April 2005
No privacy for the Beckhams - The Beckhams marriage is given the red card by order of the judge
The famous celebrity couple, the Beckhams, were refused an injunction in the High Court to stop the publication of sensational allegations, made by their former nanny about their marriage.
The newspaper was free to publish the nanny's kiss and tell reports of the goings-on in the Beckham household. The disclosures were of a very intimate and private nature taken from various sources including verbal confessions, rows, text messages and diaries.
BRIFFA Comment:
The landmark decision could have important ramifications for other celebrities who come under siege by the press regarding their private lives. In this case, the nanny had signed a confidentiality agreement under the terms of her employment, which often operates as an important safeguard in this respect as to breach the agreement would normally result in a claim for damages. However, in a similar vein to Naomi Campbell's breach of privacy claim, wherein the judge felt that certain categories of information published in the Daily Mail were justified as being in the public interest, in order to correct the "public lies" that Ms Campbell had perpetrated regarding her drug use, here the judge felt compelled to allow publication, being of the opinion that it was in the public interest that the true nature of the Beckham's marriage should be revealed, eroding any obligation of confidence. The couple always vehemently defended their marriage when in the public arena. It appears that if there is evidence of hypocrisy, the press should be given the freedom to report, irrespective of the privacy factor if there is a strong public "need to know" element. Bearing in mind the decision reported earlier this month, in which Elizabeth Jagger was awarded an injunction for non-disclosure of her sexual antics in the doorway of a London nightclub (and many other decisions on privacy), there appears to be a state of uncertain flux regarding this area of the law.