privacy

• Pre-HRA approach to privacy:


  Attorney General v Guardian Newspaper Ltd (No 2)[1990]
• Traditional 'piecemeal' privacy protection


  Coco v AN Clark Ltd [1968]
• invasion of privacy approach


  Kaye v Robertson and Sport Newspaper Ltd
• if proceedings relate to journalistic, literary of artistic material, courts must decide whether providing relief for invasion of privacy would unjustifiably impact on freedom of expression


  s12(4) HRA 1998
• Campbell v MGN [2004] test for misuse of private information:

  1, Does C have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

  2, Does C's interest in maintaining right to privacy outweigh D's interest in freedom of expression?
• Misuse of private information tort

  Vidal Hall v Google
• Remedies for privacy:


  -damages -> Campbell

  -interim injunction -> PJS v News Group

  -'super-injunctions' -> AMM v HXW
• Kaye v Robertson and Sport Newspapers

  • journalist gained entry to unconscious man's room to take and publish photos, since privacy tort did not exist, his injunction failed
  • CA recognised the need for a privacy tort
• Malone v MPC

  • emphasised the courts should not legislate on privacy as it is difficult to do so when parliament hasn't
  • further acknowledged in Wainwright
• Von Hannover v Germany

  • displayed changing judicial attitudes and held that the key issue when weighing up the rights under Art 8 and 10 was how far the info being published would be in the 'public interest' which is different from what the public might be interested in
• ETK v Newsgroup Newspapers

  • courts should put particular emphasis on the Art 8 rights of any children likely to be affected by a publication
• Weller and others v Associated Newspapers

  • confirmed that children may have different expectations regarding their privacy
• Murray v Express Newspapers plc

  • suggested there will always be a legitimate expectation of privacy if you are a young child of a famous person
  • used in AAA v Associated Newspaper Ltd, where the claim failed
• Attorney General v Guardian Newspaper

  • a duty of confidentiality exists when a party gains information and knows (or ought to know) that they would be expected to keep it confidential, however it was obtained
• Vidal-Hall and others v Google

  • confirmed the existence of the misuse of private information tort
  • reaffirmed in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd
• Wainwright v Home Office

  • held that no invasion of privacy tort exists and instead other legal mechanisms should be used
• Peck v UK

  • c was able to sue under Art 8 and 13 violations
  • implied that human rights claims can be effective in gaining remedy for privacy breaches
• 'reasonable expectation of privacy'

  • held in Campbell that this arises when it is 'obvious' that the information being disclosed is private
• McKennitt v Ash

  • used the Campbell test and held that there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy in friendship
• Jagger v Darling

  • held that in order for the public interest defence to succeed, the interest must be legitimate
• Coco v AN Clark test

  1. The information is confidential
  2. The owner shared the information in confidential circumstances
  3. The recipient used the information to the owner’s detriment