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;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Von Hannover v Germany (no 1) |
Photos taken and published of Princess Caroline of Monacco and her family going about their daily business in public. Having failed to remedy this before the German courts, she took the case to the ECtHR. It was held there had been a violation of Art 8. There is a zone of interaction of a person with others even in a public context which may fall within the scope of 'private life' |
|
|
Philipson (on Von Hannover No 1) |
No sooner had the HL developed a common law to meet the standard of protection thought to be required by Art 8 then Strasbourg moves the goalposts. |
|
|
Murray v Express Newspapers Facts |
Covert photos taken of JK Rowling's son (the claimant) and published by D. Consent was not sought by D of the parents. The pictures were taken in the street and C sought an injunction restraining further publication. The reason the son claimed was because the lawyer for Rowling wanted to distinguish it further from Campbell as this could be a case where a celebrity was not claiming. Injunction denied by High Court but allowed by CA. |
|
|
Murray v Express Newspapers CA reasoning |
They confirm C may have a reasonable expectation of privacy distinct from his parents and that he may have it in a public place. There are two tests for determining whether C has a reasonable expectation of privacy 1) the obviously private test (nature of the information) 2) Holistic test (consideration of all relevant circumstances) Where 1 is not satisfied, the court will proceed to 2 |
|
|
Desire to balance Art 8 and 10 |
Key concept of an MPI claim not part of BOC. |
|
|
Re S (a child) (balancing 8 and 10) |
Lord Steyn delivers the ultimate balancing test: 1) neither article has such a precedence over the other 2) Where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case s necessary 3) The justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account 4) the proportionality test must be applied to each. |
|
|
Mckennit v Ash |
C was a famous Canadian folk singer. D was a friend of C and wrote a book in which she examined C's personal life, sexual relations, emotional vulnerability and response to the death of her fiance. C argued this was a breach of confidence (or MPI), Eady J decided in favour of C. Decision upheld by CA and HL refused to grant an appeal. |
|
|
Mosley v NGN Ltd (facts) |
Mosley held a prominent role in F1 racing. He was the son of Sir Oswal Mosley who was a prominent fascist leader. News of the World got hold of the story of him sleeping with prostitutes in an alleged nazi theme orgy. They paid a prostitute to take pictures and video tape the activities. C argued the relevant material was private and that there was a pre-existing relationship of confidentiality between participants. C argued there had been a wrongful breach of trust. A argued that Mosley didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because of the nazi theme and even if he did, his art 8 rights were overridden by those associated with Art 10. They said the public had a right to know. |
|
|
Mosley v NGN Ltd (judgment)
|
Eady J said that Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The scret recording in particualr engaged with Art 8. Mosley was awarded £60,000 (which was the record sum of damages pre the phone hacking scandal). The court said 'the scale of distress and indignity in this case is difficult to comprehend.' |
|
|
Vidal-Hall v Google Inc |
Google Inc is the American component of Google. Case concerned allegations that google had been installing privacy violating technologies through the safari browser in apple computes. Claimants wanted to serve a claim against Google Inc (America) so wanted to bring the claim outside the jurisdiction which can only be done in tort and not equity. C had to pursuade the court that the cause of action being relied upon was a tort. They argued that MPI and BOC are a tort. Court agreed with MPI claim but not with BOC. CA agreed. Supreme Court refused to allow an appeal so we don't have any judgment analysis why MPI has suddenly become a tort. |
|
|
Kay critiquing Von Hannover No 1 |
Argues the definition of invasion of privacy as one which interferes with 'physical and psychological integrity is over-inclusive and potentially so lacking in clarity that it is contrary to the rule of law. |
|
|
Von Hannover v Germany No 2 (facts) |
Caroline and husband brought civil actions in Germany to prevent publication of 3 photos taken whilst on holiday as a family. She argued the scenes captured in the photos were wholly in the private sphere (they were relying heavily on the first ruling). German court rejected Caroline's argument as they said that privacy related interests must give way to the freedom of the press. ECtHR also said no violation of Art 8 |
|
|
Von Hannover v Germany No 2 (judgment)
|
On establishing a fair balance between Art 8 and 10, the ECtHR identified a range of relevant considerations: 1) contribution to a debate of general interest 2) how well known is the person concerned and what is the subject of the report 3) prior conduct of the person concerned 4) method of obtaining the information and its veracity 5) content, form and consequences of publication 6) severity of sanction imposed on domestic courts Court suggested the claimant must be regarded as public figures rather than ordinary private individuals. Also highlighted the margin of appreciation: when the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the court's case law, the court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the courts. |
|
|
X and Yv Netherlands |
16 year old girl was house in a mental facility. once she was 16 she was sexually abused by the director's son in law. She was not mentally competent to press charges for rape. Father's denouncement of the crime to the authorities was not sufficient to stand in for the girl's own complaint. Prosecution declined to prosecute as long as B did not re-offend for 2 years. Applicant claimed violation of Art 3 and 8. 'The court finds that the protection afforded by the civil law in this case of wrongdoing of the kind inflicted on Miss Y is insufficient...effective deterrence...can be achieved only by criminal law provisions. court found violation of art 8. Applicant awarded compensation |
|
|
Peck v UK |
CCTV installed in Brentwood in the 90s. Applicant caught on CCTV following attempted suicide. Police intervened and took him to hospital. Images were then released by the press in error as part of the campaign to demonstrate the benefits of CCTV for preventing crime. In the papers, the pic of him wielding a knife were displayed as an example of a criminal being caught on CCTV. The applicant attempted a judicial review but this was unsuccessful. But the ECtHR found a violation of Art 8 as the release of images was a legitimate aim but disproportionate given the harm it caused to the individual. He was awarded damages (though these didn't cover the cost of getting the case to court). |
