Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Schillings—Written evidence
We have no objection to the existing law being codified: we only query whether it is a
worthy use of Parliamentary time.
• Should Parliament prescribe the definition of ‘public interest’ in statute, or should it be left to
the courts?
• Is the current definition of ‘public interest’ inadequate or unclear?
It is, we believe, probably impossible to construct one definition that could be applied
seamlessly to any case – the boundary being dependent on many factors such as the facts
of each case and the extent that the person is already in the public sphere.
It may serve to reassure the media and the public but it will not change how the law is
applied in the courts – the facts of each case vary far too much to fit them into a “onesize-fits-all”
rigid definition.
• Should the commercial viability of the press be a public interest consideration to be balanced
against an individual’s right to privacy?
We believe that a free and independent press is a very important feature of democratic
society. However, we do not believe that the commercial viability of the press should be
a consideration when a decision is being taken whether or not to disclose an individual’s
private life. The press would also be more ‘commercially viable’ if (to give an extreme
example) it had to pay no corporation tax, or could renege on an unprofitable
contractual obligation. We see no justification for there being a carve-out specifically in
relation to privacy cases.
• Should it be the case that individuals waive some or all of their right to privacy when they
become a celebrity? A politician? A sportsperson? Should it depend on the degree to which
that individual uses their image or private life for popularity? For money? To get elected?
Does the image the individual relies on have to relate to the information published in order
for there to be a public interest in publishing it (a ‘hypocrisy’ argument)? If so, how directly?
It is quite proper to give consideration to the extent to which a person has waived their
right to privacy in respect of some or all of the areas in their private life. However, this
should not be automatic and it would have to be (and indeed is) looked at in every case.
A judge will always consider to what extent there is information already in the public
domain concerning that particular area of a person’s life.
There is an argument that politicians deserve less right to privacy than someone who is
not fulfilling a public function. That said, from any reasonable viewpoint even people in
public office must have the right to retain some degree of privacy. The danger otherwise
is that good candidates for public office will prefer not to enter into public life for fear of
press intrusion into their lives and that of their families. One must never forget that a
person’s family have rights to privacy too.
If there is to be a loss of privacy in relation to an area of a person’s life it should be
limited to the area within which that person has traded in their private life and even then
only to the extent it is strictly necessary to do so. For example, the fact that someone is
open about their income, say, or even the state of their marriage, does not mean that
that their medical history should become fair game. This balancing exercise is already
1042