Lech Garlicki, P
[2010] ECHR 1968, (2011) 53 EHRR 19, 10734/05
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Mackay and BBC Scotland v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Mackay And BBC Scotland v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Oct-2009
. .

Cited by:
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564192

The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards the claimant, but now it additionally sought to identify the woman involved.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘what is of interest to the public is not the same as what it is in the public interest to publish. Newspaper editors have the final decision on what is of interest to the public: judges have the final decision what it is in the public interest to publish.’ The newspaper had first alleged that she had been involved in deciding his severance package, but when challenged accepted that this was not true. They then said that the woman’s identity was not needed for the story. NGN then argued that she had been promoted while he was Chief Executive. Again they now accepted this was wrong. They then said that the relationship should have been disclosed, but, having been disclosed the bank had made no critism of her.
Though it was not clear that, in view of the claimant’s position, the woman would establish an expectation of privacy at trial, there are degrees of privacy, and allowing the publication of identifying details would remain a disproportionate interference in her private life, though the injunction was relaxed to allow publication of her job description. The countervailing article 10 rights did not in this case justify further intrusion.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1437 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Mar-2011
The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. . .
See Also – Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the . .
See Also – Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Cited – Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Cited – Ntuli v Donald CA 16-Nov-2010
The defendant sought the discharge of a super-injunction, an order against not only the identification of the parties, but also the existence of the proceedings.
Held: The order preventing publication of the underlying allegations remained, . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to the circumstances under which the identity of a claimant should be protected in an action where he sought to restrain the publication of private information about him.
Held: Tugendhat J accepted the proposition . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Lord 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 . .
Cited – A v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-2002
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court.
Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within . .
Cited – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .

Cited by:
Cited – In re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
Cited – Ferdinand v MGN Limited QBD 29-Sep-2011
The claimant, a famous footballer, complained that an article by the defendant relating an affair he had had, had infringed his right to privacy. The defendant relied on its right to freedom of expression. The claimant had at an earlier stage, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.440470

A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that there was any proper public interest in the proposed publication, and balancing the article 10 and 8 rights on the facts of the case, the injunction should continue.
Eady J denied any recent creation of a right of privacy by the courts, saying: ‘The courts are required to carry out a balancing exercise between competing Convention rights, as was always overtly acknowledged by the government prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was, for example, explained by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, when the bill was before the House of Lords on 24 November 1997 (Hansard, HL Debates, Col.785). He said that any privacy law developed by the judges following the enactment would be a better law because they would have to balance and have regard to both Article 8 and Article 10 (as indeed has been happening over the last decade). When the statute came into effect in October 2000, it explicitly required the courts to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence when discharging those responsibilities.
Despite this long history, it has for several years been repeatedly claimed in media reports that courts are ‘introducing a law of privacy by the back door’. Yet the principles have long been open to scrutiny. They are readily apparent from the terms of the Human Rights Act, and indeed from the content of the European Convention itself. Furthermore, they were clearly expounded seven years ago in two decisions of the House of Lords which was, of course, at that time the highest court in this jurisdiction: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 and Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593.
Since those decisions were promulgated in 2004, the law has been loyally applied by the courts in a wide variety of circumstances and exhaustively explained in numerous appellate judgments. ‘

Eady J
[2011] EWHC 1232 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ambrosiadou v Coward CA 12-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against a refusal to continue an injunction restricting publication of documents filed within divorce ancillary relief proceedings. . .
Cited – Ntuli v Donald CA 16-Nov-2010
The defendant sought the discharge of a super-injunction, an order against not only the identification of the parties, but also the existence of the proceedings.
Held: The order preventing publication of the underlying allegations remained, . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Applied – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Lord 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 . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright infringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: Upheld, although the judge had given insufficient . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – ASG v GSA CA 21-Aug-2009
Appeal against refusal of a without notice injunction preventing publication of information said to be confidential. . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd Admn 13-May-2009
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent . .
Cited – Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd CA 16-Dec-1994
The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by . .
Cited – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Cited – Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl HL 11-Oct-2006
The House was asked as to the capacity of a limited company to sue for damage to its reputation, where it had no trading activity within the jurisdiction, and as to the extent of the Reynolds defence. The defendants/appellants had published an . .
Cited – Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers and others QBD 8-Jan-2001
Where it was necessary to protect life, an order could be made to protect the privacy of individuals, by disallowing publication of any material which might identify them. Two youths had been convicted of a notorious murder when they were ten, and . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .

Cited by:
See Also – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (3) QBD 23-May-2011
The defendant applied to be released from an injunction protecting the claimant’s privacy. It said that the claimant’s identity had been revealed on Twitter and now by a member of parliament in parliament.
Held: The application was refused. . .
See Also – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.439743

The Court said: ‘The Court has also emphasised on numerous occasions that, although the public has a right to be informed, and this is an essential right in a democratic society which, in certain special circumstances, can even extend to aspects of the private life of public figures, articles aimed solely at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of a person’s private life, however well-known that person might be, cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest to society (see Von Hannover, cited above, para 65; MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, no 39401/04, [2011] ECHR 66, para 143, 18 January 2011; and Alkaya v Turkey, no. 42811/06, [2012] ECHR 1790, para 35, 9 October 2012).
Thus, an article about the alleged extra-marital relationships of high-profile public figures who were senior State officials contributed only to the propagation of rumours, serving merely to satisfy the curiosity of a certain readership (see Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2), no 21277/05, [2009] ECHR 853, para 52, 4 June 2009). Equally, the publication of photographs showing scenes from the daily life of a princess who exercised no official functions was aimed merely at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership (see Von Hannover, cited above, para 65, with further references). The Court reiterates in this connection that the public interest cannot be reduced to the public’s thirst for information about the private life of others, or to the reader’s wish for sensationalism or even voyeurism.’

40454/07 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Grand Chamber)), [2015] ECHR 992
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Couderc And Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France ECHR 12-Jun-2014
. .

Cited by:
Cited – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd SC 19-May-2016
The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554619

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Publisher ordered to pay damages for an article harshly critical of MP’s remarks and conduct during parliamentary debate on legal regulation of same-sex relationships: violation
Facts – The applicant company published an article harshly criticising S.P., at the time a Member of Parliament, for his remarks and conduct during a parliamentary debate on the legal regulation of same-sex relationships. The article described S.P.’s conduct as that of a ‘cerebral bankrupt’ who, in a country with less limited human resources, would not even be able to find work as a primary school janitor. In the parliamentary debate in question, S.P. had portrayed homosexuals as a generally undesirable sector of the population. In order to reinforce his point, he made effeminate gestures intended to portray a homosexual man. Following a civil action filed by S.P., the applicant company was ordered to pay damages and to publish the introductory and operative parts of the district court’s judgment in its weekly magazine. The domestic courts considered that the impugned comments were objectively offensive, lacked sufficient factual basis, and that the use of such offensive language did not serve the purpose of imparting information to the public.
Law – Article 10: The statement at issue had been made in the press in the context of a political debate on a question of public interest, where few restrictions were acceptable. Moreover, a politician had to display greater tolerance than a private individual, especially when he himself had previously made public statements susceptible of criticism. In this connection, the Court reiterated that journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation.
It was true that the terms used in the article to describe S.P.’s conduct were extreme and could have legitimately been considered offensive. However, the remark describing him as a ‘cerebral bankrupt’ had been a value judgment. The facts on which that statement was based were outlined in considerable detail and their description was followed by the author’s commentary which, in the Court’s opinion, had the character of a metaphor. In the context of what appeared to be an intense debate in which opinions had been expressed with little restraint, the Court interpreted the impugned statement as an expression of strong disagreement, rather than a factual assessment of S.P.’s intellectual abilities. Viewed in this light, the description of his speech and conduct was to be regarded as sufficient foundation for the impugned statement. Moreover, the statement was a counterpoint to S.P.’s own remarks which could be regarded as ridicule promoting negative stereotypes. Lastly, the article matched not only S.P.’s provocative comments, but also the style in which he had expressed them. Even offensive language, which might fall outside the protection of freedom of expression if its sole intent was to insult, might be protected when serving merely stylistic purposes. Viewed in the light of the context in which the impugned statement was made, and the style used in the article, the Court considered that it had not amounted to a gratuitous personal attack. Therefore, the domestic courts had not convincingly established any pressing social need for placing the protection of S.P.’s reputation above the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. The interference had not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,921.05 in respect of pecuniary damage.

20981/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 425, 20981/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 548, [2014] ECHR 767
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526272

peck_ukECHR2003

The claimant had been filmed by CCTV. He had, after attempting suicide, left home with a knife, been arrested by the police and disarmed, but then sent home without charge. The CCTV film was used on several occasions to advertise the effectiveness of the CCTV system, of the police and otherwise. Only in later versions was his identity protected.
Held: The disclosure infringed his rights of privacy: ‘Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. The court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name, sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Art. 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’.’ The distribution of the footage without appropriate conditions to protect his privacy, infringed article 8. The distribution generated far more publicity than would have arisen otherwise, and was a serious breach. There were no relevant or sufficient reasons for the publicity. The English legal system had not afforded him a remedy, infringing also his article 13 rights.

