Intrusion into the Lives of Public Figures - Essay Example

Intruded: Privacy of Celebrities and Disclosure of Information about Child Sex Offenders The eyes are the windows to the soul. Once we see something, our brain captures and locks a distinct blueprint saving what needs to be saved. Forever, what is imbedded in our memory will always be part of our existence. As with celebrities, the experience is always magnifying. When they are featured in all sorts of media (print and broadcast TV), we clamour and begin to take interest in their undertakings. We obviously want more of them. We, believe it or not, view them unconsciously as objects, merely possessions. Have we failed to realize that they themselves are just like the rest of us That they should also be given the right to privacy In general, the world we live in is bound to be filled with observers. Taking a portion of a whole, the United Kingdom has her share of glorious intrusion unto the lives of public figures with unprecedented fame and popularity. The paparazzi are like the earliest of birds, leaking information into the open - something that celebrities disgust and fear the most. To protect their privacy, numerous cases have been filed to the Royal Courts. Basically, these claims are being heard in accord with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Right. However, these definitions are in somewhat contrary to a disclosure of information about persons with records of sexual misgivings especially pedophiles. In this paper, the following important considerations will be dealt in accordingly. First, privacy rights of celebrities and suspected child sex offenders will be discussed in such detail with reference to some cases. Despite attempts of the UK media to justify intrusion, the consensus of UK judges in the legal protection of certain fundamental values will be at the heart of succeeding discussions. How have UK judges defined the values that strengthen a right to privacy Where do we draw the barrier between 'public' and 'private' parts of a person's life On the other hand, the discussion will continue from the perspective of protecting interests such as public safety or child welfare. Since the public demands for disclosure of information about sexual offenders, is it logical to assume that they forfeit any 'right to privacy' because of previous convictions Privacy is a right that everyone deserves to have. It is by far the absolute result of someone needing enough space and enabling him to enjoy even the simplest of things. American lawyer Judge Cooley in 1888 defined privacy as "the right to be let alone" (29). Another suggestion came from Geoffrey Robertson who in 1993 suggested that the right to privacy is, at its most basic and generic, "the right to be able to live some part of life behind a door marked 'do not disturb'" (104). Let alone, this right has been the subject of many debates regarding whether celebrities have fully enjoyed it or not and as such, given the High Courts notions to think about forcing them to create consensus in defining fundamental values that adhere to a successful, unambiguous protection of the right to privacy. Let it be remembered that Gareth Crossman, et. al. has noted, "In the United Kingdom, privacy's time in the spotlight will continue for the foreseeable future. Continued attention from the courts also appears likely, given the rapid development of case law relating to privacy over the short period since the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into force. Media attention continues unabated as the courts continue to grapple with the competing demands of privacy and freedom of expression, and the question of whether there is a distinction between 'the public interest' and 'what interests the public'". Before proceeding, it is imperative to incorporate Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention insofar as they are relevant in understanding decisions of core cases. Article 8 -Right to respect for private and family life entails that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence; there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 10 -Freedom of expression states "Everyone has the right of 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of 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." Case No. 1 pertains that of Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 (07 May 2008). This tackles on how UK courts protect children and their right to privacy. The England and Wales Court of Appeal has considered in this case that particular scope of a child's right to privacy in which photographs of a child especially those of celebrities were taken and published without consent. As a walkthrough of the case, here are some facts. Dr Neil and Mrs Joanne Murray were walking in Edinburgh with their son David, already 19-month-old. It was through that instance that a photographer for Big Pictures (UK) Ltd (BPL) took a picture of the family even without consent. Subsequently, the photograph was published in several newspapers and magazines. Author of the hugely-popular series Harry Potter under the name JK Rowling, Mrs. Murray, together with his husband issued proceedings on David's behalf as his litigation friends. David, the claimant asserted an infringement of his right to privacy contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. Publishers of the photograph, Express Newspapers Plc were named as the