Privacy PDF

Privacy European convention on human rights - protects citizens from their own government - UK Drafted ECHR.. Signed up to it then ignored it - Human rights act 1998 - enshrined into UK domestic law - Created privacy law by the ‘back door’ for the first time in the UK...

Privacy European convention on human rights - protects citizens from their own government - UK Drafted ECHR.. Signed up to it then ignored it - Human rights act 1998 - enshrined into UK domestic law - Created privacy law by the ‘back door’ for the first time in the UK - Major impact on UK journalists and publishers What is the convention? - Set of values - right from wrong - All UK courts must consider convention in all rulings - UK courts must consider convention precedents set in european court of human rights ECHR RIGHTS - To life (Article 2) - TO liberty and security (Article 5) - To a fair trial (Article 6) - Not to be punished for something that wasn’t against the law at the time (Article 7) - To respect for private and family life (Article 8) - To marry and start a family (Article 12) - Not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14) ECHR FREEDOMS - From torture (Article 3) - From slavery (Article 4) - Of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9) - Of expression (Article 10) - Of assembly and association (Article 11) Someone has invaded my privacy - what do i do???? Legal route (Civil courts) Seek high court injunction → court order prevents publication Or if already published you can sue them in the high court → damages (money) OR IPSO/Impress/Ofcom (complain to regulator) Complain to regulator → published correction / possible fine How to decide whether someone’s privacy has been infringed… Stage 1: did they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Stage 2: If that person did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the media needs to argue it was in the public interest to publish as it would: - Protect public safety - Prevent disorder or crime - Protect public from being misled - Expose serious impropriety Stage 1: what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? - Was the person photographed out of the public view — not visible or identifiable with the naked eye to someone in a public place? - Was he or she engaged in a private activity at the time? - If the answer to either question is Yes, there are serious risks that the pictures could breach the privacy code/privacy law. - If the answer is no, then the complaint will be struck out Covers following areas - Private life: Includes sex lives, those under arrest/being investigated by the state, health - Family life - home - Correspondence: Letters / DMs / text messages etc… Private life Sexual encounters - The courts have become more willing to protect people’s privacy around sexual relationships , even adulterous ones, unless one of the people involved, or the media, can persuade a judge it limits their article 10 rights - The High Court ruled in 2008 that the News of the World’s story of Max Mosley’s participation in adulterous, sexual activities in an orgy with prostitutes, was a breach of his privacy because there was no public interest justification. Privacy for those under investigation - “... those who have simply come under suspicion by an organ of the state have, in general, a reasonable and objectively founded expectation of privacy in relation to that fact and an expressed basis for that suspicion.” So, what could justify naming an arrested person? Factors that might defeat the legitimate expectation have been identified by the courts: - Where the arrest is made in public, this could weaken or even destroy any reasonable expectation of privacy. - “the public nature of the activity under consideration (rioting, or a siege, for example) - A decision by the police to release the suspect’s name Privacy for people’s health - In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights ruled a man’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of CCTV footage of his suicide attempt in the centre of Brentwood in 1994. Peck v United Kingdom Privacy at a wedding - Yes - if held in a prvate place Pictures/footage taken covertly or with a long lens is likely to breach someone’s privacy unless you can prove it to be in the public interest Privacy and family life - Publication of paparazzi pictures of children of high-profile parents, taken in the street has led to privacy lawsuits. Privacy and home In your back garden - yes unless you can be seen from public highway and/or you are doing something illegal Sat in your front garden - No UNLESS hidden from public view Stage 2 - Arguing the public interest - If someone’s privacy rights are engaged, then the media would need to argue it was in the Public Interest - not something that is merely of interest to the public Courts have to strike a balance - Does the material contribute to a debate of interest to society? (Freedom of Expression is valuable to democracy / society) - How well-known the person is (though needs to be in public interest, not just of interest to the public) - Prior conduct of person involved  - How information was obtained (were the methods ethical?) Adherence to the regulator is key - When deciding a privacy case, a judge is required by law to consider whether the publication adhered to Ipso or Ofcom’s requirement for there to be an audit trail to demonstrate that the organisation held a “reasonable belief” that a public interest exception applied under the regulatory code, and that what was done was proportionate to the public interest aim of that story. IPSO (regulation) Clause 2 - privacy* - i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications. - ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so. - iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy *Denotes that media can argue public interest defence if it would: - Protect public safety - Prevent disorder or crime - Protect public from being misled - Expose serious impropriety Audit Trail The audit trail should be contemporaneous – that is, created at the time of the discussion(s) and decision(s). The audit trail could comprise the following: - emails or internal memos or notes - records of evidence or prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, serious impropriety, danger to public health or safety, etc, or of the existence of public debate about an important to demonstrate “reasonable belief” - why the organisation decided that the journalistic methods adopted and whether what was published was *proportionate to the public interest aim of that story. Injunctions and super-injunctions - If someone learns a media firm is to publish material about them they consider private, they can seek an interim (temporary) injunction from the High Court. - Some celebrities have even obtained so-called super-injunctions – which bans the reporting of them even being made. - If imposed, it could then proceed to trial, which would be costly to the losing side