Media law and ethics » privacy

Law and Media Round Up – 11 February 2013

jtownend — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:14:39 +0000

This week’s Law and Media Round Up – 11 February 2013, at Inforrm’s Blog.

Media and Law Review of the Year 2012: Parts 1, 2 and 3

jtownend — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:44:11 +0000

My review of the media and legal news for 2012 is now published on the Inforrm blog in three parts:

And if you fancy a challenge and have been an avid follower of all things libel, privacy and Leveson over the past 12 months, check out the Inforrm Media Law Quiz of the Year. The reigning champion (two years in a row), Benjamin Pell, is quiz master.

Happy new year.

Leveson and access to justice

jtownend — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:59:54 +0000

Will Leveson’s ‘Arbitration Service’ improve access to justice in civil legal disputes? In Volume IV of his report, Lord Justice Leveson has recommended a new arbitration service for civil legal claims as part of a new system of independent self-regulation for the British media. He suggests the board of this new body should provide an arbitral process on a cost-only basis to subscribing members of the system, which would be open to ‘all publishers on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms’.

My full post Leveson & access to justice at the Justice Gap…

Law and Media Round Up – 12 November 2012

jtownend — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:05:32 +0000

Since writing this, there have already been new developments in the unfolding crisis at the BBC following its Newsnight programme on child abuse. But this is the media law week that was, rounded up here:

Law and Media Round Up – 12 November 2012 « Inforrm’s Blog.

Law and Media Round Up – 24 September 2012

jtownend — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:13:42 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

The theme of privacy continued to dominate media law discussion last week, as a French court granted an injunction prohibiting further publication of the Duchess of Cambridge photographs in France. Press Gazette reported that the editor of the Irish Daily Star, Michael O'Kane, was suspended following his decision to publish the photographs.

How should privacy injunctions be reported?

jtownend — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:16:00 +0000

The recommended procedure and law around privacy injunctions “isn’t quite fit for purpose” according to Gideon Benaim, a partner at Michael Simkins LLP (formerly of Schillings), writing in the Guardian today. Comments seem to be closed on the piece so I’m responding with a couple of questions/points in this post.

In his view, Lord Neuberger’s 2011 report on ‘super-injunctions’, while “well-intentioned”, “legitimises the fuelling of publicity which in turn creates irreversible intrusion and mischief”.

“For allowing the publication of the fact that an injunction has been granted, together with basic facts about the specific case (facts which often go well beyond what can really be described as basic) creates publicity and hysteria about who the person seeking the injunction is, and also encourages online speculation fuelled by those in the know (probably started by mischievous journalists). Not to mention that all of these things actually increase the costs massively.”

Benaim suggests … “restricting publication of the fact of an injunction where a court has found there to be no, or insufficient, public interest to justify intrusion into a private life”, which he considers “a pretty reasonable prospect”.

This proposition raises important questions around open justice and transparency. When Lord Neuberger’s committee report came out in May 2011, I argued that it cut through the “super injunction hysteria” and its recommendations would provide a balanced way of monitoring the number and type of injunctions being granted, without transgressing an individual’s legitimate claim to Article 8 rights, as decided by a judge.

I don’t think it was a satisfactory state of affairs that, at the press conference announcing the report’s release, Lord Neuberger was unable to tell journalists precisely how many so-called super injunctions and anonymised privacy injunctions had been granted since 2000. According to the report, specific records were not “kept in respect of such matters”. The committee’s recommendations sought to prevent that type of data blackout occurring again.

As quoted above, Benaim is concerned that publishing facts about the specific case “creates publicity and hysteria about who the person seeking the injunction is”… “and also encourages online speculation…”

My question, then, is how he proposes to track injunctions, if at all? How does he propose that data is collected around the number and type of injunctions granted? Who should have access to the records?

If we were to lose our newfound access to regular statistics and published anonymised judgments and return to the unmonitored secrecy of yore, how would we prevent a repeat of events that led up to the committee’s creation in April 2010? According to the Judiciary, it was formed as a response to “growing public concerns about the use and effect of what were termed super-injunctions and the impact they were having on open justice”. Would we not be back at square one?

Benaim is right that there has been some tabloid manoeuvring on this issue and fuelling of the fire (and in other quarters too), but the report indicated a wider public concern about open justice, which needed to be addressed.

Payments for private information

Finally, there is one really interesting point he makes, which seems worth flagging up:

“Also, isn’t there something particularly wrong and distasteful about kiss-and-tells and similar types of arrangement with the tabloids? By this I mean the payment of money to someone (usually an unknown) for a story about something private which is only of interest to the tabloid because it relates to a well-known person. This, I argue, should rarely, unless there is a particularly strong and legitimate public interest argument, be afforded much weight by the courts.”

It strikes me that is one issue that needs further attention: how should financial transactions of private information be managed in a new system of regulation? If such transactions were subject to regulation, what implication would there be for the public interest, freedom of expression and an individual’s right to privacy?

Analysis: Privacy cases re-visited, a year on from Super Injunction Spring - Judith Townend

jtownend — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:08:49 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

A year on from the introduction of the Master of the Rolls' Practice Guidance, six privacy injunctions have been discharged, but with the claimant's anonymity maintained in each case. The British media, however, hasn't had much to say.

Law and Media Round Up – 30 April 2012

jtownend — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:01:35 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

It was the week the newspaper proprietors came to Leveson. Predictably, Murdochs Snr and Jnr dominated the media coverage, but John Ryley (head of news, Sky News) Aidan Barclay (Telegraph Media Group) and Evgeny Lebedev (Lebedev Holdings Ltd) also supplied plenty of fresh material for the Leveson correspondents. Natalie Peck reported for Inforrm here.

Law and Media Round Up – 23 April 2012

jtownend — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:09:17 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

It's a big week coming up at the Leveson Inquiry, with appearances from the media owners: Aidan Barclay, Evgeny Lebedev, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch. "Plenty to talk about here," Murdoch Snr has tweeted since arriving in the UK. "Ten lively energetic newspapers to consume."

Law and Media Round Up – 16 April 2012

jtownend — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:00:45 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

The Leveson Inquiry and Parliament are still on Easter vacation and the new legal term begins on Tuesday 17 April, but there is no shortage of news and commentary to report, following Inforrm's own mini-break from our usual weekly round up.