first defendant, however settled leaving only the photographer's employer, BPL as the sole defendant. BPL applied for an order striking out the claim under CPR 3.4. The decision at the first instance favoured BPL whereby their application was heard by Justice Patten on 20, 21 and 22 June 2007. By an order dated 7 August 2007 the judge struck out the claim and gave judgment for BPL. In reaching his conclusion he assumed that the facts alleged in the particulars of claim were true. Relying much on Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22, Justice Patten considered "What a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if placed in the same position as the claimant and faced with the same publicity." Applying this test to David, a conclusion was reached stating that David had no obvious sensitivity to an invasion of privacy the photograph was taken with a long-range lens from across the street and there was no direct physical intrusion into David's personal space. Further, Patten J observed that celebrities are not permitted by the law to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of everything they choose and want to accomplish. "There remains an area of routine activity which, when conducted in a public place, carries with it no guarantee of privacy," Patten J quoted as saying. Following an obiter in McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73, Patten J valued that English courts 'pay respectful attention' to the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1. In Von Hannover, Princess Caroline of Monaco made a successful claim for breach of privacy against the German press for a series of photographs, regular day-to-day activities, including her picking her children up from school, playing sport and shopping at a market, all taken without her consent. These photographs were similar to the photograph of David. Significantly, Princess Caroline's claim did not involve harassment or valuable press intrusion. It is clear that Von Hannover interprets private life more broadly than Campbell, allowing for a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to family and personal activities which are not, in themselves, embarrassing or intimate. In the event of a conflict between Campbell and Von Hannover, the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell should prevail. Thus, it has always been the concern of UK judges as displayed by Patten J to look into consideration any particular harm (actual or prospective) which the child may suffer from having his image publicly displayed. However, this has not been established and as such difficult to see how in the converse case a famous parent who chooses to exploit his children to gain personal publicity could avoid publication of photographs taken of his children in a public place simply by resorting to the device of making that child the Claimant (Patten J). This development has lead to deductions of the judge that the claimant only served as an artificial front-act where in fact, it is his parents more specifically his mother who sought for protection and asserted an infringement of a right to privacy. The Court of Appeal decided otherwise. David's claim was arguable and reinstated the action. What was studied was the fact that David was the claimant and not his parents. Dr and Mrs Murray's wish, on behalf of David, was therefore given a consideration to protect their child's freedom including a simple wish to live a normal life without the constant fear of media intrusion. This was reasonable and should be protected by law. Furthermore, the court accepted that David's photograph showed no more than could be seen by any passer-by on the street. However, once published, it would be disseminated to potentially a large number of people, leading to the possibility of further future intrusion into his private life. The court also noted that at the time the case was decided by Justice Patten, there was no authority on a child being targeted by the press in the way that David had been. It also considered the fact that the United Kingdom is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Practice, the Press shall avoid using the fame or notoriety of a parent or guardian as the sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life: 'The test to be applied by newspapers in writing about the children of public figures who are not famous in their own right is whether a newspaper would write such a story if it was about an ordinary person." The Court held that it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him; on the alleged facts, the photograph would not have been taken or published if David had not been the son of JK Rowling. