LAW

Law

Law

Case # 1

Background

Alf, a photographer who worked for Daily Record attended a demonstration against the Government cuts in Trafalgar Square. In order to photograph the demonstration and police activity, he took several rolls of films. However, his camera was seized by a police officer and he was told that he would get it back end the end of the demonstration. Despite of this, he took out his mobile phone and began to film the argument that two of the demonstrators were having. At this point, he was arrested by the police and he was taken to the police station nearby, where he stayed in the cell for three hours. After Alf was released from the police station, he approached the campaign, “I'm a photographer, not a terrorist” which was launched to protect the rights of the individuals who took photographs in public places. Alf was informed by the campaign that the members did not have to seek for permission to film to photograph in public places. Moreover, they also mentioned that the police did not have the power to stop the filming or photographing of demonstrations. With regards to the case, some advices have been provided to Alf which have been mentioned below.

English law has never recognised a right to privacy. The media and in particular the tabloid press thrived, being able to use intrusive techniques. However, in the later part of the 20th century, disquiet over media excesses increased, as when comedy actor Gordon Kaye was photographed semi-conscious in his hospital bed after a car crash. The Court of Appeal said it was powerless to prevent the photographs from being published.

Although successive governments proved unwilling to take on the press on these issues by introducing a statutory privacy law, the passing of the Human Rights Act (HRA) in 1998 finally presented the courts with the foundation they needed on which to develop the law in this area. The HRA incorporated into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights and with it the right under Article 8 to respect for private life.

Growth of right to privacy Initial complacency that the newly founded right to privacy would be of limited scope has been shattered as the courts developed the law in three areas:

Despite the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights was devised only to protect the citizen against interference by the state, the courts made clear that enforceable rights of privacy could also exist between private persons.

It was also assumed that the law of privacy would amount to little more than a repackaging of the law governing disclosure of confidential information, which required a confidential relationship between the parties. Early cases did indeed view the right to privacy in this way. Thus, a troubled man had to go the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in order to challenge the English courts' ruling that CCTV footage of him attempting to commit suicide could be shown in training videos. This restrictive approach was rejected in the landmark case ...