cearta.ie

the Irish for rights

Privacy law in the UK

I recently argued here that, if the High Court in Sinnott v Carlow Nationalist refers the matter to the Supreme Court, that court should take the opportunity to clarify the tort of invasion of privacy in Irish law. It’s a mess that needs sorting. After listening to Prof Gavin Phillipson‘s paper on UK privacy law in the Dublin Legal Workshop last week, it seems to me that UK privacy law is also a mess that needs sorting, and the House of Lords (in its judicial capacity, it is the UK’s highest court) should take a similar opportunity to sort things out there.

gavin-phillipson.jpgI have been musing since Gavin’s presentation on two points which seemed to me to arise from it (that’s Gavin in the photo on the left, btw). The first was that the UK’s law on invasion of privacy has been radically altered under the influence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The courts have used this to effect a rather substantial remodelling of the existing action for breach of confidence, transmuting it into a wrong of misuse of private information. The second was that, radical as this seems, it is only half of what’s necessary, again for two reasons.

First, this wrong of misuse of private information is not quite yet a tort of invasion of privacy. It is still being analysed under the rubric of breach of confidence. At English law, it seems, privacy is still the tort that dare not speak its name. And that’s a bad thing, not least because it leads to bad analysis: making breach of confidence do the work of invasion of privacy distorts a perfectly satisfactory equitable doctrine, and often leads in privacy cases to engaging in unnecessary analysis (required by the breach of confidence action but inappropriate for a privacy action).

Second,  this wrong  of misuse of private information does not in fact seem to be fully compliant with the Convention. Indeed, it was a theme of Gavin’s paper that, even though English privacy law is developing under the influence of the ECHR, it seems nevertheless quietly determined to go its own way, departing in some rather significant respects from ECHR standards. The approach of the European Court of Human Rights in von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR 294 (24 June 2004) gave Article 8 a very wide scope, making it applicable (in Gavin’s words) “to any publication of any unauthorised photograph of a person engaged in any activity other than their official duties even if they are in a public place at the time”. This is an expansive defintion of privacy, encompassing all aspects of a person’s life which don’t relate to official duties. In the case itself, the photos complained of were “anodyne” (Gavin’s description) shots of Princess Caroline’s everyday life, and yet the Court held that their publication infringed Article 8. And this expansive approach was confirmed in the later case of Sciacca v Italy [2005] ECHR 8 (11 January 2005).

On the other hand, the UK courts have not taken this (very subjective) approach. Rather, after Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004), they have taken a different (more objective) approach, dismissing trivial publications as not implicating Article 8, and asking whether there was in the circumstances a reasonable expectation of privacy. This affords a generous measure of protection, just not as wide as that provided by the ECHR. It is quite wide enough to protect Prince Charles’ diaries, or the confidences of canadian chanteuse Loreena McKennitt, though not already-published revelations of drug-taking.

(Update (09 Feb 07): Steve has emailed me with the news that the McKennitt decision could be appealed; if so, the House of Lords will get yet another opportunity to think about these issues).

It might be said, then, that the ECHR takes the view that “if-it’s-not-public-office,-then-it’s-private”, whereas the UK courts take the view that “there-must-be-something-to-make-it-private”. The fault line between these two approaches is graphically illustrated by photography, especially covert photography. Under the ECHR approach, photos of subjects in public places can still constitute invasions of privacy if they are of subjects doing other than their public official functions. By this standard, most photos will almost automatically be invasions of privacy. On the other hand, under the UK approach, photos of subjects in public places are not automatically invasions of privacy, and it will all depend on whether the subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

The Sinnott case raises all of these issues (and continues to exercise the blogosphere – see Media Forum and Blurred Keys, and much robust common sense from Sarah Carey on GUBU). As the English cases have used the ECHR to mould breach of confidence, so we could use both it and the Constitution to evolve our own protection of privacy. But the English courts have been too timid in staying within the confines of breach of confidence and not developing a straightforward tort of invasion of privacy. We should feel the fear, and do it anyway.

7 Responses to “Privacy law in the UK”

  1. Steve says:

    But isn’t a certain amount of judicial confusion a good thing here? If the judges take a clear conceptual line, then the red-tops will conspire to make that firm line seem silly, and on past evidence they might succeed. This is not an area where politicians will ride to the judges’ defence, because no politician can hope to be successful (or even to have much of a private life) if they make an enemy of the press. Surely deluging everyone with conceptual oddities is just what is needed. This is quite different from areas of commercial law like, say, restitution, where clarity of concept and application is all, and the result doesn’t much matter so long as all the lawyers know what it is.

