This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Jones, Peter John Title: Privacy, photojournalism and the law. General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. JONES Peter John Privacy, Photojournalism and the Law (Ph. D. Thesis) A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirementsof the degreeof PhD in the Faculty of Law Submitted May 2000 65,169 Words Abstract It is the contention of this thesis that individual privacy is so important that it deserves to be protected by law against incursion by the photojournalism industry. That is not to say, however, that this thesis advocates the creation of any nebulous right to privacy that is enforceable against the press. This thesis challenges the view of those who argue that the term privacy itself may be defined with sufficient precision to formulate discrete and unambiguous legislation. A preferable approach, it is argued is for the legislature to recognise the more specific forms of behavioural tort committed by the photojournalism industry. In particular, detailed examination of the existing common law and legislation and its likely scope for development reveals that parasitic claims under pre-existing torts fail to compensate one for the distant photographer who utilises a long lens camera to spy only for a transient or irregular period of time. A tort prohibiting an individual from observing, monitoring, or recording the activities of another without consent where he knows or ought to know the other has a justifiable expectation of seclusion would still prove a valuable addition therefore to our laws. The publication of such photographs and the personal information they reveal about an individual's lifestyle and relationships also give cause for concern. Nevertheless, an expanding equitable doctrine of breach of confidence and the potential influence of the Human Rights Act 1998 upon the interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 make this a less pressing concern in view of an efficient self-regulatory system. Should the Human Rights Act fail to have the effect prophesied, the author recommends that only then should the further consideration be given to enshrining the Press Complaints Commission code of practice relating to the publication of such photographs in statutory law. ii Dedication and Acknowledgements Dedicated to my family and friends for their continued support for a busy scholar. With kind regards to the editorial board of the Law Teacher, European Public Law, Litigation and the European Intellectual Property Review for publishing much of the work generated by this thesis. 111 Author's Declaration AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of the University of Bristol. The work is original except where indicated by special reference in the text and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other degree. Any views expressedin this dissertation are those of the author and in no way representthose of the University of Bristol. The dissertation has not been presentedto any other University for examination either in the United Kingdom or overseas. SIGNED: DATE: )$ fO /oo iv Table of Contents i Title Page ii Abstract iii Dedications and Acknowledgements iv Author's Declaration v Table of Contents vi Table of United Kingdom Cases x Table of Casesfrom Other Jurisdictions xiii Table of PressComplaints Commission Jurisprudence xiv Table of United Kingdom Legislation xvi Table of Legislation from Other Jurisdictions xvi Table of International Instruments xvii Bibliography 1 Chapter One - Introduction / Defining privacy and what the law ought to protect: narrow duties or broad rights? 27 Chapter Two - Curiosity's tort: the legality of paparazzi methods to obtain photographs 59 Chapter Three - Unauthorised publication of intrusively obtained photographs by newspapers and the law of tort 80 Chapter Four - The expandingdoctrine of breach of confidence domestic 108 Chapter Five - The influence of the EuropeanConvention upon laws relating to photojournalism and their future evolution 137 Chapter Six - Arguments against legislation? 