Media Law in the UK - Assignment Example

MEDIA LAW IN UK Within the United Kingdom, the laws governing media conduct have been lax at times and there appears to be no specified media law. Media regulation however has been implemented through different statutory and case laws within the country. The freedom of expression for example, adopted from the European Convention, was incorporated into the domestic law under the Human Right Act1. This act gives further effect, of the fundamental freedoms contained within the European convention on Human Rights, within the UK law. The concept of public interest presents a defence of media intrusion of individual privacy within suitable circumstances. Within the context of the legislation, privacy rights for individuals have been provided and tested. The media within the country must not publish information which appears to be confidential and private to an individual. In a case which a celebrity was photographed leaving a rehabilitation centre2, the House of Lords held that Campbell’s right to privacy provided under article 8 of the act outweighed the freedom of expression by the media. Thus the media house was held liable for the breach of the fundamental rights of an individual. In making the judgment to this case the court required to act compatibly with the ECHR. The European legislation must always be upheld by the different member states where there a no existing laws within the country. The case presented a breach of confidence under the ECHR article 8. The approach with which the UK media has been provided with protection is through a private body, the Press Complaints Commission. The print media does not have any statutory regulating associations and the members do not belong to any organisation. This has been a fundamental cause for increased public complaints regarding the conduct of British press. There are several codes of conduct which provide guidelines regarding the conduct of British press in undertaking their activities3. These codes commonly apply to the broadcast media and press to a small extent. Being guidelines for conduct, the codes do not provide clear definitions of what can be identified as legal or illegal practice by the media. Competing interests including the public interest have constantly faulted the system for lacking legal legislation governing the conduct. The seven codes of conduct are not laws and their application remains limited to the media maintaining constant awareness of the general public mood. The press has therefore become a self-regulating body in which the media houses decide for themselves on approaches utilised in handling difficult situations regarding privacy and public interest concept. The codes have almost become obsolete because of the provisions of the human rights and lack of proper legislation regarding the conduct of the media4. The Press Complaints Commission becomes placed with a heavy onus in making decisions regarding complaints based on public interest and ensuring fairness to the media. This has been a fundamental cause for the continued perception that body does not act in fairness, and regard for public interest. The news of the world phone hacking affair resulted in the PCC being perceived as ineffective in protecting the public interest. The regulating body was faulted and political leaders suggested its replacement with another system. Instances of publication of confidential information had been rising within the UK and other regions globally and the PCC did not take any actions regarding breach of confidence, since the body does not have any legal powers. The Leveson Inquiry was set-up in order to undertake public inquiry into the increased cases of publication of confidential information. This was necessitated by the failure of the PCC to act within a similar manner by taking legal action against accused media houses. There were increasing allegations for poor judgement and cover-ups for the media through the self-regulating authority of the PCC. Political leaders have continuously influenced the fundamental rights decisions regarding the privacy and confidentiality. The reluctance of political leaders in implementing media laws which could enable public interest to override confidentially results for the fear of becoming victims of the same laws. The involvement of political elements within the judgements has been significantly influenced some court decisions and ultimately created a concept of “political correctness” in court rulings as opposed to legal translation of the law5. Within the provisions of section 2 of the ITC code, the elements of privacy and information gathering are addressed. The fundamental purpose for implementing this section remains seeking to create a balance between personal privacy and undesired intrusion through publication of information. The element of confidentiality is not contained within the provisions of this code. The public interest defines the aspect of providing entertainment and accurate information to the general public through the media. The provision of this information sometimes intrudes upon the privacy of specific individuals, commonly political leaders and other celebrities6. The public knowledge of such information could be a matter of public interest, while the provision of such information might intrude privacy. The fundamental freedoms provided by the ECHR sometimes become elements of intrusion by the freedom of expression. In the James Bulger murder case, a permanent injunction was issued by the court for the publication of the information obtained7. The disclosure of the information was deemed to have detrimental effect upon former convicts. Within the context of this case confidentiality overruled the element of public interest. While freedom of expression remains one of the fundamental freedoms; the concept of privacy adversely affects the execution of such provisions8. The element of unjustified intrusion of privacy has commonly been described as trespass on the individual. The decisions made within court rulings regarding the element of public interest remain based on the inappropriateness of the trespass upon the individuals. Within the provisions of the common English law, there is no recognition of the right to privacy.9 In seeking remedies for privacy intrusion by the media within the United Kingdom, the European convention remains the most commonly utilised statute because of the lack of laws in the United Kingdom10. The House of Lords commonly makes ruling through the application of ECHR regulations since the UK is a member state of the European commission. The definitions of privacy and public interest remain vague within the common English Law. The cases prosecuted within the British courts regarding breach of confidence remain based on the provisions of ECHR. The existence of such protection within the context of English law remains limited to the provisions of the European commission. This was ascertained in the challenge of the British law by Mosley following a case in which he was paid damages for privacy intrusion by news group newspapers.1112 The acquisition of private information by the media commonly involves numerous authorities which leak such information. The police, who are the investigators within many situations, have been constantly accused of leaking information to the media for publication, as a matter of public interest. The inappropriate use of police powers13 in undertaking unwarranted investigation for money was one of the fundamental reasons which led to the formation of the Leveson judicial inquiry. Private lives of many celebrities and political leaders remain elements of interest of the general public for purposes of just being knowledgeable. The argument of public interest against the breach of confidence remains relatively vague in situations of privacy cases. This can be defined as the fundamental element behind the failure for successful prosecution of many privacy cases within the country. Bibliography Cases Campbell v. MGN Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1373 Ellis v Chief Constable Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321 Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081. Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) Mosley v United Kingdom [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30 Price v. Leeds City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 289 Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers [2001] 1 All ER 908 Legislation UK Statutes Human Rights Act 1998 s 3(1) EU European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Secondary sources B. S. Markesinis, Comparative Law in the Courtroom and the Classroom: The Story of the Last Thirty Five Years(Hart, Oxford 2003) C. Ovey,; R. C.A. White. The European Convention on Human Rights. (Oxford University Press, New York 2002) M. E. Price; S. G. Verhulst; L. Morgan, Routledge Handbook of Media Law (Routledge, London 2013) T. Crone, Law and the Media (4th, Taylor and Francis, London 2013) T. Crook, THE UK MEDIA LAW POCKETBOOK (Routledge, London 2013) Read More