The BBC has reported that the prime minister, David Cameron has expressed his unease at judges using human rights legislation “to deliver a sort of privacy law”.
Mr Cameron made the comments about injunctions during a question-and-answer session at a General Motors factory in Luton.
What ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy, is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection we want for individuals and [on] freedom of the press and the rest of it.
In 2006 the Information Commissioner’s Office published a report, ‘What price privacy”, which along with other cases shone a light on the ‘Operation Motorman’ investigation into the use of a private investigator by the media to obtain personal information, which according to the report was often through a deception process referred to as ‘blagging’.
Journalists have a voracious demand for personal information, especially at the popular end of the market. The more information they reveal about celebrities or anyone remotely in the public eye, the more newspapers they can sell. The primary documentation seized at the premises of the Hampshire private detective consisted largely of correspondence (reports, invoices, settlement of bills etc) between the detective and many of the better-known national newspapers – tabloid and broadsheet – and magazines. In almost every case, the individual journalist seeking the information was named, and invoices and payment slips identified leading media groups. Some of these even referred explicitly to ‘confidential information’.
The report, which also includes extracts from a ‘blaggers’ training manual, claimed that the evidence documented “literally thousands of section 55 offences” (Data Protection Act) with more than 300 journalists identified.
Later that year, in a follow-up entitled ‘What price privacy now’, the Commissioner reported on the response of various national organisations to the earlier publication. In the report he also decided, in the public interest, to list the publications identified from documentation seized during the Operation Motorman investigation, the number of transactions they were positively identified as being involved in and how many of their journalists (or clients acting on their behalf) were using these services.
It should be noted that while the table is dominated by tabloid publications they are far from being alone. Certain magazines feature prominently and some broadsheets are also represented. The Commissioner recognises that some of these cases may have raised public interest or similar issues, but also notes that no such defences were raised by any of those interviewed and prosecuted in Operation Motorman.
Top of the list was the Daily Mail, with a reported 952 transactions and 58 journalists/clients, closely followed by the Sunday People with 802 transactions and 50 journalists/clients. Broadsheets also appeared, the Observer with 103 transactions and 4 journalists/clients and the Sunday Times with 52 transactions and seven journalists/clients. No newspaper was ever prosecuted, according to reports.
At the time the Observer, owned by the Guardian Media Group, issued a statement from its editor Roger Alton, citing a defence in most cases.
Yes, the Observer has used the services of an outside agency in the past, and while there were strong public interest defences for most of those cases, it is possible that some of the inquiries did not sufficiently fit that criteria. As a result, I have now taken steps to ensure that no inquiries will be made through outside agencies unless I believe that there is a compelling public interest to do so.
This week, Journalism.co.uk learned that the Observer is now seeking to clarify the distinction between this case and the phone-hacking scandal which saw a News of the World journalist and private investigator jailed in 2007. According to the paper, there has been some “confusion” within the media between the two cases and the involvement of the Observer.
As a result the Observer’s readers’ editor Stephen Pritchard is now preparing a piece for the paper looking back at the Operation Motorman events and explaining the steps taken by the Observer following the report. This week a spokesman for the Observer told Journalism.co.uk:
The ICO report did not concern hacking (a criminal offence without any public interest defence in law), but instead concentrated on potential offences under the data protection act to which there is a public interest defence.
Given the confusion the readers’ editor of the Observer is preparing a piece to clarify this distinction, recap what happened at the time, and explain the steps taken by the Observer following the ICO report.
None of the many newspapers and magazines named in the report were prosecuted. However, Roger Alton, editor of the Observer at the time, issued a public statement making clear that it was not acceptable to use external agencies unless there was ‘a compelling public interest to do so’. The company also subsequently launched a series of training sessions for staff on the implications of the Data Protection Act.
There are many questions related to Operation Motorman and the Observer that people still want answered. This letter from one concerned reader, sent to the readers’ editor last week, raises some of those, such as were the journalists involved suspended or are they still employed by the Observer or the Guardian?
It’s now a case of waiting to see if these will be answered in the Observer’s column, expected in the next couple of weeks.
It was reported yesterday that comedian and actor Matt Lucas received “substantial undisclosed” damages and an apology from Associated Newspapers following an article in the Daily Mail earlier this year.
Lucas sued for invasion of privacy over the article headlined “How Matt Lucas learnt to laugh again” following his ex-partner’s death. His law firm Schillings claimed that the article “constituted an unlawful intrusion into his grief and suffering and an invasion of his privacy”.
In the apology on MailOnline, the paper said the article had “caused great upset to Mr Lucas which we did not intend and regret”.
The article on Mr Lucas’ return to public life following the tragic death of Kevin McGee suggested he had ignored Kevin’s calls, became a virtual recluse, and hosted a birthday party to ‘move on’. We accept this was not the case and apologise to Mr Lucas.
According to the Daily Mail, a married sportsman has won an injunction from the high court banning reporting on his private life. The Mail says its possible that the injunction will be modified to allow reporting of the individual’s name but not the secret.
Vanessa Perroncel, the woman alleged to have had an affair with former England captain John Terry – an allegation she denies – has given newspaper interviews this weekend in which she condemns both the use of gagging orders by celebrities and the tabloid media coverage of the affair allegations.
In an interview with the Independent on Sunday, Perroncel said people should not be able to pick and choose when they want a public profile in the media.
There are some people who enjoy the limelight, and they let the press have really intimate information, like weddings, baptisms and so on. So why should these people then be allowed to cherry pick what the newspapers write about them? I know how expensive it is to take out an injunction, and it’s not fair that footballers should be allowed to protect themselves because of their money.
