Facts.
Mr and Mrs Murray were the parents of the claimant of whom Mrs Murray was famous for writing harry porter books. The claimant was 19 months old when the pictures of him and his family were taken by the respondent Big pictures and published by Sunday express magazine without their approval.
Mr and Mrs Murray sued the company on behalf of David. Although the claimant and respondent spoke to each other to address the issue which led to an agreement, there was a breach of agreement on the respondent’s side. The family brought the case to the court to collect all the pictures the BPL had and to prevent more pictures from been published.
During the court hearing, the claimant presented their evidence and claimed that taking the pictures was a breach of confidence and invasion of privacy under article 8 of the ECHR and Data protection act 1998 of which the respondent claimed that the evidence did not show any feature of the claimant and did not interfere with article 8 even if the pictures were taken publicly. In the county court, Patten J struck out the claim made by the BPL and gave judgement saying David’s article 8 was not violated which eventually led to a court hearing in the court of appeal. LEGAL ISSUES. The following were the legal issues. The first issue being whether David had a reasonable expectation of privacy even when he was oblivious. The second issue being whether there was a breach of confidence and invasion of David’s privacy considering his parent’s status. The third issue being the issue of principle whether the claimant who was not a public figure was entitled to article 8 in a public place even when the photograph showed nothing embarrassing. And the last issue being whether there was a balance between article 8 and 10 of the ECHR and whether it should be in favour of David or BPL. Judicial Reasoning and Analysis. The judges that heard the case were Sir Antony Clarke and Lord Justice Thomas although Sir Antony Clarke gave the lead judgment. Firstly, concerning the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy, Sir Antony Clarke stated that the issue was dependent on factors that were traced to the child for example ‘The nature of the activity the claimant was engaged in’, and the ‘place where the pictures were taken’. In addition to the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy, the judge stated that the child’s right were considered as important in the court and international community. The united nations convention on the rights of the child and clause 6 of the Press Complaints Commission Editors code of practice clearly supported the judge’s statement. The Cases that were referred to were Cambell v MGN and Von Hannover v Germany . In that case, Lord Nicholls stated that for an offense to be highly offensive it must be actionable. The court of appeal rejected this statement and said that the statement was part of David’s test. The court of appeal stated that the case of Cambell v MGN was not applicable contrary to the decisions made by the county court but rather the case of Hosking v Runting was applicable to the case which was used to decide the final verdict. Previously, Patten J. stated that …show more content…
The protection of privacy has paved way for a number of activies such as freedom of press.
In the end, we can truly say that the law brought about enlightenment and awareness in the society.
BIBLOGRAPHY:
Cases.
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 A.C. 457
Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1,
Murray v BPL [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch. 481
Von Hannover v Germany (App no. 59320/00) [2005] 40 EHRR 1
Articles.
Statues and statutory instruments.
European convention of human rights 1950 s 1 (8)
European convention of human rights 1950 s 1 (10)
Data protection act 1998, s 13(1).
Books
Wacks R, Privacy And Media Freedom (1st edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) (-- removed HTML --) accessed 29 October 2017
Website
Brimsted K and smith j, 'J. K. Rowling Photo Case - The Boundaries of Privacy Continue to Grow | Lexology' (Lexology.com, 2008) (-- removed HTML --) accessed 29 October
Mr and Mrs Murray were the parents of the claimant of whom Mrs Murray was famous for writing harry porter books. The claimant was 19 months old when the pictures of him and his family were taken by the respondent Big pictures and published by Sunday express magazine without their approval.
Mr and Mrs Murray sued the company on behalf of David. Although the claimant and respondent spoke to each other to address the issue which led to an agreement, there was a breach of agreement on the respondent’s side. The family brought the case to the court to collect all the pictures the BPL had and to prevent more pictures from been published.
During the court hearing, the claimant presented their evidence and claimed that taking the pictures was a breach of confidence and invasion of privacy under article 8 of the ECHR and Data protection act 1998 of which the respondent claimed that the evidence did not show any feature of the claimant and did not interfere with article 8 even if the pictures were taken publicly. In the county court, Patten J struck out the claim made by the BPL and gave judgement saying David’s article 8 was not violated which eventually led to a court hearing in the court of appeal. LEGAL ISSUES. The following were the legal issues. The first issue being whether David had a reasonable expectation of privacy even when he was oblivious. The second issue being whether there was a breach of confidence and invasion of David’s privacy considering his parent’s status. The third issue being the issue of principle whether the claimant who was not a public figure was entitled to article 8 in a public place even when the photograph showed nothing embarrassing. And the last issue being whether there was a balance between article 8 and 10 of the ECHR and whether it should be in favour of David or BPL. Judicial Reasoning and Analysis. The judges that heard the case were Sir Antony Clarke and Lord Justice Thomas although Sir Antony Clarke gave the lead judgment. Firstly, concerning the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy, Sir Antony Clarke stated that the issue was dependent on factors that were traced to the child for example ‘The nature of the activity the claimant was engaged in’, and the ‘place where the pictures were taken’. In addition to the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy, the judge stated that the child’s right were considered as important in the court and international community. The united nations convention on the rights of the child and clause 6 of the Press Complaints Commission Editors code of practice clearly supported the judge’s statement. The Cases that were referred to were Cambell v MGN and Von Hannover v Germany . In that case, Lord Nicholls stated that for an offense to be highly offensive it must be actionable. The court of appeal rejected this statement and said that the statement was part of David’s test. The court of appeal stated that the case of Cambell v MGN was not applicable contrary to the decisions made by the county court but rather the case of Hosking v Runting was applicable to the case which was used to decide the final verdict. Previously, Patten J. stated that …show more content…
The protection of privacy has paved way for a number of activies such as freedom of press.
In the end, we can truly say that the law brought about enlightenment and awareness in the society.
BIBLOGRAPHY:
Cases.
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 A.C. 457
Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1,
Murray v BPL [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch. 481
Von Hannover v Germany (App no. 59320/00) [2005] 40 EHRR 1
Articles.
Statues and statutory instruments.
European convention of human rights 1950 s 1 (8)
European convention of human rights 1950 s 1 (10)
Data protection act 1998, s 13(1).
Books
Wacks R, Privacy And Media Freedom (1st edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013) (-- removed HTML --) accessed 29 October 2017
Website
Brimsted K and smith j, 'J. K. Rowling Photo Case - The Boundaries of Privacy Continue to Grow | Lexology' (Lexology.com, 2008) (-- removed HTML --) accessed 29 October