Privacy

Question 1

ZXC v Bloomberg

Answer 1

publication of a news article that he was implicated in an investiagtion into bribery and corruption

• In general up to the point of charge a person has a general expectation of privacy in an ongoing police investigation
• the fact that none of B’s staff appeared to have appreciated the highly cofnidential nature of LoR did not alter that position. B’s jsutifcations for the breach of ZXC’s did not either individually or collectively outweigh his article 8 rights.

Question 2

Ali v channel 5 broadcasting LTD

Answer 2

• footage of an eviction in a documentary had gone beyond what was justified to contribute to a debate of public interest
• editorial discretion could not render lawful an interference with privacy which could not rationally be justified by reference to the public interest served by publication
• If public interest could justify then the court should be slow to interfere.

Question 3

Khan v Bar standards board

Answer 3

• an experienced barrister broadcast rape and conspiracy allegations against a named fellow barrister on two occassions in a barristers robing room.
• the robing room was not to be regarded as a “no-go” area for the regulator in any circumstances
• had spoken publicly of criminal allegations, his knowledge of which derived from his professional invovlement in a matter where no charges had been brought.
• the open justice principle did not extend that far; the starting point in such a case was that the person under criminal investigation had a reasonable expectation of privacy.