Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Alastair Brett—Written evidence
“Although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the Court
considers that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be
compatible with journalists’ freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10
of the Convention only [emphasis added] in exceptional circumstances, notably
where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as for example, in
the case of hate speech or incitement to violence… …Such a sanction, by its
very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect” (at §§115-116)
There has in fact been an incredibly small number of prosecutions under s.55 of the DPA
and back in 2008 only in two cases had the fines exceeded £5,000. Fines for serious
breaches of privacy should be on a par with fines in contempt proceedings while damages in
privacy claims should be on a par with damages in libel actions i.e. up to £220,000 in serious
cases and even more where the publisher had breached a desist notice. Prison sentences
should not be necessary where the fines are substantial and any civil compensation all but
penal. Prison should as the MoJ said some years ago be reserved for “serious, violent and
dangerous offenders.
While the Press needs to be reigned back when it comes to privacy, the right of free speech
should never be forgotten. Lord Bingham referred to the press as “the eyes and ears of the
public to whom they report” and as Lord Nicholls said in Reynolds v TNL: “Above all, the
court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. The press
discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The court should be slow to
conclude that a publication was not in the public interest and, therefore, the public had no right to
know, especially when the information is in the field of political discussion. Any lingering doubts
should be resolved in favour of publication.”
I hope the above is of some help and would be happy to answer any questions the
Committee might have on the ideas set out above.
25 January 2012
83