Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Professor Steven Barnett—Written evidence
provocative as possible. 'The tabloid media culture in this country had got to a point where
it was completely immoral. There was no consideration for you as a human being….. I
realised I couldn't continue living in this country and do my job, which I loved. You want to
feel that you can do something creative that you love without being picked apart and
mutilated for other people's pleasure.'" Actress Sienna Miller, interviewed for the
Independent by Jemima Khan, September 2011. 5
(Given the number of questions posed in the Call for Evidence, I have confined myself to
those which I am best equipped to address.)
Section 1. How privacy law and injunctions have operated in practice
Have anonymous injunctions and super-injunctions been used too frequently, not enough or in the
wrong circumstances?
There was, before the phone hacking scandal intervened, a deliberate campaign being waged
in some sections of the press to suggest that judges were “trigger-happy” in issuing both
injunctions and super-injunctions. Injunctions are a legitimate means for potential victims to
ensure that their case against publication is heard. Moreover, newspapers have
demonstrated over the years ever more inventive ways of circumscribing orders not to
reveal the identity of applicants or the nature of their complaint (e.g. finding a spurious
reason for publishing a photo of the complainant next to an “unrelated” story about an
injunction being granted). Super-injunctions only become necessary if court decisions are
not properly respected. They are currently used sparingly, though further abuse of
injunctions may provoke an increased number of applications.
What can be done about the cost of obtaining a privacy injunction? Whilst individuals the subject of
widespread and persistent media coverage often have the financial means to pursue injunctions,
could a cheaper mechanism be created allowing those without similar financial resources access to
the same legal protection?
I believe it is essential to allow ordinary people, who become the victim of extraordinary
events or otherwise find themselves in the public eye, to have easy and affordable access to
protection against excessive intrusion. One – albeit cumbersome – idea might be some kind
of tribunal akin to the small claims court which is equipped to weigh up the legitimate
reporting requirements of journalists with the citizen’s right to a private family life. The
current PCC “hotline”, which appears to be effective for those who know about it, might
provide another preventative option; however, it would need to be accompanied by a largescale
national publicity campaign to alert people to its existence. Most are now fully aware
of the Advertising Standards Authority’s watchwords “legal, decent, honest, truthful”. How
many are aware of a hotline for those feeling harassed by insensitive or persistent
reporters?
Section 2. How best to strike the balance between privacy and freedom of
expression?
Have there been and are there currently any problems with the balance struck in law between
freedom of expression and the right to privacy?
5 "Sienna Miller: Hacking's Heroine" in The Independent, 23 September 2011, accessed at
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/sienna-miller-hackings-heroine-2359415.html
38