|
|
S & Marper v Uk |
concerned the permanent retention of fingerprint and DNA data of all suspected but unconvinced people. The ECtHR was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention. They said this was not acceptable. |
|
|
Reklos & Davourlis v Greece |
Photos were taken of a new born baby without the parent's permission and photographer tried to sell them to the parents. They never wanted the photos so wanted the hospital to give them the photos. Parents took issue with the fact the photos were kept without permission. Court said it didn't matter that the child was only a baby and so too young to know what was happening. They said the key issue was that the photos were taken without consent. This decision contrasts with English decision as the court deemed there to be a violation of privacy despite the fact that the photos had not been published. |
|
|
Soderman v Sweden |
14 yr old girl videoed using the shower by her step dad. She noticed it and told her mum. Step father was thrown out and the tape was instantly destroyed. Problem was that in Swedish law there was no evidence of a crime being committed. No criminal or civil remedy available at the time in Sweden. Also this didn't fit Swedish definition of child pornorgraphy. ECtHR said violation of Art 8 as there was no remedy or deterrent to guard against the infringement of the applicant's personal integrity (cf Wainright). Does his require a new tort of English law? |
|
|
Theakston v MGM |
Would publication of photos and the fact that Theakston was engaged in a 'transitory engagement in a brothel' constitute a breach of confidence? Judge refused to grant a complete injunction as a brother 'is not a private place'. He said that as Theakston had discussed relationships with well known personalities previously, 'he cannot complain if publicity given to his sexual activities is less favourable in these circumstances.' |
|
|
A v B |
Gary Flitcroft had an extra-marital affair with a lap dancer who sold her story to the press. Court had to consider both her and the newspaper's right to freedom of expression. Interim injunction was granted but CA discharged it. Public interest to know how role models (i.e. professional footballers) conduct themselves. But this brings difficulties of conceptualising what is a role model. Compare with other cases of Ferdinand, Mclaren and Terry |
|
|
Spelman (who is a role model) |
Son of a British minister. He was a youth level rugby player and was 17 when the case was brought. He played rugby for England at under 16 level. Alegations were made against him about him taking performance enhancing drugs. He sought an injunction but was refused as he was a role model (this expanded the ordinary meaning of 'role model'. cf Mosley |
|
|
AAA v Associated Newspapers |
Child was the daughter of a women who had apparently had an affair with a well known politician. Daily Mail published pictures of the child and information concerning her paternity. Child brings MPI action through her maternal step grandfather for damages. HC grants damages for the pictures but not the information (as the public interest outweighed her right to privacy). HC refuses injunction to prevent further publication of the information because before the story was published the child's mother went on a weekend retreat at which there were lots of important people. Nicholas Coleridge was there and the president of the publishing house. She told him about the affair. court said this reduced the child's right to privacy. CA upheld the HC decision |
|
|
Weller v Associated Newspapers |
Paparazzi in Santa Monica took pictures of Paul Weller's daughter (16) and two young sons in a public place. Pictures were published on a UK website. HC rules in favour of the children. Two sons are awarded less damages than the daughter. HC applied the 'ultimate balancing test' and then covered the 6 part balancing test. In most cases, courts deem that younger children need more protection. Here they gave the elder child higher damages because they felt that she would be able to appreciate the intrusion of her privacy. Defence tried to argue she was a public figure (as she had modelled in a few magazines) but court rejected this. Cf spelman. |
|
|
K v News Group Newspaper (third party interests) |
K was a married man who had an affair with a colleague. His wife found out and the affair ended so they tried to repair their marriage. Colleague was dismissed for her job. Newspaper planned to publish the story, claiming a public interest in the fact that the colleague had seemingly been dismissed due to her affair with K. K sought an injunction as himself, his wife and the colleague all wanted to restrain publication. Injunction was refused by the duty judge but permission was given to appeal. CA heard the application the following morning. CA grants injunction. The key interest was of K's children to 'save them from playground ridicule that would inevitably follow publicity. They are bound to be harmed by immediate publicity, both because it would undermine the family as a whole and because the playground is a cruel place.' Note the interests of third parties who weren't even mentioned by the barrister. Also the three cases relied on by the judges were ll conceptually different e.g. dealing with deportation or obligations of a third party. |
|
|
CDE v MGN (6 months before K case) (third party interests) |
Claiamant regularly appeared on TV. Sought an injunction preventing a 'kiss and tell' story. Pointed to the impact on his children if the story was published. Eady said 'there can be little doubt that the coverage contemplated would be intrusive upon the claimant's family life...It is well established that the first question the court has to address on applications of this kind is whether Art 8 rights are engaged. the fact that the claimant has a wife and children simply means there are more persons who have rights to be taken into account.' But Eady J doesn't cite many sources to back his claim of it being 'well established' (in fact he cites himself) |
|
|
Gulati v MGN (towards intrusion?) |
Record levels of damages were awarded in the phone hacking scandal. In many instances of phone hacking, the information obtained had not been published. So what was the 'misuse' here? |
|
|
Structuring an MPI claim |
1) Does C have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information complained of? 2) Has there been a misuse of the information 3) The ultimate balancing test 4) Whether C is a public figure/role model could be relevant at either/both stages 1 and 2 The actions of 3rd parties may impact on C's claim at stage 1 The interests/rights of 3rd parties may bolster C's claim at stage 2 |