161 Chapter Seven- Summary and Conclusions List of Illustrations 8 Fig. 1, Chapter One. The composite nucleus of privacy 9 Fig. 2, Chapter One. The Ruiz conception of privacy List of Tables 147 Fig.!, Chapter Six. Percentage of total complaints received by the PCC relating to privacy V TABLE OF UNITED KINGDOM CASES A-B & Others v South West Water ServicesLtd [1993] Q.B. 507, C.A. 30,57 Abernethy v Hutchinson (1825) 1H& TW 33 88,101 A-G v B. B. C. [1981] A. C. 303 112 Allan v Liverpool (Overseers)Ltd [1874] 9 Q.B. L. R. 180 31 Allason v Campbell (1996) Times, May 8 72 American Cynamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A. C. 396 67 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspaper(No. 2) [1990] 1 A. C. 109 84-85,92-94,98 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers(No. 2) [1988] 2 W. L. R. 805 104 Balden v Shorter [1933] 1 Ch.430 71 Benjamin v Storr (1874) L. R. 9 C.P. 400 39 Bernstein v Skyviews Ltd [1978] Q.B. 479 32,33,38,151-152 Betterton's Case(1689) Holt. 538 37 Bone v Seale[1975] 1 W. L. R. 797, C.A. 67 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch.269, C.A. 91 Bowley v The Sun Newspaper [1988] Feb 5 (Unreported) 106 British Steel Corporation v GranadaTelevision Ltd [1981] A. C. 1096 106 Broome v Cassell & Co. [1972] A. C. 1027 26,69 Burdett v Abbott (1811) 14 East 1 28 Burnett v AssociatedNewspapers Ltd (1901) 23 T. L. R. 666 73 Burnett v George (1992) 1 F.L. R. 525, C.A. 48,52,54,130 Burnett v Tak (1892) 45 L. T. 743 70 Burris v Azadani [1995] 1 W. L. R. 1372 53-55 CvC (application for non-molestationorder) [1998] 1 F.C. R. 11 80 Cv Mirror Group Newspapers[1996] 2 F.L. R. 532, C.A. 72 Cassidy v Daily Mirror NewspapersLtd [1929] 2 K. B. 331, C.A. 67 Chamberlain v Boyd (1883) 11 Q.B. D. 407 74 Charlestonv News Group Newspapers[ 1994] 2 A. C. 64, H. L. 66 Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 1 W. L. R. 582 34 Coco v A. N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 83,89,91,97,106 Cork v McVicar [1984] Times, 31 Oct 93 Creation Records v News Group Newspapers [1997] Times, April 29,100 Ch.D. Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolten Fireworks Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd's 38 Rep 533 Cunard and Wife v Antifyre Ltd [1933] 1 K. B. 551 38 D. P.P. v Jonesand Lloyd [1997] 2 ALL ER 119, Q.B. D. 33-35 Digby v Financial News Ltd [1907] 1 K. B. 502, C.A. 68 Duchessof Argyll v Duke of Argyll [1967] 1 Ch.302 83,95 Duke of Queensburyv Shebbeare(1758) 2 Eden 329 87 Dunlop Rubber Co.Ltd v Dunlop [1921] A. C. 367 65 Dutton and Others v ManchesterAirport plc [1999] 2 ALL ER 675, C.A. 31 E.Warnink B. V. v Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1979] A. C. 731 76 Ellis v Marhall & Son (1865) 64 L. J. (Q.B) 757 61 Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 How. St.Tr. 1030 33 Fielding and Another v Variety Inc. [1967] 2 Q.B. 841, C.A. 75 Francomev Mirror Group Newspapers[ 1984] 1 W. L. R. 892; 2 ALL ER 408 90,100 Fraserv Evans [1968] 1 Q.B. 349 103 Fritz v Hobson (1880) 14 Ch.D 542 38 Garland v British Rail [1983] 2 A. C. 751 120 Gartside v Outram [1856] 26 LJ.Ch 113 93 vi Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Swan 402 101 GreersLtd v Pearmanand Corder Ltd (1922) 2 K. B. 260 72 Griffiths v Bonsor Hosiery Ltd [1935] Times, Dec 10-11 66 H. R.H. Princessof Wales v MGN NewspapersLtd [1993] 8/11/93 (Unreported) 84-86 H. R. H. Princess of Wales v Stenning [1996] (Unreported) The Times, Aug 17 49 Halliwell and Others v Panini SpA and Others (1997) June 6, (Unreported) 77 Halsey v Brotherhood (1881) 19 Ch.D 386 71 Harrison v Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 Q.B. 142, C.A. 34 Harrods v Harrodian School Ltd (1996) Times, April 3 77 Hellewell v Chief Constableof Derbyshire [1995] 1 W. L. R. 804 99-100 Hickman v Maisey [ 1900] 1 Q.B. 752, C.A. 34 Horrocks v Lowe [1975] A. C. 135 72 Hubbard v Pitt [1976] Q.B. 142 34 Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 K.