Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Professor Chris Frost—Written evidence
Professor Chris Frost—Written evidence
I strongly support the Human Rights Act and its clauses on privacy and freedom of
expression.
It is important to note that protection of privacy should refer to all intrusions: state as well
as media, but I shall concentrate in this evidence on media intrusions as that is what the
committee wishes to investigate.
All citizens are entitled to privacy of their family and home life. Provided what we do (as
adults) in our homes and with our families does not break the law, we should be entitled to
do it without fearing exposure by anyone else, whether the media, the state or other
private persons.
However, there are a number of people who crave celebrity or fame and seek publicity in
order to get it. The ability to trade private information (entirely different to secret
information) for gain has long been understood. As part of our social interactions, we “buy”
friendship and social networks by exchanging information that is private; information over
which we have control and by ceding some level of that control to others we can draw
them into our social circle.
Those who seek to manipulate the public for fame or money are aware that drawing the
public in to a level of intimacy, which is admittedly entirely one way, they can set up a faux
relationship that will make them popular.
There are also a number of people who wield power or authority who may not use
publicity to get fame but certainly are able to use their power and authority to gain wealth
or influence. These people owe their position to society and so should be answerable to
society for its use or abuse.
Both these classes of people lose some element of their right to privacy because of the debt
they owe society for their positions either of fame, bought on their selling of a carefully
created depiction of their private life or through their use of power or authority.
The balance to those with power and influence or those who seek gain by presenting the
public with a false image is freedom of expression. The right of anyone, including journalists
and by extension the media, to publish their story whether a first-hand tale or a carefully
researched piece of journalism.
The only way of measuring whether freedom of expression should allow a journalist to
intrude into someone’s private life is public interest. This is necessarily a difficult tool to use
although the courts have been trying to lay down some additional guidelines to those
identified by Ofcom, the NUJ and the PCC. Whilst parliament may wish to add its own
guidance, a full privacy law is unlikely to do anything other than add to the expense involved
in deciding these matters and is likely to severely restrict freedom of expression in practice.
Privacy has been an issue of concern to parliament and the public for the past 70
years. News cycles have ensured that it becomes an issue of particular concern
327