European Convention on Human Rights protects

European Convention on Human Rights protects

Introduction

People, famous or not, have a right to privacy, which is a basic human right. Although some of them have voluntarily made themselves known to the world, they are still entitled to live a life without others following them all the time, eavesdropping on what they say and being under surveillance. However, in the case of politicians or other powerful people, the right to privacy comes into conflict with another right, the public's right to know. The entitlement and the necessity to get informed are essential to guarantee democracy; this can only be achieved by the freedom of the press. Therefore the right to privacy of certain politicians sometimes has to be neglected to ensure a rightful running of our country. But do we need to get informed about everything there is?

European Convention on Human Rights protects the right of celebrities to privacy

Moseley case

Mosley was hardly likely to sue for libel. The evidence seemed clear cut. It was widely assumed that, like other public figures caught in such predicaments, he would hang his head in shame, apologise to his wife and family, and resign. Instead he fought back, claiming his behaviour was "a perfectly harmless activity, provided it is between consenting adults and... in private." He sued the News of the World for breach of privacy, claiming punitive damages, and his success in the High Court means newspapers and broadcasters face a tougher battle to preserve the freedom of the press. Recently the advantage has been shifting away from freedom of expression - and the Mosley judgment further tips the scales in favour of greater privacy.

The first significant test came in the Naomi Campbell case, which went back and forth, all the way to the House of Lords. The Daily Mirror published a picture of the supermodel leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. She claimed the publication had left her "shocked, angry and violated" and claimed damages, not for loss of privacy but on the more technical grounds of "breach of confidence". In the High Court, a judge awarded her damages of £3,500, even though he said she had lied about her drug abuse. The Appeal Court overturned that ruling, but the Law Lords backed the original judge - by a majority of three to two - saying there had been a "misuse of private information"

Similarly, in the Mosley case, the News of the World said it had secretly filmed the "orgy" to prove its story was true, once again laying itself open to a privacy claim.

The News of the World decided not to alert Max Mosley to the story in advance - and it was widely presumed that this would be held against it. Mr Justice Eady said it was clear that one of the reasons for keeping the story "under wraps" was to avoid the possibility of an injunction. However, he decided such tactics were not "deliberately or recklessly committing a wrong" and it would not be ...