Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Facts |
C was Naomi campbell (famous model) who was papped surreptitiously leaving a meeting of narcotics anonymous in a public street. D published the pictures along with details of C's addictions to drugs and her treatment regime. C had previously publicly denied taking drugs. She brought a claim for breach of confidence and the HoL eventually awarded her modest damages for the publication of the medical treatment. |
|
|
Issues with the case |
this was not a standard claim. the info was not in the public domain but the misinformation was. There was no pre-existing relationship between C and the photographer. Was there a legitimate public interest in the information? With the HRA in force, are the courts required to fashion doctrine in such a way as to protect C's Art 8 right to private life.
|
|
|
Lord Nicholls dissenting judgment |
The law imposes a duty of confidence wherever a person receives information he knows or ought to know is fairly and reasonably to regarded as confidential The continuing use of the phrase 'duty of confidence' and the description of information as 'confidential' is not altogether comfortable. It seems odd to say you are a confident if you have surreptitiously extracted info from the person especially with the view to publish it. The more natural description is to say the information is private The essence of the tort is better encapsulated now as misuse of private information The touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy Articles 8 and 10 call for more explicit analysis of competing considerations. |
|
|
Baroness Hale |
The exercise of balancing Art 8 and 10 may begin with the person publishing the information knowing or ought to know that there is a reasonable expectation that the information will be kept confidential. If this had been a picture of Naomi Campbell going about her business in a public street, there could have been no complaint...Readers will obviously be interest. There is nothing essentially private about this information (but remember if this is about a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities why does it matter what readers may be interested in? The courts will not invent a new cause of action to cover types of activity not previously covered...our law cannot, even if it wanted to, develop a general tort of invasion of privacy. But where existing remedies are available, the court not only can but must balance competing convention rights of parties (this is unusual for Hale but it may be because she was sat next to Lord Hoffmann who decided the Wainright case less than a year before and she was very new to the HL). |
|
|
Lord Hope |
The right of the media to import information to the public has to be balanced in its turn against the respect that must be given to private life. The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if she was placed in the same position as the claimant and faced with the same publicity. |
