Privacy Rights: The Naomi Campbell - Case Study Example

140846 Naomi Campbell, the celebrated super model sued Mirror Group of papers for taking her photograph surreptiously, without permission, while she was leaving the Narcotic Anonymous meeting, which she had been attending as part of her fight against drugs. Mirror group published the article that Naomi was a drug-addict, trying to come out of it and kept this a secret while extensively galvanising people against taking of drugs. Naomi argued that her confidentiality and privacy were breached and she suffered mentally while her public image was tarnished. Cambell vs. Mirror group of Newspaper is a unique case, and has set up a legal precedent, with the celebrity status and right for privacy clashing. When Mirror printed the photos of the model, leaving Narcotic Anonymous Meeting with the details of the meeting, they could not disclose the source of their information and photographs. When Naomi sued the newspaper group on March 27. 2002, for breach of confidence and encroachment of privacy, while claiming compensation under Data Protection Act. High court upheld her claim on the grounds that information of her attending the meeting was collected in an underhand way from undisclosed source, and the confidence was betrayed, and the information thus published is harmful for her image and distressful to the supermodel. The court naturally reached an unpalatable conclusion that the photographs and the information was supplied by a fellow- attendee, who was paid for it by the Mirror group. Rights of privacy and freedom of press had been clashing too often nowadays, with newspapers becoming more and more aggressive in their news hunting and celebrity chasing zeal. Lord Spencer said, his sister was hunted by the media, in a glaring example of celebrity intimidation. Starting from Princess Diana in recent years, almost every celebrity of all countries has complained against encroachment to their privacy. It is difficult to forget a photograph of sleeping David Beckham obtained through the keyhole. Celebrity gossip could provide much needed excitement for ordinary folk, a better sale for the newspaper group, and sometimes, a greater publicity for the celebrity, who, while decrying that his privacy was mutilated, could be secretly happy for the publicity. It also can have very negative effect on celebrities, their families, and relationship, or make them lose their image and mental peace. All these arguments were upheld by the High Court in 2002. The court had to pronounce the verdict keeping in mind The Human Rights Act of 1998 where protection of privacy is one of the basic human rights and the much publicised Data Protection Act, 1998. Naomi, who was discovered by an agent as a teenager, rose to dizzy heights in modelling and earned millions and had been an effective role model. She has always lived in the eye of publicity; but over the years had been arrested thrice on assault charges including for her attack on a drug counsellor, in New York, and assault by throwing a phone at her housekeeper1. Her career had been chequered with a few ups and downs, most of the problems being self created. These never harmed her popularity as a celebrity. On 14th November 2000, she was hailed as model citizen ‘fundraiser, entrepreneur, serenity incarnate’ in a book2. All the judgements of all three courts have worked to answer the famous line; ‘restraint or revelation?’ It has become the bounden duty of judges in all member states to adhere to the individual freedom under Human Rights. “Under the new Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA), judges are already deciding how a right to privacy (Article 8) will impact on the right to freedom of expression (Article 10)”. http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAC7.htm According to Article 8 (Respect for Private and Family Life) of Human Rights Act, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” Article 10 (Right to Freedom of Expression) states that: “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Recently, the Courts have found themselves doing a balancing act between the two above rights. Tony Blair complaining the press photography of his young children, Prince Charles complaining about Prince Harry’s sports injury, Vanessa Feltz for covering her private life and Garry Flitcroft for covering his sex life – all these come under the same category where private rights clash with the freedom of expression enjoyed by media. Even the ordinary people have resented the media invasion after any incident that would bring an unsought-after media avalanche into their personal life. “The Human Rights Act (HRA) is said to offer a new solution to such dilemmas. Judges have been given powers to develop the meaning of free speech and privacy rights, introducing considerations of privacy (however they wish to define it) in free speech cases” http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAC7.htm There are arguments that claiming ‘privacy intrusion,’ people, especially celebrities control unwanted publicity, while encouraging positive publicity from the newspapers at the same time. Also it is argued that Freedom of Expression should not be curbed because it is the lifeblood of democracy. Still there is no doubt that in the balancing act, Freedom of speech is curbed in favour of individual privacy rights. Under Human Rights Act, Article 10, Right to Freedom of Expression is enshrined, but it is not an absolute right because it can be curtailed for “national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” Courts in UK are applying the Human Rights of privacy into the human right of freedom of speech. There are also arguments that parameters of both are decided in an arbitrary manner. Mirror appealed against the judgement of High Court to Court of appeal and won it on 14th October 2002. Court of Appeal upheld Mirror claim. It stated that Naomi has laid undue stress on anti- drug campaign, while being a drug addict herself and Mirror has not encroached her privacy by making the hidden truth known to others, because under the circumstances, the public were entitled to know that she herself was a drug addict. “…the Courts must have regard to the importance of freedom of expression, particularly where it is the media that seeks to exercise that freedom. The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly recognised that freedom of the media is a bastion of any democratic society and Section 12 (4) of the Human Rights Act reflects the same appreciation …. One principle, which has been recognised by the parties in this case, is that where a public figure chooses to make untrue pronouncements about his or her private life, the press will normally be entitled to put the record straight” (Naomi Campbell vs MGN Limited, paras 42-43, Court of Appeal, 14th October 2002). http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/reports/2002/stats.html This almost sided with another charge that celebrities court publicity, but demand privacy, whenever they choose. If the publicity is about their not so attractive side, they would cry foul and sue the publishers. As opposed to this, it can be stated the Press in recent years, had downgraded itself with gossip-mongering and cheap stunts to sell the paper, disregarding the high principles of the Fourth Estate. “It seems that many journalists agree with Lord Mostyn's comments, made in the House of Lords in early April 2002: 'The press is sometimes its own worst enemy with its over-concentration on trivia.” http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAC7.htm When Naomi appealed against this judgement of Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, highest Court in UK, the case took another abrupt turn. The House of the Lords’ judgement upheld the initial judgement of the High Court and agreed with the argument of the supermodel that indeed her right of privacy and confidentiality within the Data Protection Act of 1998 and the Human Rights Act were breached. The main effort should be on balancing the both combative Acts, without any kind of individual rights harmed, and ruled in the model’s favour, quoting the words of Lord Wolf in A v B and C: “..for our part we would observe that the fact that an individual has achieved prominence on the public stage does not mean that his private life can be laid bare by the media. We do not see why it should necessarily be in the public interest that an individual, who has been adopted as a role model, without seeking this distinction, should be demonstrated to have feet of clay3.” This judgement was the triumph of individual personal rights of privacy, a right which is crucial to live an honourable life. If an individual does not like to wash his dirty linen in public, it should be respected as his own right not to do so. No doubt Freedom of Expression is a great right. But if it harms another individual a celebrity or a commoner, then such rights should be curbed, mainly because what people do in their private life, would not harm another person, or public do not own the right of knowing all personal matters of the individual life of another human being. Undoubtedly, this will have a long reaching effect on people. “The ruling is likely to have implications for the way in which the media covers the private lives of celebrities in public places,” http://www.dentonwildesapte.com/assets/1/16866.pdf ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/10/26/thu/index.html?source=rss 2. http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAC7.htm 3. http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/reports/2002/stats.html 4. http://www.dentonwildesapte.com/assets/1/16866.pdf 5. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/458/45802.htm#evidence Read More