Her comments follow John Terry’s use of a ‘super-injunction’ in February against the News of the World which temporarily stopped the newspaper from publishing allegations of the affair. The order, which was later lifted, made it appear as though they had something to hide, Perroncel says.
She says she is angry that Terry took an injunction out, as she felt it was disproportionate. “There was no need: a simple denial would have done,” she says. “People said I had been gagged but that wasn’t true.” She is angry at the damage the allegations did to her reputation, and at the red-top intrusion she suffered. But she believes newspapers should be free to report genuine cases of infidelity.
She discusses the damage to her reputation further in an interview with the Guardian writer Polly Vernon, who herself concludes that the model was “ripped apart” by the media – the only party who should feel guilt for the way the story played out, she adds.
I am shocked at the wrong that’s been done to Vanessa. Whether or not you believe her denials – and oh, it’s tempting, isn’t it, to keep believing the worst, the most malicious rumours. But Perroncel did not deserve those months of unmitigated trashing. And now it’s calmed down for her somewhat, I’m not sure what she’s got left. (…) There is still, it seems, an overwhelming sense that she has done wrong somehow, somewhere along the line; that she has committed some crime. We’re extremely attached to that idea as a nation. Yet if anyone should be feeling guilty, it’s probably us.
According to Vernon’s article, Perroncel is now planning to take legal action against any publication which printed “unpleasant” stories about her in relation to the accusations. It is also reported that an “official inquiry” has been launched into claims her phone may have been tapped to intercept private calls.
As part of its report into press standards, privacy and libel, the Culture Media and Sport Committee had said there is currently no case for a general privacy law.
“Since the passage of the Human Rights Act, there have been a growing number of cases brought on grounds of privacy. While some argue that Parliament should introduce specific legislation in this area, it will still be for the Courts to interpret the law and seek to find the right balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Each case will be different and we do not believe the case has been made for a general privacy law,” says John Whittingdale MP, who chaired the CMS committee.
“However, we are deeply concerned at the confusion that has arisen over the right of the press to report what is said in parliament. The free and fair reporting of proceedings in parliament is a cornerstone of our democracy and the government should quickly introduce a clear and comprehensive modern statute to put this freedom beyond doubt.”
The committee had the following to say about the reporting of parliamentary proceedings, an issue highlighted by Carter-Ruck’s attempt to gag the Guardian reporting a parliamentary question relating to oil trader Trafigura. The report recommended creating “a modern statute” to protect this reporting as an important element of freedom of speech.
Writing in MediaGuardian this morning, Index on Censorship news editor, Padraig Reidy, discusses whether last week’s ruling by Justice Tugendhat in the John Terry case means courts will be less willing to issue super-injunctions.
The increasingly aggressive pursuit of privacy actions is often an attempt to entirely dictate what is published about a person (or in the case of Trafigura, a corporation). Friday’s ruling, combined with Trafigura’s epic failure to suppress information, suggests that courts may be less willing to issue such injunctions in future. And perhaps sensible solicitors will be less willing to seek them.
In another Guardian.co.uk piece, Guardian columnist Marcel Berlins argues that ‘unusual’ elements of Terry’s case affected the Justice Tugendhat’s decision on this occasion:
Perhaps, post-Tugendhat, judges will not grant injunctions quite so readily, but there will be no revolution. And predictions of the demise of the superinjunction have been greatly exaggerated.
Journalism.co.uk had this on its to-do list for this morning, but Sarah Ditum got there first and picked up Jon Snow’s comments from his reverse-role interview with Ann Widdecombe in the Guardian magazine on Saturday.
The Channel 4 News journalist – and Widdecombe reckons this is her scoop – would welcome a privacy act and says it wouldn’t affect the tabloids too much – ‘they’re going out of business anyway’.
AW Would you welcome a privacy act, Jon Snow?
JS I would welcome a privacy act, yes.
AW We have the scoop! Jon Snow says, ‘Bring in a privacy act.’
JS I believe that the tabloid media, in particular, have so intruded into the private lives of public people that they have brought it upon themselves that there should indeed be a privacy act.
AW I think that is absolutely right. I think…
JS Damn me, Ann Widdecombe, I didn’t think we’d have to sit here and agree.
AW And I consider that quite a coup, to have got Jon Snow to agree with me that we need to curtail the rights of the media. Thank you, Jon Snow…
JS I am totally opposed to, and would go to the gallows to prevent, censorship. But needless intrusion into the private lives of anybody…
AW Let me ask you this. Let’s imagine a politician – I don’t care whether it’s male or female, Jon, but let’s imagine a politician. You’ve got a politician who has never made any pronouncements about morality, who has a mistress. Is that the public’s business?
JS Not at all.
AW You’ve just put a lot of the tabloids out of business.
JS Well, they’re going out of business anyway, so that won’t mean much…
Last night’s Panorama on privacy law and its threat to journalism is available on BBC iPlayer at this link. BBC news story at this link. From the Panorama site:
… “it is not only kiss and tell stories that are under threat, and editors fear serious investigative journalism could be jeopardised; Panorama investigates this growing trend.”
If the Wordle and other coverage isn’t enough, here’s the Hugh Cudlipp speech by the editor of the Sun, Rebekah Wade, in full [note: may have differed very slightly in actual delivery]:
The challenging future of national and regional newspapers is now the staple diet of media commentators.
If you have been reading the press writing about the press you’d all be forgiven for questioning your choice of career.
I’m not denying we’re in a tough place – we are.
But I don’t want to use this speech to make grand statements on the future of our industry.
I want to talk to you about journalism.