Skip to content

cearta.ie

the Irish for rights

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact
  • Research

Category: Privacy

Costs Regime in Peril after Strasbourg Court Ruling « UK Human Rights Blog

19 January, 2011
| No Comments
| General, Privacy

The only remaining question is the extent to which this judgment goes beyond publication cases. The Strasbourg Court has said that 100% uplift is chilling in defamation cases, and indeed the defamation problem is compound, involving, in some cases, evidence of astonishing complexity, and “luxury” parties – big media conglomerates versus celebrity claimants. But there is no particularly strong reason in principle why this ruling should be so limited. It is open to any unsuccessful litigant in a non-media case to make a case for transposition of this Article 10 solution/change by analogy; after all, the  Jackson proposals – without which this aspect of the Campbell case may never have seen the light of day – apply to a very wide collection of cases.

So once it becomes generally accepted that it is unjust to submit media defendants  to a costs regime which forces them to settle rather than defend their rights to free expression, it will follow as naturally as night follows day that non-media defendants who have other recognised interests to protect  should  not be obliged to pay up simply because they have no reasonable prospect of recovering their reasonable and proportionate costs if they manage to beat off an attack.

…

Read More »

Campbell’s costs and journalists’ sources

18 January, 201121 November, 2022
| 4 Comments
| ECHR, Freedom of Expression, journalism, Journalists' sources, Privacy

Naomi Campbell“Even the judges know who Naomi Campbell is”. At least Baroness Hale of Richmond does, since this is how she began her speech in Campbell v MGN [2004] AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004), in which she was a member of the majority which held that aspects of the Mirror‘s coverage of Naomi Campbell’s fight against narcotics addiction – in particular, the publication of photographs which did not advance the public interest in the story – infringed her privacy. Today, in MGN v UK 39401/04 (18 January 2011) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that this holding did not infringe Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Campbell was awarded £3,500 for that invasion of privacy. For the appeal to the House of Lords, she had retained solicitors and counsel pursuant to a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) which provided that if the appeal succeeded, solicitors and counsel should be entitled to success fees of 95% and 100% respectively. For the appeal to the House of Lords, legal fees were £288,468; and the success fees were £279,981.35; so the total fees were £594,470. Adding in the fees at first instance and before the Court of Appeal, Campbell’s costs amounted to a total of £1,086,295.47.…

Read More »

Invasion of privacy and conditional free arrangements in the ECHR

18 January, 2011
| 2 Comments
| General, Privacy

In MGN v UK 39401/04 (18 January 2011) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights today held that the finding by the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN [2004] AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004) that MGN had invaded Naomi Campbell’s did not violate Article 10 of the Convention. However, the ECHR went to hold that the conditional fee arrangement (CFA) which increased the costs recoverable by Campbell from MGN (and approved by the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN [2005] UKHL 61 (20 October 2005) was contrary to Article 10. Some relevant extracts from the judgment:

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION CONCERNING RECOVERABLE SUCCESS FEES

157. The parties devoted extensive submissions to the precise nature of this complaint. The Court considers that the applicant’s core complaint concerned the recoverability against it, over and above the base costs, of success fees which had been agreed between Ms Campbell and her legal representatives as part of a CFA. …

198. The Court will examine whether success fees recoverable against unsuccessful defendants are “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve [the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others within the meaning of Article 10(2)].

…

Read More »

Do I hear drumbeats for privacy legislation?

17 January, 201130 January, 2011
| 2 Comments
| Privacy


And they’ll just put you in the spotlight
And hope that you’ll do alright
Or maybe not

Now why do you wanna go
and put starz in their eyes?
Why do you wanna go
and put starz in their eyes?

Just Jack, Starz in Their Eyes

Drumbeats for privacy protection in the face of press intrusion are most often raised by politicians and celebrities. The Economist recently reported that the age at which celebrities become famous is dropping, at the expense of ultimately shorter spells in the limelight. Just Jack’s astringent Starz in the Eyes (above) reflects on the often immense price of fleeting fame: one reason certainly is a hungry media pandering to the public’s interest in celebrities and their lifestyles. For example, much of the coverage of the aftermath of the death of Irish tv and radio personality Gerry Ryan concentrated on his drug taking during his career and in the lead-up to his sudden and untimely death.