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal held that David did have an arguable claim for breach of his right to privacy under art 8. So, how then UK judges convene in making their consensus in determining what fundamental values must adhere to a legal protection of a right to privacy What are their bases As with the case of Campbell, a famous fashion mode who was photographed in the street leaving Narcotics Anonymous ('NA'), it is with this reference that UK judges draw the distinction between what ought to be private and what ought to be not. The principles stated by Lord Nicholls can be summarised in this way as discussed in the html version of Murray's case, "i) The right to freedom of expression enshrined in article 10 of the Convention and the right to respect for a person's privacy enshrined in article 8 are vitally important rights. Both lie at the heart of liberty in a modern state and neither has precedence over the other. ii) Although the origin of the cause of action relied upon is breach of confidence, since information about an individual's private life would not, in ordinary usage, be called 'confidential', the more natural description of the position today is that such information is private and the essence of the tort is better encapsulated now as misuse of private information. iii) The values enshrined in articles 8 and 10 are now part of the cause of action and should be treated as of general application and as being as much applicable to disputes between individuals as to disputes between individuals and a public authority iv) Essentially the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, UK judges must seek to find a balance between articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Baroness Hale said that the balancing exercise may begin when the person publishing the information knows or ought to know that that there is a reasonable expectation that the information in question will be kept confidential. Then importantly, she again stressed that the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is the threshold test which brings the balancing exercise into play. Lord Hope took a somewhat different view on the relevance or potential relevance of the 'highly offensive' test. He said that in some cases the question whether the information is public or private will be obvious and added "Where it is not, the broad test is whether disclosure of the information about the individual ("A") would give substantial offence to A, assuming that A was placed in similar circumstances and was a person of ordinary sensibilities." Further, he stated that "If the information is obviously private, the situation will be one where the person to whom it relates can reasonably expect his privacy to be respected. So there is normally no need to go on and ask whether it would be highly offensive for it to be published." Another view came from Lord Hoffman stating, "Publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what Judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which Government and Judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which "right thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute ... the principle that the press is free from both Government and judicial control is more important than the particular case." As with the case of child sex offenders, a disclosure of information is pretty much an obvious breach of Article 8 whereby a person is given the right to respect for private and family life. As an example of a court ruling for Re C [2002] EWHC 234, the court ruled as follows: "In addition to the required balancing exercise of competing rights and interests, there also had to be real and cogent evidence of a pressing need for the requested disclosure. Established authority provided that the court had to also consider: (a) the interests of the alleged pedophile and his family; (b) the likely impact which the disclosure might have on them in terms of, inter alia, vigilantism, gossip and employment difficulties; (c) the risk of driving the pedophile 'underground' whereby he might become a greater risk to children; (d) the difficulties in controlling sensitive information once it had been released further than to 'the usual' statutory agencies; and (e) all the other overall circumstances of the case." Re EC (disclosure of material) [1996] 3 FCR 556, Re V and Re L (minors)(sexual abuse: disclosure) [1999] 1 FCR 308 and R v Local Authority and Police Authority in the Midlands, ex p LM [2000] 1 FLR 612 applied. The Courts would primarily convene and their stand is to give the pedophile a protection under art 8. He has, in some cases, not been forfeited of his right to privacy. Finally, I am leaving you this, "As proponents of human rights, Liberty believes that every individual human life is so inherently precious, that it is to be treated with dignity and respect and subject to the values of equal treatment and fairness. The very moment that human beings form relationships, families and other associations, let alone complex modern societies, privacy becomes necessarily qualified. Without some proportionate and lawful intrusion, other vital concerns such as free speech, ministerial accountability, tax collection, child protection, let alone public safety would be impossible to pursue. Nonetheless, a society which does not pay sufficient regard to personal privacy is one where dignity, intimacy and trust are fatally undermined (Shami Chakrabarti, 2007)." At the end of the day, UK judges do not just falter. They have had a systematic way in solving conflicts and cases regarding privacy. Clearly, nobody wants to have his life intruded. Works Cited Gareth Crossman, Kitchin, Hilary, Kuna, Rekha, Skrein, Michael, Rusell, Jago. Overlooked: Surveillance and Personal Privacy in Modern Britain. The Nuffield Foundation Chakrabarti, Shami. Director of Liberty. 2007 Cooley on Torts, 2nd Edition (1888). Page 29 Geofrey Robertson QC. Freedom, the Individual and the Law. 7th Edition. Penguin (London, 1993). Page 104 Cases: Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008]EWCA Civ 446 R v Chief Constable of North Wales ex p Thorpe [1998] 3 All ER Read More