Times 03-Feb-2003, 44647/98, (2003) 36 EHRR 41, [2003] ECHR 44, [2003] 36 EHRR 719, [2011] ECHR 1661
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 13
Cited by:
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Campbell 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 . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD 24-Nov-2005
Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – Murray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.178834

Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Newspaper editorial criticising applicant without insulting her or calling for the use of violence: no violation
Facts – The applicant wrote a book containing the testimonies of former soldiers who had fought against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She was prosecuted in connection with its publication on a charge of insulting the armed forces of the State, before being acquitted in September 2000. In August 2001 a newspaper printed a series of editorial articles which contained virulent criticism of the applicant. In October 2001 she applied to the courts seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage she had allegedly sustained as a result of the publication of the articles. Following lengthy proceedings her claims were eventually dismissed by the domestic courts.
Law – Article 8: The applicant, a public figure, had attracted more attention following the publication of her book and the considerable publicity surrounding the criminal proceedings against her that resulted from it. The articles in question had concerned topical subjects of general interest. Owing to the style used, the impugned pieces of journalism had directly engaged the reader on the subject of the facts set out in them. The tone of the articles had been incisive and ironic, they had included numerous negative comments and the journalist had expressed clear scepticism as to the authenticity of the interviews in the applicant’s book. The articles had also challenged the applicant directly. They claimed that she had received funding for the writing of the book from an American foundation with supposed links to the CIA, and cast doubt on her ideological and financial motives for writing the book.
The language used could be considered provocative. However, while any individual who took part in a public debate of general concern must not overstep certain limits, particularly with regard to respect for the reputation and the rights of others, a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, was permitted. Moreover, the allegations made by the journalist in question had not been without some factual basis, especially regarding the funding received by the applicant for the writing of the book. The various ways in which the journalist had speculated about and interpreted the applicant’s motives for writing the book had been recognisable as personal comments and expressions of opinion and easily identifiable as such by the reader. Explanations had been printed in the form of a summary of statements including those of the applicant and of the chairman of the foundation in question, accompanied by comments from the journalist.
It was true that the applicant had been the subject, over a period of around ten days, of articles amounting to virulent criticism against her. However, the articles in question had been editorials which, although very forthright in tone, had not contained personal insults against the applicant or calls for the use of violence against her. In that sense their content was not sufficient to establish that they would in themselves have been capable of endangering the applicant’s physical safety or that of her family and friends.
Lastly, the domestic courts had stressed both the importance of press freedom and its limits with regard to the personality rights of others. The case had been examined three times by the Court of Cassation and the latter, sitting as a full civil court, had eventually concluded, after weighing up the different interests at stake, that the articles in question had remained within the bounds of permissible criticism.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

54997/08 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 887
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Citing:
Full judgment – Mater v Turkey ECHR 16-Jul-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.516033

The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the internet and in print media.
Held: The Court of Appeal had erred. Its: ‘initial self-direction is . . contrary to considerable authority, including authority at the highest level, which establishes that, even at the interlocutory stage, (i) neither article has preference over the other, (ii) where their values are in conflict, what is necessary is an intense focus on the comparative importance of the rights being claimed in the individual case, (iii) the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account and (iv) the proportionality test must be applied’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 26, [2016] WLR(D) 272, [2016] 1 AC 1081, [2016] EMLR 21, [2016] 2 WLR 1253, [2016] FSR 33, [2016] 2 FLR 251, [2016] Fam Law 963, [2016] HRLR 13, [2016] 4 All ER 554, UKSC 2016/0080
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Human Rights Act 1998 12
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 18-Apr-2016
The claimant celebrity had obtained an injunction restraining the defendant newspaper from publishing details of his extra marital activities. The newspaper appealed, saying that the information had already been printed abroad, and had been widely . .
Cited – Rex v John Wilkes, Esq 7-Feb-1770
The law must be applied even if the heavens fell
An information for a misdemeanor may be amended the day before trial by a single Judge at chambers on hearing both sides and without the consent of the defendant.
On setting aside John Wilkes’ outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord . .
Cited – Axel Springer Ag v Germany ECHR 7-Feb-2012
ECHR Grand Chamber – A German newspaper had published a story or stories about the arrest and conviction of a well-known TV actor, together with photographs, and various restraining-type orders had been issued by . .
Cited – Hutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 19-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against the refusal of a privacy order, protecting his identity in his claim.
Held: The appeal was refused. That Article 8 was ‘engaged’ was not conclusive of the question whether the claimant enjoyed a reasonable . .
At CA – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 22-Jan-2016
The claimants sought to restrain newspapers from publishing their identities in the context of allegations of sexual misconduct. They now appealed against rejection of their request for an interim injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Terry (previously LNS) v Persons Unknown QBD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant (then known as LNS) had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of private materials.
Held: There was insufficient material to found an action in confidence or privacy. An applicant was unlikely to succeed either at an . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Couderc And Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France ECHR 10-Nov-2015
The Court said: ‘The Court has also emphasised on numerous occasions that, although the public has a right to be informed, and this is an essential right in a democratic society which, in certain special circumstances, can even extend to aspects of . .
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (3) QBD 23-May-2011
ctb_ngn4QBD11
The defendant applied to be released from an injunction protecting the claimant’s privacy. It said that the claimant’s identity had been revealed on Twitter and now by a member of parliament in parliament.
Held: The application was refused. . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
ctb_ngn2QBD11
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Cited – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to the circumstances under which the identity of a claimant should be protected in an action where he sought to restrain the publication of private information about him.
Held: Tugendhat J accepted the proposition . .
Cited – Editions Plon (Societe) v France ECHR 15-Sep-2010
The case concerns the banning of distribution, in January 1996, of the book ‘Le Grand Secret’, co-authored by a journalist and President Mitterrand’s personal physician. The book was published by the applicant company nine days after the President’s . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Apr-2008
The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction requiring the defendant not to publish a film on its website.
Held: A claimant’s Article 8 rights may be engaged even where the information in question has been previously publicised. . .
Cited – Armonas v Lithuania ECHR 25-Nov-2008
The Court emphasised the duty of the press to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest, but noted that: ‘a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts – even if controversial – capable of contributing to a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (T/A Amazing Animals) and Another v Captive Animals Protection Society ChD 20-May-2016
The claimant said that the defendant had, through its members visiting their premises, breached the licence under which they entered, by taking photographs and distributing them on the internet, and in so doing also infringing the performance rights . .
Cited – ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust QBD 26-Jul-2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed
The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised.
Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed.
As to . .
Cited – Re Al M (Children) CA 28-Feb-2020
Publication of Children judgment – wide publicity
F brought wardship proceedings in respect of M and F’s two children, seeking their return to Dubai. F was the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai. Media companies now sought publication of earlier judgments, and F appealed from an order for their . .
Cited – ZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.564495

