Breach of Privacy

Question 1

Describe the concept of breach of confidence in relation to privacy.

Answer 1

Breach of confidence refers to the legal obligation to protect confidential information, which can intersect with privacy rights. It involves situations where private information is disclosed without consent, potentially leading to legal action.

Question 2

Explain the significance of the case Kaye v Robertson (1991) in privacy law.

Answer 2

Kaye v Robertson highlighted that English law does not recognize a right to privacy, establishing that there is no overarching legal action for invasion of privacy in the UK.

Question 3

Do English courts recognize a common law tort of privacy?

Answer 3

No, English courts do not recognize a common law tort of privacy, as confirmed in the case of Wainwright v Home Office (2003), which stated that any detailed approach to privacy rights would require legislation.

Question 4

How did the case Wainwright v Home Office (2003) impact the understanding of privacy rights in the UK?

Answer 4

The case reinforced the notion that there is no common law tort of privacy in the UK and emphasized the need for legislative action to address privacy rights.

Question 5

Explain the outcome of the Wainwright v Home Office case regarding damages.

Answer 5

The claimants were awarded basic and aggravated damages for the invasion of privacy, but the Court of Appeal allowed the Home Office’s appeal against the finding of trespass and reduced the damages awarded to the son.

Question 6

What was the primary issue in the case Hosking v Runting (2004)?

Answer 6

The primary issue was whether there was a freestanding tort of privacy in New Zealand and whether any legal action could prevent the publication of photographs taken without consent.

Question 7

Describe the ruling of the New Zealand Court in Hosking v Runting regarding privacy.

Answer 7

The New Zealand Court ruled by a majority that there is a freestanding tort of invasion of privacy, distinguishing it from breach of confidence, and clarified the need for separate legal actions.

Question 8

What are the two fundamental elements required for a successful claim of interference with privacy?

Answer 8

The two fundamental elements are: 1) the existence of facts that a reasonable person would expect to be private, and 2) publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.

Question 9

How does the concept of privacy differ from breach of confidence?

Answer 9

Privacy pertains to an individual’s right to keep personal information private, while breach of confidence involves the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, which may or may not relate to privacy.

Question 10

What did Randerson J conclude about the recognition of privacy as a distinct cause of action in Hosking v Runting?

Answer 10

Randerson J concluded that New Zealand courts should not recognize privacy as a distinct cause of action, although the majority later ruled otherwise.

Question 11

Describe the difference between privacy and breach of confidence.

Answer 11

Privacy is the right of an individual to be protected against intrusion into their personal life, while breach of confidence refers to a civil remedy that protects against the unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential information.

Question 12

Explain the definition of privacy according to the Calcutt Committee (1990).

Answer 12

The Calcutt Committee defined privacy as the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into their personal life or affairs, either by direct physical means or by the publication of information.

Question 13

Do the concepts of Article 8 and Article 10 relate to breach of confidence?

Answer 13

Yes, they relate to the balance between the right to privacy (Article 8) and the freedom of expression (Article 10).

Question 14

Define breach of confidence.

Answer 14

Breach of confidence is a civil remedy that provides protection against the disclosure or use of information that is not generally known and has been entrusted under an obligation of confidentiality.

Question 15

Explain the significance of the case Prince Albert v Strange (1849) in relation to breach of confidence.

Answer 15

This case is an early example of breach of confidence being used to protect privacy, where Prince Albert sought an injunction to prevent the publication of his private sketches.

Question 16

What are the three traditional elements of breach of confidence as summarized in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969)?

Answer 16

The three elements are: 1) The information must have the necessary quality of confidence. 2) The information must have been given in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. 3) There must have been unauthorized use of that information.

Question 17

How is ‘information’ defined in the context of breach of confidence?

Answer 17

‘Information’ in the context of breach of confidence refers to any data or knowledge that is shared in a confidential manner, which can include personal details, conversations, or any other sensitive material.

Question 18

Describe the case Stephens v Avery (1988) and its relevance to breach of confidence.

Answer 18

In this case, the defendant disclosed private conversations about sexual activities to a newspaper. The court held that the information was confidential and that the defendant had a duty not to disclose it.

Question 19

What was the outcome of HRH Princess of Wales v MGN Newspapers Ltd (1993)?

Answer 19

The court granted injunctions to prevent the publication of photographs of Princess Diana exercising, taken without her knowledge, reinforcing the principle of confidentiality.

Question 20

Explain the ruling in Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd (1993) regarding breach of confidence.

Answer 20

The court issued an injunction against the publication of photographs taken on the set of a film, ruling that the photographer knew the occasion was private and that confidentiality was expected.

Question 21

What is the basic principle of breach of confidence established since Stephens v Avery (1988)?

Answer 21

The basic principle is that confidentiality will be enforced if the information was received on the basis that it is confidential, whether communicated expressly or implied from the circumstances.

