HOME
The Info List - Privacy In English Law


--- Advertisement ---



Privacy
Privacy
in English law
English law
is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what situations an individual has a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorised disclosure.[1] Privacy
Privacy
law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognised no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
incorporated into English law
English law
the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.[2]

Contents

1 Definition 2 Common law 3 Expansion of privacy laws 4 ECHR challenge 5 Debate 6 Key cases

6.1 European rulings

7 See also 8 Further reading 9 Notes and references 10 External links

Definition[edit] The earliest definition of privacy in English law
English law
was given by Thomas M. Cooley who defined privacy as "the right to be left alone".[3] In 1972 the Younger Committee, an inquiry into privacy stated that the term could not be defined satisfactorily. Again in 1990 the Calcutt Committee concluded that: "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy".[3] Common law[edit] Further information: Kaye v Robertson and Wainwright v Home Office There is currently no freestanding right to privacy at common law.[4] This point was reaffirmed when the House of Lords ruled in Home Office v Wainwright (a case involving a strip search undertaken on the plaintiff Alan Wainwright while visiting Armley prison).[5] It has also been stated that the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
does not require the development of an independent tort of privacy.[6] In the absence of a common law right to privacy in English law
English law
torts such as the equitable doctrine breach of confidence,[7] torts linked to the intentional infliction of harm to the person[8] and public law torts relating to the use of police powers[9] have been used to fill a gap in the law. The judiciary has developed the law in an incremental fashion and have resisted the opportunity to create a new tort.[10] Expansion of privacy laws[edit] Main article: Breach of confidence in English law British Radio Jockey Sara Cox's case against The People
The People
newspaper was one of the first celebrity privacy cases. The media referred to the case as a "watershed". The disc jockey sued after the newspaper printed nude photographs of her taken while on her honeymoon. However the case was settled out of court and so did not establish a precedent.[11] The decision was seen as discrediting the Press Complaints Commission[12] The expansion of the doctrine of breach of confidence under the Human Rights Act began with the Douglas v Hello!
Douglas v Hello!
decision. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act requires English courts to give effect to the rights in the Convention when developing the common law. There is no need to show a pre-existing relationship of confidence where private information is involved and the courts have recognised that the publication of private material represents a detriment in itself.[6] The Human Rights act has horizontal effect in disputes between private individuals meaning that the Human Rights Act is just as applicable as if one party had been a public body.[13] Breach of confidence now extends to private information (regardless of whether it is confidential) so as to give effect to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before this breach of confidence afforded "umbrella protection" to both personal and non-personal information.[1] ECHR challenge[edit] Main articles: Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited, Max Mosley
Max Mosley
v United Kingdom, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Following Max Mosley's successful action against the News of the World Newspaper for publishing details of his private life, he announced that he would challenge English law's implementation of the Article 8 right to privacy guaranteed when the Human Rights Act implemented the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
into English law.[14] The European Court of Human Rights was asked to rule on the issue of "prior notification". This would require journalists to approach the subject of any investigation and inform them of the details of any allegations made about them, therefore allowing an injunction to be claimed.[14] Debate[edit] The increasing protections afforded to the private lives of individuals has sparked debate as to whether English law
English law
gives enough weight to freedom of the press and whether intervention by Parliament would be beneficial. The editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye Ian Hislop
Ian Hislop
has argued against the development of English privacy law. He told BBC's Panorama: "You don't have to prove it [an allegation] isn't true, you just have to prove that it's private by your definition. And in some of the cases the definition of privacy is pretty weak."[15] However, Liberal Democrat politician Mark Oaten has stated that the press were right to expose details of his private life:

"I concluded that however awful it may be, it's better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press… it means we can expose corruption."[15] Max Mosley
Max Mosley
has argued for the further advancement of the law[16] whereas the editor of the Daily Mail
Daily Mail
newspaper Paul Dacre has accused Mr Justice Eady, the judge in the Mosley case, of bringing in a privacy law by the back door.[17]

Key cases[edit]

Prince Albert v Strange A v. B plc Bernstein of Leigh v. Skyviews & General Ltd Douglas v Hello! Kaye v. Robertson Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited McKennitt v Ash Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd Wainwright v Home Office Theakston v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales v. Associated Newspapers Ltd AMP v. Persons Unknown Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

European rulings[edit]

Von Hannover v. Germany

See also[edit]

2011 British privacy injunctions controversy Breach of confidence European Convention on Human Rights Press Complaints Commission

Further reading[edit]

J. Morgan, “Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble” (2003) 62 (2) Cambridge Law Journal 444 H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Confidence and Privacy: A Re-Examination” [1996] Cambridge Law Journal 447. H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Remedy in the Human Rights Act Era” (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 660. R. Singh and J. Strachan, “ Privacy
Privacy
Postponed” [2003] European Human Rights Law Review Special
Special
Issue: Privacy
Privacy
12-25.

