Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Guardian News and Media Limited (GNM)—Written evidence
it is recognised that France has strict privacy laws and as a result, very little is reported on
politician’s private lives. In addition, French law is also seen to protect “image rights”.
GNM does not consider that enacting a statutory privacy law would necessarily be any more
effective than the current system, which involves a balancing exercise between the rights
relating to very specific facts. If, however, a law of privacy could be drafted that
simultaneously ended the injunction system of prior restraint (by perhaps increasing punitive
or allowing exemplary damages), clarified or set limits to the definition of public interest and
resulted in a more accessible mode of justice that reduced costs for all parties, it would of
course merit proper consideration.
GNM considers that individuals arguably waive some of their right to privacy when they
become a celebrity but the degree to which that individual uses their image or private life for
popularity, money and the extent to which they have created a self-image may be relevant
(for example see above, Tiger Woods, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand and the PCC code).
In addition, notwithstanding the above, GNM generally considers public figures’ private lives
to be private unless it can show for example harm, hypocrisy, conflict, or an effect on public
office. This is reflected in the Guardian's editorial code, in keeping with both the PCC Code
and the Human Rights Act. Where we consider intruding on privacy we should ask for
example whether there is sufficient cause, integrity of motive, proportionate methods,
proper authority and a reasonable prospect of success 137 . On the evidence of what is
published we consider this to be close to the position of other ‘quality’ newspapers.
Whilst we have anxieties about Europe, in general GNM supports the HRA. We do not
consider it should be repealed or that we need our own bill of rights. Article 10 has been
good for journalists.
3. Issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and
super-injunctions including the internet, cross boarder jurisdiction within
the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege and the rule of law
As the case of Giggs, referred to above, also illustrates ‘new media’ can lead to the
dissemination of information which is the subject of an injunction which, once available
through the internet or published in different jurisdictions is difficult to control. GNM
believes that it is not desirable to enforce these injunctions against the internet and Twitter
even if this effectively creates a two-tier regime. Those parties who are served with or
notified of injunctions are bound and if it is shown that they are the source of leaks to
others then there are legal consequences for such breaches. Given the jurisdictional
difficulties which are faced in relation to information accessible on the internet it is difficult
to see how information can be successfully contained. Although recent case law highlights
that individuals have been successfully sued in the context of defamation and ‘new media’ it is
difficult to see how this can be achieved in a proportionate and effective way.
GNM signs up to a voluntary code of professional standards and ethics, and are happy to be
bound by the PCC code, which we agree with, together with its definition of public interest.
GNM sees advantages in belonging to this ‘kite marked’ arena, which sets us apart from the
wider sea of social media, so would accept that different standards might apply.
137 http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/guardian-editorial-code
378