Regina v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex Parte British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 6 Apr 2000

The Act protects the privacy of a corporate body. A television company which secretly filmed in a company’s store could be held to have infringed the privacy of the company by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Act went further than the Human Rights Convention in this respect, but there is no reason to limit the extent of the operation of the Act to match the convention. ‘An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate.’
Lord Mustill said: ‘To my mind the privacy of a human being denotes at the same time the personal ‘space’ in which the individual is free to be itself, and also the carapace, or shell, or umbrella, or whatever other metaphor is preferred, which protects that space from intrusion. An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate.’

Judges:

The Master Of The Rolls, Lady Justice Hale And Lord Mustill

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-2000, Gazette 28-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 116, [2001] QB 885

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Broadcasting Standards Act 1996 110 111, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation Admn 9-Jul-1999
The Corporation challenged a finding that it had infringed the privacy of a film subject of an investigation by the Watchdog programme. The corporation said that the subject, Dixons, as a corporation, had no right of privacy under Human Rights Law. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation Admn 9-Jul-1999
The Corporation challenged a finding that it had infringed the privacy of a film subject of an investigation by the Watchdog programme. The corporation said that the subject, Dixons, as a corporation, had no right of privacy under Human Rights Law. . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedLord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147149