4 Privacy and Defamation Flashcards
Learn facts and point of law
What does the decision in
Von Hannover v Germany [2004] highlight
Influential in determining how judges should balance the two competing interests (8 and 10)
Princess of Monaco alleged that media intrusions into her daily routine were infringing her rights under Article 8
The EctHR upheld her claim
Key issue when weighing up the rights under Arts 8 and 10 was to ask how far the information being published would be in the ‘public interest’ – different from what the public might be interested in
When she is going about her private life, she had a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy
Explain Wainwright v Home Office 2003
Visitors to prison strip-searched
Shows limitation of protection
Failed as there was no question of being private info
Explain Peck v UK [2003]
Claimant filmed by CCTV moments after he attempted suicide
Shows limits to protection
No case under breach of confidence, but infringement of Article 8
What is taken from the decision in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspaper [2004]
Major turning point for the law on privacy
Closest any court has come to a tort of privacy
The question is how far can the press go before they are deemed to have gone ‘too far’
‘Obvious’ that the information being disclosed was private
Treatment thought to be private, but not the pics
Kaye v Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd [1991] highlights what
Pictures taken in hospital bed and an ‘interview’
CoA held it was a clear invasion of privacy but nothing more could be done.
CoA recognised the need for the creation of a tort of invasion of privacy but deferred responsibility for this to Parliament
Earlier case law so shows little protection
Douglas, Zeto-Jones and Northern & Shell plc v Hello! Ltd [2005] highlights what
Celebrity couple entered £1 million contract with OK! Magazine for them to feature their private wedding
Court applied normal rules on breach of confidence
Opened the door for other privacy claims
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] recognizes which restriction
The court had to decide if the Council could bring a case
Held that they could not as they should be open to uninhibited public criticism
Should this limit a company’s ability to claim in defamation?
Explain McAlpine v Bercow [2013]
Defamatory tweet by Bercow
Tweet was same time as serious allegations
Held that it was mistaken identity: the Lord was innocent
The tweet meant in ‘its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning that the claimant was guilty of the accusations
True or legal innuendo as people may have the additional knowledge to interpret the meaning
The point of law from the abolished Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001]
10 factors to be taken into account when determining whether publication of the relevant information is in the public interest and whether the defence of qualified privilege will be available
(1) The seriousness of the allegation – more serious, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the info is not true
(2) The nature of the information and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern
(3) The source of the information – validity
(4) The steps taken to verify the information
(5) The status of the information
(6) The urgency of the matter
(7) Whether comment was sought from the claimant – he might have vital information
(8) Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story
(9) The tone of the article – need not adopt allegations as statements of fact
(10) The circumstances of the publication, eg timing, the weight, and other relevant factors
Explain the point of law made in Joseph v Spiller [2010]
Defendants posted on their website that the claimants had breached the contract
There must be a fair balance between allowing freedom of expression, and stating why he is making that criticism
Supreme Court, the leading judgement given by Lord Phillips held that for the defence to be available the comment must identify at least in general terms what it is that led the commentator to make the comment so that the reader can understand
Mckennit v Ash [2008]
Reviewed the opinions in Campbell to set out the requirements:
(1) the info must be private
(2) whether it should remain private or yield to the defendant’s freedom of expression
