FIA President Max Mosley has won damages of £60,000 (plus legal costs) after he succeeded in his privacy claim against News Group Newspapers.
Last week, the High Court ruled that Moseley's privacy had been infringed by The News of the World who published a video and front page article which showed intimate scenes of Mosley involved in S&M sessions with several professional dominatrices.
Mr Justice Eady held that Mr Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy and rejected the newspaper's claim that the events had a Nazi theme, or that their publication could be justified as being in the public interest on the basis that they were illegal or immoral. It appears the absence of any Nazi element was critical in defeating the newspapers' argument that their story was in the public interest.
Mr Mosley's claim was based on the protection for individual privacy afforded by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to respect for privacy and family life - though the latter may not have been dwelled on). However, lawyers for the newspaper also attempted to use the Convention, themselves, arguing Article 10 gave them freedom of expression which should take precedence.
No one Convention right automatically takes precedence over another. The Court reviewed the specific facts of the case, and eventually ruled that Article 8 was, in this instance, superior.
The Court also took into account the fact that NGN had breached Clause 10 of the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code. This states the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by hidden cameras or subterfuge, unless this can be justified as in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Despite the massive media interest, this case does not change in the law on privacy in any respect, but merely applies and confirms the existing case law which governs what journalists can publish whilst not invading privacy.
Indeed Mr Justice Eady expressly stated; "There is nothing "landmark" about this decision...Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged."
The ruling may, however, be regarded by some as a blow to the newspaper industry's freedom of press.
Hopefully today's ruling may be a catalyst for less spurious, gutter press style journalism and lead to a greater volume of more newsworthy press appearing in our morning papers. That said, News Group Newspapers may regard £60,000 (plus costs) as a price worth paying for exclusively exposing one of the year's most dominating stories.
Philip Gray
Kirwans