In yesterday's chamber judgment in the case, Mosley v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Max Mosley's right to protection of private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights had not been breached. This case is particularly important for newspaper publishers primarily because, if the European Court had voted in favour of Mosley, media may have been required to inform subjects before publishing material about them.
Max Mosley initially brought legal proceedings against the News of the World, claiming damages for invading his privacy and breaching confidence, after the newspaper published a front page story about alleged indiscretions in his personal life. Although the court held that the newspaper had breached Mosley's right to privacy and was ordered to pay Mosley £60,000 in damages, Mosley argued that monetary compensation was an insufficient remedy. After millions of people reading the front page news, his privacy would never fully be restored.
As a result, Mosley decided to bring an action in the European Court, arguing that he was still a victim of Article 8 and that the News of the World should have informed him prior to printing the material. The question in the case therefore hinged on whether newspaper publishers had a legal duty to inform subjects before publishing material about them. The idea is that those people would have time at short notice to get an interim court injunction to prevent the newspaper from publishing the material.
Newspaper publishers no doubt will be afforded some relief from the latest judgment, as an alternative result surely could have had a stifling effect on press freedom. Following the flurry of super-injunctions obtained in recent months by celebrities to prevent courts from disclosing allegations about indiscretions, this case shows the ongoing difficulty in maintaining a balance between privacy and freedom of expression.
© Thorntons Law LLP
11 May 2011
Claire Shepherd