April 2005
Model, Elizabeth Jagger wins an injunction to keep her best bits private
Elizabeth Jagger, daughter of Sir Mick Jagger, Rolling Stones frontman, and Jerry Hall, Texan actress and model, was awarded a temporary injunction by a British High Court judge, preventing further publication of CCTV images of her and Calum Best, son of former British soccer star, George Best, engaging in sexual activities in the darkness of a doorway in a London Soho nightclub.
Amidst the haphazard UK privacy laws, it appears that one, regardless of who they are, may enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" as long as the judge considers that disclosure would not necessarily be in the public interest. It is established that "public interest" means in the "interest of the public" not merely "of interest to the public".
The rather fuzzy stills were published in the News of The World. Miss Jagger, in pursuit of not letting the stills or their moving image counterparts infiltrate the web, claimed the usual gamut of heads of claim in this type of scenario, including breach of copyright, confidence, rights to data protection and privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
BRIFFA Comment:
As the courts come to recognise a legitimate right to privacy in the UK, the cases seeking injunctions and damages in this area are on the increase. Paris Hilton failed to get a ban on the footage of a sex video "A Night in Paris" which had been leaked over the Internet, so she decided to cash in on the profits instead. Jamie Theakston obtained an injunction preventing details of his visit to a brothel in Mayfair but this was overturned on the premise that the place was not somewhere where privacy could be reasonably expected and also the ladies had a right to freely express their experience. Anna Ford and Kate Beckinsdale both experienced little sympathy for pictures that were taken of them on the beach and in the park respectively. Sara Cox, however, did secure protection over her pictures sunbathing topless.
The court must not only carry out a balancing exercise to decipher which trumps the other, the right to private life or the right of the press to freedom of expression, but must also decide whether the press have complied with the Press Complaints Commission Code. In identifying the fine line between acts that amount to the invasion of ones privacy and the mere receiving of unwanted attention, the courts consider whether a public 'need to know' element outweighs a duty of confidentiality.