion which follows BUT public figures are still entitled to a private life.
- It may be appropriate to comment on conduct of public figures where it would not be appropriate to comment if they were a private individual
McKennit v Ash
- ex-friend wrote a tell-tale book. Was the book all confidential information? Court held some of the info i.e personal&sexual relationship, feelings about fiance’s death, health issues etc were personal information which is to be kept confidential BUT some i.e info about shopping trip wasn’t capable of being protected- innocuous, unimportant events are too trivial to be protected.)
- As was made clear [in Von Hannover], even where there is a genuine public interest, alongside a commercial interest in the media in publishing articles or photographs, sometimes such interests would have to yield to the individual citizen’s right to the effective protection of private life.
- In matters of personal information, the courts would be less ready to assume protection had been lost forever on the basis that it had entered the public domain. The relevant test is whether the information in question is so generally accessible that in all the circumstances it cannot be regarded as confidential.
- A high degree of misbehaviour is necessary on the part of the Claimant to engage a defence of public interest in ‘exposure of misconduct cases’ rather than mere peccadillos of a celebrity.
