Month: April 2010 (Page 1 of 4)

In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest.  This was first posted on 26 February 2010 and is the last of a three part post in which Hugh Tomlinson QC considers the future of the law of privacy in the UK.  In this Part he looks at the options for the future.

INTRODUCTION

There appear to be are at least four possible “ways forward” for the new law of privacy which, as I discussed in the first post in this series has been developed by the courts over the past decade and which has, at least from the point of view of sections of the media, been very controversial.  Continue reading

In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest.  This was first posted on 24 February 2010. It is the second part of three part post in which Hugh Tomlinson QC considers the future of the law of privacy.  In this Part he looks at the background to the new law of privacy

INTRODUCTION

The “new law of privacy” has not been uncontroversial.  With characteristic restraint the commentator Melanie Phillips has described the process in these terms:

“Driven by a deep loathing of the popular press, the judges have long been itching to bring in a privacy law by the back door. Thus free speech is to be made conditional on the prejudices of the judiciary …” (Melanie Phillips, “The law of human wrongs”, Daily Mail, 6 December 2006

Continue reading

In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest.  This was first posted on 23 February 2010 and is the first part of a three part post in which Hugh Tomlinson QC considers the future of the law of privacy.  In this part he looks at the new law as it has been developed over the past decade.

INTRODUCTION

The “new law of privacy” has been developed by the English Courts over the past decade. It is a common law development based on case law going back to the mid nineteenth century.  But the pace of development has recently accelerated. The decisive factor has been the Human Rights Act 1998. In this area the Act has had “horizontal effect” – it operates in cases between two private parties.  The action for breach of confidence has been transformed – almost beyond recognition. Continue reading