Three unsuccessful privacy claims in three jurisdictions have been reported this weekeend. The first and most recent was an “out of hours” inunction claim in England on Saturday 9 October 2010 by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed against the “Mail on Sunday”. He made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain an injunction to prevent the newspaper from revealing that he has been granted permanent residency in Britain. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: October 2010 (Page 4 of 5)
A number of important recent decisions have re-emphasised the principle of open justice. The judgments of the Court of Appeal in R (Binyam Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ([2010] 3 WLR 554) contain extremely powerful statements which recognise the fundamental importance of this principle. The language of Lord Judge CJ is particularly striking for its emphatic recognition of the importance of the role of the media. Continue reading
As Roy Greenslade’s recent blog highlighted, last Sunday 3 October the News of the World published the following with regard to Vanessa Perroncel (together with a photograph of her looking wonderfully defiant): Continue reading
This is a Media Law Update covering the fortnight prepared by the Legal Information Team at Matrix Chambers, which they have kindly agreed to make available to readers of Inforrm.
Latest Cases
BBC v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 2424 (Ch) – 4 Oct 2010. The BBC sought an interim injunction to prevent the publication of an autobiography of The Stig, on the basis that the driver owed it duties not to disclose confidential information – including that he was The Stig. Held: the driver owed an equitable duty of confidentiality, since he understood when he took on the role that the identity of The Stig was confidential to himself and the BBC. However, statements in the press that the named driver was The Stig would have been understood by the public as statements of fact. For all practical purposes, anyone who had an interest in knowing the driver’s identity knew it. By 29 Aug 2010, at the latest, the fact that the driver’s identity was so generally accessible that that information had lost its confidential character. No injunction would be granted. Continue reading
On 7 October 2010 Mr Justice Tugendhat handed down judgment in the privacy injunction case of AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB). This was the return date of an injunction which had been granted on 21 September 2010 by Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart. On 4 October, there was the return date hearing where the claimant, who was anonymised, sought to continue the injunction until trial to restrain publication of allegations of an affair. Mr Justice Tugendhat decided that he would extend the injunction until trial and also the anonymity order, with reasons to follow. Continue reading
It appears that the concept of “super injunction” is spreading round the United Kingdom. Last week we reported on Van Morrison’s application for such an order in Northern Ireland – this failed, although he did obtain a “privacy injunction”. This week the Scottish website “allmediascotland” reports that the “Sunday Herald” newspaper has successfully resisted an application for a “super-injunction” brought by Strathclyde University and its principal Professor James R McDonald. After a hearing last week, Court of Session judge Lord Pentland dismissed the orders sought as being “unnecessary restrictions on responsible journalism“. Continue reading
On 25 August 2010 Supreme Court Justice Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe gave a speech to Anglo-Australasian Lawyers Society at Owen Dixon Chambers, Melbourne on the subject of privacy. His title was “The English Law of Privacy: An Evolving Human Right“. The lecture contains an interesting an useful overview of the current law of privacy, particularly in relation to the media. Lord Walker suggests that, as the law of privacy develops “its origin in the law of confidence will become a historical curiosity” and that we have now reached the point where “invasion of personal privacy” is a separate tort. Continue reading
On Friday 24 September 2010, the Guardian published a correction about the reporting of an article by James Robinson which originally appeared on 14 September 2010. The correction appears as a footnote to the original article and is reproduced here: Continue reading
At a City University event last night a panel of six speakers, chaired by Andrew Caldecott QC, discussed the question “”How far should a reporter go? The lessons of the News of the World phone-hacking story“. Guardian journalist Nick Davies suggested that the “News of the World” was had just been unlucky in being found out on telephone hacking. He argued that the problem was a devastating combination of advanced technology – which made illegal access to informaton easier – and increasing commercial pressure on newspapers had produced the problem. The boundaries of “public interest” were ill-defined and, as a result, he had reluctantly come to the view that a tough law of privacy was required. Continue reading
The conventional view has been that, despite the express reference in Article 10 to the right “to receive … information” it does not give rise to any corresponding right of access to official information. This view was expressed most clearly by the Court of Human Rights in the well-known case of Leander v. Sweden ((1987) 9 EHRR 433). The the applicant complained of a violation of his Article 10 rights when refused confidential Government information relating to an unsuccessful job application. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