Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:45:12.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex, Scandal and Super-Injunctions – The Controversies Surrounding the Protection of Privacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2012

Lord Anthony Grabiner QC
Lord Anthony Grabiner QC*
Affiliation:
email: [email protected].
Get access

Extract

Lionel Leonard Cohen – The Rt Hon Lord Cohen of Walmer in the County of Kent – was a distinguished British lawyer. In 1951, he was appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Given the fact that he was a committed Jew, this was a remarkable achievement in its time. He chaired the Committee which produced the 1945 Cohen Report, whose recommendations were adopted and in due course enacted in the Companies Act 1948.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 537 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lord Judge, ‘The Judiciary and the Media’ (Speech delivered at the Lionel Cohen Memorial Lecture, Jerusalem, 28 March 2011), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lcj-speech-judiciary-and-the-media-100406.pdf.

2 [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, 464.

3 Time, Inc v Hill 385 US 374 (1967).

4 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 [41].

5 [2011] EWHC 3454 (TCC).

6 Terry (previously ‘LNS’) v Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 119 (QB).

7 CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB), [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB), [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB).

8 Mr Justice Eady, ‘How Private is Private?’ (Speech delivered at the 2011 Young Bar Conference, 8 October 2011), http://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/eady-j-how-private-is-private.pdf

9 Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice (20 May 2011), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/reports/civil/committee-reports-super-injunctions. See also the Court of Appeal guidance on these orders: JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42 and Donald v Ntuli [2011] 1 WLR 294.

10 Markesinis, Basil S, ‘The Right to be Let Alone versus Freedom of Speech’ (1986) Public Law 67, 67Google Scholar.

11 American Law Institute, Second Restatement on the Law of Tort (1977) s 652A–D.

12 (1604) 77 ER 194, 195.

13 Singh, Rabinder and Strachan, James ‘The Right to Privacy in English Law’ (2002) 2 European Human Rights Law Review 129, 132Google Scholar.

14 [2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406.

15 For practical purposes, the decision of the House of Lords was duly reversed when the case reached the ECtHR: Peck v United Kingdom App No 44647/98 (ECtHR, 28 January 2003).

16 Campbell (n 2) 464–65.

17 Warren, Samuel D and Brandeis, Louis D, ‘The Right to Privacy’ (1890) 4(5) Harvard Law Review 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Schreiber, Arye, ‘Privacy: Proprietary or Human Right? An Israeli Law Perspective’ [2009] Intellectual Property Quarterly 99Google Scholar.

19 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (n 4) [41].

20 Zimmerman, Diane L, ‘Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis's Privacy Tort’ (1983) 68 Cornell Law Review 291Google Scholar.

21 [2005] 1 NZLR 1 [264].

22 Campbell (n 2) [46].

23 n 17.

24 Sir William Blackstone said that a plaintiff could not collect damages in a civil suit for true statements because the plaintiff ‘has received no injury at all’: Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England III (4th edn, 1771) 126Google Scholar, and at 125: ‘Where there is no injury, the law gives no remedy’.

25 Zimmerman (n 20) 313–26.

26 Bobbie Johnson, ‘Privacy no longer a Social Norm, says Facebook Founder’ (The Guardian, 11 January 2010), http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy.

27 Hosking (n 21) [2].

28 Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359 [147].

29 Johnson (n 26).

30 Mr Justice Eady (n 8).

31 Cited in Australian Broadcasting Corporation (n 4) [321].

32 Campbell (n 2) [50].

33 Jagger v Darling [2005] EWHC 683 (Ch).

34 Prosser, William L ‘Privacy’ (1960) 48 California Law Review 383, 391–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41.

36 ibid [62]–[63].

37 Australian Broadcasting Corp (n 4) [42].

38 Peck (n 35) [57].

39 Prosser (n 34) 411.

40 Campbell (n 2) [66].

41 n 17.

42 Ettore v Philco Television Broadcasting Corp 229 F 2d 481 (3d Cir 1956).

43 Cited in Prosser (n 34) 407, fn 196.

44 See the discussion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation (n 4) [118]–[128].

45 Winfield, Percy H, ‘Privacy’ (1931) 37 Law Quarterly Review 23Google Scholar.

46 See, for instance, McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB 73, and Murray v Express Newspapers [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch 481.

47 Protection of Privacy Law, 1981.

48 Mosley v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 30 [114].

49 Australian Broadcasting Corp (n 4) [276].

50 Mr Justice Eady (n 8).

51 Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) [100].

52 Campbell (n 2) [60], in which Lord Hoffmann gave the example of a sexual relationship between a politician and someone he or she has appointed to public office.

53 See extract cited in Australian Broadcasting Corporation (n 4) [274].

54 ibid.

55 Southeastern Promotions Ltd v Conrad 420 US 546, 559 (1975), cited in Markesinis (n 10) 79, fn 39.

56 Terry (‘LNS’) (n 6).

57 [2012] EWHC 239 (QB).

58 Super-Injunctions Transcript (20 May 2011), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/media-releases/2011/Superinjunctions+press+conference+transcript.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic.

59 Marsoof, Althaf, ‘Online Social Networking and the Right to Privacy: The Conflicting Rights of Privacy and Expression’ (2011) 19 International Journal of Law & Information Technology 110, 131 and fn 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 AMP v Persons Unknown (n 5).

61 n 47.

62 Taylor, Greg, ‘Why is there no Common Law Right of Privacy?’ (2000) 26 Monash University Law Review 235, 255Google Scholar.

63 Witzleb, Normann, ‘Justifying Gain-based Remedies for Invasions of Privacy’ (2009) 29 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 325CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 See Mosley (n 48).

65 n 2.

66 n 35.