Notes and references[edit]

^ a b http://www.11sb.com/pdf/privacyaftermaxmosley.pdf ^ [1] ^ a b "Princess Diana, Privacy
Privacy
Laws And Press Freedom In The United Kingdom". Leeds.ac.uk. 1997-10-30. Retrieved 2009-07-03.  ^ Home Office v Wainwright
Home Office v Wainwright
[2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, Gordon Kaye v. Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd ^ Dyer, Clare (2003-10-17). "Law lords rule there is no right to privacy UK news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-03.  ^ a b http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/publications/institute/docs/privacy_100804.pdf ^ A v. B plc [2003] Q.B. 195. ^ Home Office v Wainwright
Home Office v Wainwright
[2001] EWCA Civ. 2081. ^ Ellis v Chief Constable Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321. ^ [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, at para. 42. ^ "Cox privacy case 'a watershed'". BBC News. 2003-06-07. Retrieved 2010-05-22.  ^ " Privacy
Privacy
law remains confused". BBC News. 2003-06-09. Retrieved 2010-05-22.  ^ See Lord Nicholls [17] - [18] and Lord Hoffman [50] in Campbell v MGN [2004] ^ a b "Programmes Law in Action Mosley v UK". BBC News. 2009-02-24. Retrieved 2009-07-03.  ^ a b "UK Is it farewell for Kiss and Tell?". BBC News. 2009-06-15. Retrieved 2009-07-03.  ^ "BBC - Panorama - Max Mosley
Max Mosley
on his right to privacy". BBC News. 2009-06-12. Retrieved 2009-07-03.  ^ "UK Mail editor accuses Mosley judge". BBC News. 2008-11-10. Retrieved 2009-07-03. 

External links[edit]

Concerns and Ideas about the Developing English Law of Privacy(and how knowledge of foreign law might be of help) A research project undertaken by the Institute of Global Law Can I Sue Google If It Says I’m Gay? The Tales of Internet Defamation in the UK

v t e

Privacy
Privacy
injunctions in English law

Terminology

Injunctions Anonymised injunctions Super-injunctions Hyper-injunctions Contra mundum injunction See also Interdicts in Scots law

Super-injunction cases

Ntuli v Donald DFT v TFD Terry v Persons Unknown RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd Andrew Marr and anonymous NMC v Persons Unknown

Anonymised injunctions

List of privacy injunction cases in English law

See also

Neuberger Committee 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy Privacy
Privacy
in English law Breach of confidence

v t e

Privacy

Principles

Expectation of privacy Right to privacy

Privacy
Privacy
laws

Australia Canada Denmark England European Union (former directive) Germany Ghana New Zealand Switzerland USA

Data protection authorities

Australia Denmark European Union (working group) France Germany Ireland Isle of Man Norway Philippines Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Areas

Consumer Medical Workplace

Information privacy

Law Financial Internet Political Personally identifiable information (Personal identifiers) Privacy-enhancing technologies Social networking services Privacy
Privacy
engineering

Advocacy organizations

American Civil Liberties Union Center for Democracy and Technology Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Future of Privacy
Privacy
Forum Electronic Privacy
Privacy
Information Center Electronic Frontier Foundation European Digital Rights Global Network Initiative NOYB – European Center for Digital Rights Privacy
Privacy
International Privacy
Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse

See also

Anonymity Cellphone surveillance Cyberstalking Data security Privacy
Privacy
engineering Human rights Identity theft Panopticon Personality rights Search warrant Surveillance

en masse state global

v t e

English law

Core subjects

UK Constitution Administrative law Criminal law Contract law Tort law Privacy Property law Trust law EU law Case law

Further subjects

Company law Competition law Labour law Commercial law Civil procedure Family law Courts of England and Wales

Related systems

UK-wide Northern Ireland Scotland Wales Australia British Virgin Islands Canada Hong Kong India New Zealand Singapore United States Anglo-Saxon law Common law Equity

Category Portal

United Kingdom

.