The UK doesn't have a distinct 'law of privacy'. Privacy law has grown organically in recent years from a series of pre-existing laws, mainly surrounding breach of confidence and human rights legislation.
There have been a number of high profile cases which have affected the development of the law. These include Douglas v Hello (Catherine Zeta-Douglas and Michael Douglas wedding photos), Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (photos of Naomi Campbell leaving a clinic), or indeed the JK Rowling decision (JK Rowling's son entitlement to rivacy).
Last summer the High Court awarded Max Moseley £60,000 in damages for invasion of privacy when a video of him engaged in 'unconventional activities' was posted online. It subsequently formed the basis of a series of news articles, most notably in the News of the World (which resulted in this case).
This last case seems to have stirred the ire of a number of journalists, angry that the law of privacy has moved in a direction which they perceive restricts their freedom of speech. The Times commented on the growing 'privacy rights being created by the Courts'. Paul Dacre, Daily Mail editor, has also commented that the decisions have taken away their right to 'freedom of expression'.
On the back of this, Jack Straw is reported to have told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that, 'It is my intention — and I understand this is exactly what is going to happen — that there should be a select committee of MPs to look at the law of privacy'. It seems we should watch this space for potential legislative intervention.
This writer isn't a big fan of a moralising press trying to use freedom of speech as a justification for the publication of any sensational new story. There are competing rights involved here, and a sensible balanced approach needs to be taken between the rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of others to publish material they deem of public interest.
The organic development of the law on privacy could, therefore, justify a systematic review. The cases on this area have focussed on a small number of high profile individuals, with more time being spent on the interesting and contrversial facts and participants than on the law behind the cases. What is needed instead is a focus on the (tedious) detail that is required to make an effective legal framework. This issue doesn't just affect the press, it affects the right of the individual to privacy, or indeed to freedom of speech.
It is particularly important that this law is clear in a world where anyone could breach another's privacy simply by clicking 'post'.
Comments