Hot Press cover, 26 Jan 2011, featuring Brian O'Driscoll, via their siteReferring to this in a wide-ranging interview featured on the cover of the current issue of Hot Press magazine (cover, right), rugby star Brian O’Driscoll said:

I thought some of the coverage relating to his death was absolutely disgusting … I don’t feel as if the toxicology report should be made public knowledge.

…

Read More »

EU proposes online right ‘to be forgotten’ – Telegraph

12 January, 2011
| No Comments
| Data Protection, General, Privacy

The proposed EU rules are called “A comprehensive approach on personal
data protection in the European Union”, and suggest that an online “right
to be forgotten” and to privacy could be enshrined in criminal law.

The “right to be forgotten” would give users the power to tell websites to
permanently delete all personal data held about them.

via telegraph.co.uk

This isn’t the freshest of news. On 4 November 2010, as part of a review of the EU’s data protection legal framework, the EU Commission adopted a strategic Communication on a comprehensive strategy on data protection in the European Union (COM (2010) 609). The “right to be forgotten” is one of the Communication’s proposals. It has returned to public debate at this stage as the public consultation on the proposals included in the Communication will close on 15 January 2011.

…

Read More »

Harvard University Press Blog : Addressing the Internet’s Dark Side

7 January, 2011
| No Comments
| Censorship, General, Privacy

A central paradox of the Internet as we know it is that there’s no privacy unless you’re there to invade someone else’s. Indeed, while living our lives online has effectively signaled the end of privacy for people as subjects, it provides a veil of anonymity for anyone who wants to use it. The Internet lets people bully, badmouth, berate, and spread misinformation without having to show their faces or sign their names. The resulting effects of the Internet on speech, privacy, and reputation are the subjects of The Offensive Internet, a new collection of essays edited by Saul Levmore, William B. Graham Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and Martha C. Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago.

From the book’s introduction, written by Levmore and Nussbaum:

“The speed with which reputations can be made and altered is just one way in which the Internet has changed everything. It surely is the case that most of the changes are for the better but, sadly, the Internet is a curse when one is the subject of negative information, whether self-presented, and then indelible, or communicated by others. And yet the Internet has changed nothing, which is to say it has returned us to the world of the village.”

…

Read More »

Setting tone from the Top | The DOBlog

7 January, 2011
| No Comments
| data retention, General, Privacy

“Privacy by Design” is becoming the mantra of Data Protection enforcement world wide. Simply cutting and pasting a solution from another jurisdiction into an Irish or EU context invites breaches of legislation and failures of the required governance and controls. This is not just a technology issue.

Given that politicians are asking us to trust them, they should ensure that they take the necessary steps to earn that trust. Just like any other organisation embracing new technologies, they must ensure that the necessary due diligence and governance structures are in place to ensure that they are acting in compliance with long established legislation. If they are promoting a “tough on regulation” policy platform, then they must lead with a clear “tone from the top” of Compliance and good Governance.

via obriend.info
…

Read More »

Concurring Opinions » Privacy vs. Security vs. Anonymity

5 January, 2011
| No Comments
| General, Privacy

Privacy vs. Security vs. Anonymity

posted by Sasha Romanosky

When I first began my PhD, I was keen to properly sort and define any new terms and reconcile them with my own education and experience. Three terms that always seemed to be intermingled were: Privacy, Security and Anonymity. Certainly they are related, but I wanted to be a little more specific and understand exactly when and how they overlapped.

First, let’s establish some basic definitions. For the purpose of this blog post, the following definitions will suffice (I’ll address alternative definitions later):
• Privacy: having control over one’s personal information or actions
• Security: freedom from risk or danger
• Anonymous: being unidentifiable in one’s actions

via concurringopinions.com
…

Read More »

Posts pagination

Previous 1 … 9 10 11 … 19 Next

Welcome

Me in a hat

Hi 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
SSRN
TARA

Subscribe

  • RSS Feed
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Recent posts

  • Restitution of mistaken pension payments, in the news
  • Defamation pieces in the Business Post – libel tourism, public interest, juries, and the serious harm test – updated
  • A trillion here, a quadrillion there …
  • A New Look at vouchers in liquidations
  • Defamation reform – one step backward, one step forward, and a mis-step
  • As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted … the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has been restored to the Order Paper
  • Defamation in the Programme for Government – Updates

Archives by month

Categories by topic

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

Some of those 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. I’m grateful to them; please don’t blame them :)

Thanks to Blacknight for hosting.

Feeds and Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress