JK Rowling has recently won a privacy ruling on behalf of her son.
David Murray, now 5, was the subject of covertly taken photographs when aged 19 months, when out with his mother on a public street. Joanne Murray and her husband objected to this on the basis that it was an intrusion into David’s right to privacy. When summarizing the reasons for endorsing their case, Master of the Rolls Anthony Clarke stated “if a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent”.
This effectively overturns an earlier judgment that David had no arguable case that he had a right to privacy in a public place. It opens the door to further legal action, rather than being a conclusive result.
This case is also interesting in that it further bolsters the view that a breach of the right to privacy could automatically lead to a breach of the data protection act. If the right to privacy is breached, then use of that personal data may also constitute ‘unlawful and unfair’ use of a person’s personal data.
My opinion is that, at a simple level, this judgment is potentially a helpful clarification of the existing law of privacy in a specific context. The judgment does not extend the existing right to privacy. Rather it looks at the right to privacy afforded to the children of celebrities. J K Rowling was not trying to secure a ruling that she should be afforded a right to privacy in a public place, rather she was trying to secure a ruling that her child should not be subject to any more intrusion than any other child, notwithstanding her celebrity status.
The case will now proceed to full trial (assuming the parties do not settle) in due course.
Comments