  2. Ruth Cannon says:

    I think Steve’s point underestimates the ability of the average person to understand the law. The law should be logical and clear in all areas, not just in restitution or commercial lw areas. Also, law does not belong to lawyers, but to all citizens. Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, Steve!

  3. Eoin says:

    Thanks, Steve and Ruth, for the comments. On this one, I’m with Ruth. Jeremy Betham, in ‘Truth v Ashurst’, pilloried judge-made law thus:

    It is the judges (as we have seen) that make the common law. Do you know how they make it? Just as a man makes laws for his dog. When your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, and then beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way the judges make law for you and me. They won’t tell a man beforehand what it is he should not do—they won’t so much as allow of his being told: they lie by till he has done something which they say he should not have done, and then they hang him for it.

    Now, there may not in fact be much difference between dogs and red-tops, but, for the reasons which Ruth gives, this was not a good way for the law to operate when Bentham pointed it out, and it still isn’t.

  4. […] or not, it cannot have been unexpectd, coming as it does on the heels of recent expansions of privacy law in the UK […]

  5. Eoin says:

    I’ve just come across this. In R v Goldstein and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63 (21 July 2005) Lord Bingham of Cornhill (at [33]) referred to Bentham’s “famous polemic” ‘Truth versus Ashurst’ as “a searing criticism” of “dog-law”, and observed:

    The domestic law of England and Wales has set its face firmly against “dog-law”.

    So it should, even in the case of the tabloid press! He continued:

    … There are two guiding principles: no one should be punished under a law unless it is sufficiently clear and certain to enable him to know what conduct is forbidden before he does it; and no one should be punished for any act which was not clearly and ascertainably punishable when the act was done.

    He made these comments in the context of a potentially unclear common law criminal offence, but the principle ought to be the same for common law tort liability, yes, even for the tabloid press.

  6. […] English law. As Gavin Phillipson demonstrated during a recent Dublin Legal Workshop presentation, Privacy Law in the UK is still in need of clarification. I had rather hoped that an appeal to the House of Lords in a […]

  7. […] In particular, the Convention has been used to recalibrate the common law in the context both of privacy and of libel, and Gilligan J’s reasoning would seem to undercut this kind of development. It […]

Leave a Reply

 

Welcome

Me in a hatHi there! Thanks for dropping by. I'm Eoin O'Dell, and this is my blog: Cearta.ie - the Irish for rights.

"Cearta" really is the Irish word for rights, so the title provides a good sense of the scope of this blog.

In general, I write here about private law, free speech, and cyber law; and, in particular, I write about Irish law and education policy.

Academic links
Academia.edu
ORCID

Subscribe

  • RSS Feed
  • RSS Feed
  • Subscribe via Email
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Archives by month

Categories by topic

My recent tweets

Blogroll (or, really, a non-blogroll)

What I'd like for here is a simple widget that takes the list of feeds from my existing RSS reader and displays it here as a blogroll. Nothing fancy. I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

I had built a blogroll here on my Google Reader RSS subscriptions. Google Reader produced a line of html for each RSS subscription category, each of which I pasted here. So I had a list of my subscriptions as my blogroll, organised by category, which updated whenever I edited Google Reader. Easy peasy. However, with the sad and unnecessary demise of that product, so also went this blogroll. Please take a moment to mourn Google Reader. If there's an RSS reader which provides a line of html for the list of subscriptions, or for each RSS subscription category as Google Reader did, I'd happily use that. So, as I've already begged, I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

Meanwhile, please bear with me until I find a new RSS+Blogroll solution

Thanks,

Eoin.

Licence

Creative Commons License

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. I am happy for you to reuse and adapt my content, provided that you attribute it to me, and do not use it commercially. Thanks. Eoin

Credit where it’s due

The image in the banner above is a detail from a photograph of the front of Trinity College Dublin night taken by Melanie May.

Others whose technical advice and help have proven invaluable in keeping this show on the road include Dermot Frost, Karlin Lillington, Daithí Mac Síthigh, and Antoin Ó Lachtnáin.

Thanks to Blacknight for hosting.