Question 22

Describe the case of Fairnie (Deceased) and Others v Reed and Another (1994).

Answer 22

The case involved confidential information about the format of a board game that the claimant mentioned during a conversation with a stranger. The Court of Appeal held that the information was given in confidence due to its clear commercial value.

Question 23

Explain the public interest defense in relation to confidentiality.

Answer 23

Confidential information will not be protected if the public interest outweighs the interest in preserving confidentiality, as seen in AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (no 2) (1990), where the public’s right to know about allegations in the book ‘Spycatcher’ outweighed the confidentiality.

Question 24

How does the principle of public domain affect confidentiality?

Answer 24

Once information enters the public domain, the principle of confidentiality generally cannot apply to it, as demonstrated in the Spycatcher case.

Question 25

Define the duty of confidence as established in AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No2) (1990).

Answer 25

A duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person in circumstances where they have agreed or are held to have agreed that the information is confidential.

Question 26

What is the significance of Article 8 ECHR in the context of privacy?

Answer 26

Article 8 ECHR, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, establishes the right to privacy, which must be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

Question 27

Do the rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 conflict?

Answer 27

Yes, the rights to privacy and freedom of expression can conflict, requiring careful consideration in legal cases.

Question 28

Explain the outcome of Campbell v MGM (2004).

Answer 28

In this case, Naomi Campbell sued the Daily Mirror for publishing a photo of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The House of Lords ruled that to succeed in a claim for misuse of private information, it must be established whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and if that right outweighed the defendant's freedom of expression.

Question 29

Describe the case of Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales (2006).

Answer 29

The case involved the Mail on Sunday publishing extracts from Prince Charles' diary, which were embarrassing for him. The extracts were written during a flight and had been shared with friends.

Question 30

Research the implications of breach of confidence in the case of Woodward v Hutchins (1977).

Answer 30

This case involved the unauthorized use of a recording of a private conversation, highlighting the legal boundaries of confidentiality.

Question 31

What was the focus of the case Lion Laboratories v Evans and Express Newspapers (1998)?

Answer 31

This case centered on the confidentiality of information regarding a breathalyzer test, examining the limits of breach of confidence.

Question 32

Summarize the case of Douglas v Hello (2005).

Answer 32

This case involved the unauthorized publication of wedding photographs of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, raising issues of privacy and breach of confidence.

Question 33

What was the significance of the case Re S (A Child) (Identification on Publication) (2004)?

Answer 33

This case addressed the identification of a surviving child in publications, emphasizing the importance of privacy in sensitive situations.

Question 34

Discuss the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 on breach of confidence and privacy.

Answer 34

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates rights to privacy and freedom of expression, creating a legal framework that must balance these competing interests in cases of breach of confidence.

Question 35

Describe the Prince's opinion on the handover ceremony.

Answer 35

The Prince described the handover ceremony as an 'awful Soviet-style' performance and 'ridiculous rigmarole', likening Chinese officials to 'appalling old waxworks'.

Question 36

Explain the outcome of the Prince's legal case against The Mail on Sunday.

Answer 36

The Prince won his case and gained an injunction that prevented The Mail on Sunday from publishing further extracts from his diary.

Question 37

Do Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers (2001) represent an exceptional case in legal history?

Answer 37

Yes, Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers (2001) is regarded as an exceptional case, as it involved convicted murderers seeking protection for their identities due to serious risks to their physical safety.

Question 38

How did the court justify granting an injunction in the case of Venables and Thompson?

Answer 38

The court justified granting an injunction by stating that the Claimants' rights under Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) demanded protection, which could be provided by extending the law of confidence.

Question 39

What criticism did the decision in Mosley v News Group Newspapers (2008) attract?

Answer 39

The decision attracted criticism from the media, which accused the court of introducing a new privacy law that would impose greater restrictions on the freedom of the press to publish stories about the rich and powerful.

Question 40

Define the role of the author in the case of Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers (2009).

Answer 40

The author was a serving police officer who blogged under a pseudonym about his police work and opinions on social and political issues, seeking to conceal his identity.

Question 41

What was the court's ruling regarding the author's expectation of privacy in the blog case?

Answer 41

The court ruled that the author of a blog is not protected by breach of confidence as blogging is considered a public activity, leading to the refusal of the injunction.

Question 42

Explain the significance of the case Terry v Persons Unknown (2010).

Answer 42

In Terry v Persons Unknown (2010), Premier League footballer John Terry was not granted a super-injunction to prevent The News of the World from publishing a story about his private life, highlighting the limits of privacy protections.

Question 43

Discuss the implications of the legal protections for the rich and powerful as seen in these cases.

Answer 43

The cases suggest that there are legal protections for the rich and powerful, raising questions about whether such protections are justified, especially when they may shield individuals from public scrutiny due to their actions.

Question 44

How did the courts respond to the requests for anonymity from notorious criminals like Mary Bell and Maxine Carr?

Answer 44

The courts granted similar orders for anonymity to Mary Bell and Maxine Carr, following the precedent set by Venables and Thompson.

Question 45

Describe the outcome of the High Court's decision regarding the injunction related to commercial interests.

Answer 45

The High Court rejected the injunction, ruling that its primary purpose was to protect commercial interests, particularly with sponsors, rather than to protect privacy.

Question 46

Explain the significance of the BBC v HarperCollins Ltd case in relation to confidentiality.

Answer 46

The court held that the identity of The Stig was generally accessible, leading to the conclusion that the information had lost its confidential character, resulting in the BBC not being granted the injunction.

Question 47

Do you know the main argument made by Rio Ferdinand in his case against the Sunday Mirror?

Answer 47

Ferdinand argued that the article published by the Sunday Mirror was a gross invasion of his privacy and claimed misuse of private information.

Question 48

How did the court rule in the Ferdinand v MGN case regarding privacy and freedom of expression?

Answer 48

The court ruled in favor of MGN, stating that the right to freedom of expression outweighed Ferdinand's right to privacy.

Question 49

Define the outcome of CTB v News Group Newspapers regarding privacy expectations.

Answer 49

The court held that CTB, a famous married footballer, had a reasonable expectation of privacy and was entitled to protection under Article 8.

Question 50

Explain the importance of the Von Hannover v Germany (No2) case in balancing privacy rights.

Answer 50

The ECtHR found that Germany did not fail in its obligation to respect the applicants' right to privacy when it refused to grant an injunction against the publication of a photograph of Princess Caroline.

Question 51

Describe the context of the Von Hannover v Germany (No1) case and its relation to the subsequent case.

Answer 51

In Von Hannover v Germany (No1), the court held that Princess Caroline's Article 8 rights were infringed by the publication of her with her children, leading to further legal actions for injunctions.

Question 52

How did the court view the public interest in the Ferdinand v MGN case?

Answer 52

The Mirror Group Newspapers argued that the article was in the public interest due to Ferdinand's recent appointment as England football team Captain.

Question 53

What was the primary legal focus in the CTB v News Group Newspapers case?

Answer 53

The primary legal focus was on CTB's reasonable expectation of privacy and the protection afforded to him under Article 8.

Question 54

Explain the role of Article 8 and Article 10 in privacy cases.

Answer 54

Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, while Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression, often requiring a balance between the two in legal cases.

Question 55

Describe the basis on which the German Court granted an injunction in the Von Hannover case.

Answer 55

The German Court granted an injunction for ⅔ of the photographs on the basis that they were wholly in the sphere of private life.

Question 56

Explain the significance of the first photo in the Von Hannover case.

Answer 56

The first photo showed Princess Caroline and her husband walking and was accompanied by an article about her father's poor health, which the Court held had to be considered in the context of the article, making it a matter of general interest.

Question 57

How did the ECtHR respond to Princess Caroline's appeal regarding Article 8 rights?

Answer 57

The ECtHR disagreed with Princess Caroline's claim and found in favor of the German Courts, stating that the photos contributed to a debate of public interest.

Question 58

Define the criteria used by the ECtHR when balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights.

Answer 58

The criteria include whether the information contributed to a debate of general interest, the prominence of the individual, their prior conduct, the content and consequences of the publication, and the circumstances under which the photos were taken.

Question 59

What was the outcome of the Springer v Germany case regarding Article 10 rights?

Answer 59

The ECtHR ruled that the Article 10 rights of a German newspaper were violated by injunctions preventing the publication of articles about a television actor's arrest, awarding damages and costs to the publisher.

Question 60

Explain the role of the ECtHR following the Von Hannover (No2) decision.

Answer 60

The ECtHR took on a supervisory role, providing relevant criteria for states to consider when balancing privacy rights under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10.

Question 61

Discuss the implications of the Von Hannover case for privacy rights in England and Wales.

Answer 61

The Von Hannover case serves as a precedent in balancing privacy rights against freedom of expression, influencing how courts in England and Wales approach similar cases.

Question 62

How does the law in England and Wales protect against unwanted media intrusion?

Answer 62

The law protects against unwanted media intrusion through various legal frameworks, including privacy laws and the Human Rights Act, which balance individual privacy rights with freedom of expression.

Question 63

Identify examples of when the law protects privacy in England and Wales.

Answer 63

Examples include cases where individuals have successfully claimed against media intrusion into their private lives, such as in instances of unauthorized photography or publication of private information.

Question 64

What are some instances when the law protects the media’s freedom of expression?

Answer 64

Instances include cases where the media is allowed to publish information of public interest, such as political scandals or matters of significant public concern.

Question 65

Evaluate the balancing act between Article 8 and Article 10 in media cases.

Answer 65

The balancing act involves weighing the individual's right to privacy against the media's right to freedom of expression, often requiring case-by-case analysis to determine which right takes precedence.