The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: November 2010 (Page 1 of 5)

Media and the Law on Twitter [updated]

We have previously posted on “Blogging the Law in the UK” and on “Blogging the Media“.  Twitter is another important source of legal and media information.   There are large number of lawyers who tweet.  The US website Justia has hundreds of “Legal Birds” – Legal Professionals on Twitter.  We have recently added a list of “Law and Media Tweets” to the right hand side of the Inforrm home page and we would like to draw the attention of readers unfamiliar with Twitter to some of these.  Continue reading

Opinion: “Responsible Reporting and the Human Rights Act” – Adam Wagner

It has been widely reported that Learco Chindamo, who was convicted of killing headmaster Philip Lawrence in 1995, has been rearrested only months after being released from jail. The story has reopened a debate over the Human Rights Act, on the basis that it prevented Chindamo from being deported to his native Italy. But did it?

In fact, what the case really highlights is that the unpopularity of the Human Rights Act is in part due to inaccurate media reporting of human rights cases, even 10 years after it came into force. Continue reading

Law and Media Round Up – 29 November 2010

In this regular feature we draw attention to the last week’s law and media news and next week’s upcoming events. If readers have any news or events which they would like to draw attention to please add them by way of comments on this post.


There were two interesting settlements of libel actions last week.  First, there was a statement in open court in the action brought by media lawyer Mark Lewis against Baroness Buscombe and the Press Complaints Commission (the Particulars of Claim can be found in a Jack of Kent blog post here).  Continue reading

Case Law: KJH v HGF: blackmail, private information and derogations from open justice – Henry Fox

On Wednesday 24 November, Mrs Justice Sharp handed down judgment in KJH v HGF [2010] EWHC 3064 (QB). This is the latest in the recent series of judgments concerning anonymisation in privacy injunctions.

The judgment continued the order preventing publication of stolen private and confidential information concerning KJH who had been a victim of blackmail by HGF. The derogations from open justice were also continued and the parties were referred to anonymously. Continue reading

Matrix Media Update – 26 November 2010

This is a Media Law Update covering the last week prepared by the Legal Information Team at Matrix Chambers, which they have kindly agreed to make available to readers of Inforrm.

Latest Cases

Petrov v Bulgaria (App No. 27103/04). ECtHR – 23 Nov 2010.  Admissibility decision – relying on ECHR, arts 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to private life), 10 (freedom of expression and information), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant made various complaints about the rejection of his criminal complaints by the national courts and about ES’ acquittals in the criminal proceedings for defamation against him (ES is a former member of Parliament known for his publications about crimes allegedly committed by high-ranking officials) – inadmissible.  For press release, see here. Continue reading

Opinion: “Privacy: the Law in Action” – Heather Rogers QC

Misuse of private information constitutes a serious limitation on free speech. Everyone, including celebrities and other public figures, has a right to protect their private information. Whether the media can publish private information about an identifiable individual, without their consent, will depend upon an ‘intense’ scrutiny of the facts. The court decides where the balance is to be struck between the competing rights, Articles 8 and 10, by considering each item of information (including any photograph) to determine whether its publication is ‘proportionate’. Continue reading

News: JIH application for permission to appeal “de-anonymisation” – Mark Thomson

I have already posted about the decision of Mr Justice Tugendhat in JIH v News Group Newspapers.  This was a judgment handed down on 5 November  in respect of an application for a consent order in a privacy action. Although the parties agreed, as part of the terms of settlement, a continuation of the anonymity provisions already granted, the judge declined to continue the anonymity order. The court nevertheless imposed a “DFT” order preventing publication of material other than that contained in the Judgment itself. The anonymity order was continued pending an application for permission to appeal. Continue reading

Opinion: “Privacy: Where are we now?” – Heather Rogers QC

Until recently it could safely be said there was no “right to privacy” in the law of England and Wales. There was some protection for private information, including photographs and other recordings, through the established law of breach of confidence. But over the last ten years, since the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) came into force on 2 October 2000, domestic law has developed greater protection for privacy rights on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and Strasbourg case law. Continue reading

Opinion: “Whose Story Is It Anyway? Is privacy protection worth the paper it’s written on?” – Charlotte Harris

Image of Ms N’tuli which appeared in the press

At first glance it may seem that that the Court of Appeal’s decision  to discharge the super-injunction obtained by Take That star, Howard Donald, is good news for the media and for campaigners for freedom of speech. The decision in Ntuli v Donald ([2010] EWCA Civ 1276), handed down last Tuesday, might have the appearance of a victory for Howard Donald’s former girlfriend, Adakini N’tuli.  She is now free to publish the fact of her relationship with Mr Donald and her feelings about being silenced. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2023 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