Balance of Religious Tolerance and Freedom

The Institut operated a cinema. It announced a showing of a film ‘Das Liebenconzil’. Proceedings were brought against it, on complaint by the Roman Catholic Church, in which it was accused of ‘disparaging religious doctrine’. The film was seized before it could be shown. The Court found that in the film ‘God the Father is presented both in image and in text as a senile, impotent idiot, Christ as a cretin and Mary Mother of God as a wanton lady with a corresponding manner of expression and in which the Eucharist is ridiculed’ and its showing was a criminal offence under Austrian law.
Held: (Palm, Pekkanen, Makarczyk JJ dissenting) Article 10.2 includes an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others, and thus an infringement of their rights: ‘Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they do so as members of a religious majority or a minority, cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith. However, the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 (art. 9) to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines. Indeed, in extreme cases the effect of particular methods of opposing or denying religious beliefs can be such as to inhibit those who hold such beliefs from exercising their freedom to hold and express them.’
‘freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of everyone. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’ . . This being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent improper attacks on objects of religious veneration, provided always that any ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’

R Ryssdal, P
13470/87, (1994) 19 EHRR 34, [1994] ECHR 26
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9 10
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
Cited – Gaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165328

Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established.’ and established by the party seeking to justify the interference. ‘Necessity’ means a pressing social need.

13166/87, [1992] 14 EHRR 123, [1991] ECHR 50, (1992) 14 EHRR 229
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Dec-2001
The defendant had been convicted of using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress, when she defaced the US flag, and stood on it before a US military officer. She said that the defacing of flags was a common form of protest, . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
Cited – Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and Others CA 1-Apr-1993
Four articles in the People all covered the same story about Esther Rantzen’s organisation, Childline, suggesting that the plaintiff had protected a teacher who had revealed to Childline abuses of children occurring at a school where he taught, by . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Cited – Howarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
howarth_cmpQBD2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
Cited – Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Sep-2005
The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165138

References: Unreported, 19 October 2001
Coram: Connell J
Complaint was made about the publication of photographs of the survivor of conjoined twins who was only one year old. The photographs were taken in a street in Malta but followed the earlier publication of photographs and press articles based on interviews which the child’s parents gave in order to raise money for her care.
Held: The photograph constituted at most a minimal breach of the right to privacy given the innocuous nature of the photographs and the fact that they would not enable the reader to make a subsequent identification of the child. The court doubted whether Article. 8 was engaged at all given the public nature of the area where they were taken.
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Murray -v- Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch), Times 04-Oct-07, [2008] 1 WLR 2846)
  The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
  Held: The . .
• Cited – Murray -v- Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray -v- Express Newspapers CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2008] 3 WLR 1360, [2008] HRLR 33, [2008] UKHRR 736, [2008] 2 FLR 599, [2008] 3 FCR 661, [2008] ECDR 12, [2008] EMLR 1, [2008] Fam Law 732, [2009] Ch 481)
  The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .