Flashcards in Privacy Deck (13):
Spencer v UK
European Commission said photos taken without permission should be argued in terms of breach of confidence.
Peck v UK
Article 8 rights of applicant had been violated when CCTV images of him just after attempting suicide were broadcast, UK was in breach of Article 13 for not providing a remedy.
Von Hannover v Germany (2004)
European Court said everyone had legitimate expectation to respect for private life, domestic court had not protected this. Public interest in being informed must be justified, must add to debate and not just be for curiosity.
Von Hannover v Germany (2012)
German court allowed publication of one photo of family holiday in relation to a story speculating over the decision to go on holiday while the King of Monaco was ill, added to the debate over King's health.
W v Egdell
Doctor released medical details about prisoner to relevant parties, was justified due to public safety.
Douglas v Hello! (2001)
OK had exclusive right to wedding photography, other photographer snuck in and sold photos to Hello, claim for breach of confidence failed, requirements; (1) obligation of confidence, (2) which only arises on private occasions, and (3) the claimants have to have made clear that no photos are to be taken.
Douglas v Hello! (2005)
There was a successful claim for breach of confidence. House of Lords agreed that there were circumstances of confidence and the publication of the photos had been to the detriment of OK! Magazine.
Campbell v MGN
Claim for breach of confidence succeeded. Was in the public interest that she was having treatment for drug addiction, but details and location of the treatment was not in the public interest and shouldn't have been published.
H v News Group
Guidelines to regulate the award of injunctions were issued, court had to make public that proceedings occurred and the underlying reason for the injunction, as well as ongoing review of the injunction.
Wilkinson v Downton
D played practical joke on claimant by falsely telling her that her husband had been in an accident, resulted in her physical harm and mental distress. Requirements for claim, (1) false statement, (2) intention that the claimant rely on it, (3) to their detriment.
OPO v MLA
Rhodes case, relied on Wilkinson v Downton to have an injunction granted. There was concern that this decision would be a significant restriction on freedom of expression so an appeal was allowed.
Rhodes v OPO
Noticed that order under Wilkinson v Downton was novel in two ways, the material which was banned wasn't deceptive and the ban was aimed at the substance of the material and the language used. The order was overturned, law will usually not prevent release of distressing information.