QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| NAOMI CAMPBELL||Claimant|
|- and -|
|MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS||Defendant|
Mr Desmond Browne Q.C. Leading Mr Mark Warby and Miss Anna Coppola (instructed by MGN Ltd) for the Defendant
Hearing dates : 11th-15th February 2002
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Morland :
“SUPERMODEL Naomi Campbell is attending Narcotic Anonymous meetings in a courageous bid to beat her addiction to drink and drugs.
The 30 year-old has been a regular at counselling sessions for three months, often attending twice a day.
Dressed in jeans and baseball cap, she arrived at one of NA’s lunchtime meetings this week. Hours later at a different venue she made a low-key entrance to a women only gathering of recovering addicts
Despite her £14 million fortune Naomi is treated as just another addict trying to put her life back together. A source close to her said last night “she wants to clean up her life for good” she went into modelling when she was very young and it is easy to be led astray. Drink and drugs are unfortunately widely available in the fashion world. But Naomi has realised she has a problem and has bravely vowed to do something about it. Everyone wishes her well”
Her spokeswoman at Elite Models declined to comment”
“In our picture the catwalk queen emerges from a gruelling two-hour session at Narcotics Anonymous and gives a friend a loving hug.
This is one of the world’s most beautiful woman facing up to her drink and drugs addiction - and clearly winning.
The London-born supermodel has been going to NA meetings for the past three months as she tries to change her wild lifestyle.
Such is her commitment to conquering her problem that she regularly goes twice a day to group counselling”
“To the rest of the group she is simply Naomi, the addict. Not the supermodel. Not the style icon
The organisation encourages addicts to stay away not just from drugs but also from alcohol and even cigarettes as a part of a 12 step plan to recovery.
They take it one day at a time, starting with the acceptance that there is a problem”.
Her courageous decision to deal with her problem shows that the girl they call Babywoman is finally growing up
“Something had to give, and thank God it was the drugs and partying,” says Naomi’s friend, She’s still fragile, but she’s getting healthy.”
“Naomi has been scared by what’s happened to people around her,” adds her friend
“Flavio has coaxed her into making the right decision. It could have all ended so differently.”
“Conscious of the terms of the PCC Code of Conduct, I considered carefully whether there was a public interest in the publication of the fact that Ms Campbell had a drug problem and had sought to deal with it. I thought there were two main reasons why publication was justified. (i) It appeared that Naomi Campbell had been committing a serious criminal offence by possessing and using a Class A drug over a period of years. (ii) As a role model to young people, she had held herself out in the media as someone who had managed to remain immune from the use of drugs in an industry where drug abuse was notoriously common. She had thus seriously misled the public. (iii) She had frequently made references to her private life in many interviews with the media.
There were two ways I thought The Mirror could approach the story. The first was to concentrate on Naomi Campbell’s deceit of the public and expose her as a drug addict and a hypocrite who had lied to the public. The second course, which I preferred, was to publish a sympathetic story, making the point that she had admitted to drug addiction, chosen to seek help for it, and had demonstrated real commitment to tackling her problem by regular attendance at Narcotic Anonymous over a prolonged period. It was this second approach which I decided we should adopt.”
“Morgan says that his original article was run sensitively and in co-operation with Campbell’s Elite model agency.”
“Can we agree, at least, that the sentence is seriously misleading and seriously unfair to Miss White?”
He said “I think it was slightly unfair”
When asked:- Did you make any attempt to correct that statement?”
He replied:- “No, to be honest it did not strike me as overly important.”
“No, but I am saying conversation between us could be argued to be co-operative, so I would not see this as a particularly misleading or damaging fact”
“of course it was distressing to be branded as a drug addict but what I found particularly unpleasant and intrusive was that the Mirror printed details of my treatment and photographs of me outside one of the counselling sessions. I felt shocked, angry, betrayed and violated by the article......I felt depressed. For the first time in a long while I doubted myself and my resolve to go on. ”
“Publication of this article is breach of confidentiality and an invasion of privacy.
Please let us have your undertaking by return that
1 You will not publish further.....confidential and/or private information
2. You will not commit any further unlawful invasions of our client’s privacy.”
“Help. Naomi leaves Narcotics Anonymous meeting last week after receiving therapy in her battle against illegal drugs”
The article was headlined:-
“After years of self-publicity and illegal drug abuse, Naomi Campbell whinges about privacy”
In the article are these words:-
“The Mirror revealed last week how she is attending daily meetings of Narcotics Anonymous”
“If Naomi Campbell wants to live like a nun let her join a nunnery. If she wants the excitement of a show business life, she must accept what comes with it.”
“For the past 3 months she has been attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings to help her fight her addiction to drink and drugs.”
1. In my judgment the details of Miss Naomi Campbell’s attendance at Narcotics Anonymous do have the necessary quality of confidence about them. They bear the badge or mark of confidentiality. In my judgment it matters not whether therapy is obtained by means of professional medical input or by alternative means such as group counselling or as here organised meetings for discussion between sufferers. They were obtained surreptitiously assisted by covert photography when Miss Campbell was engaged deliberately “low key” and drably dressed in the private activity of therapy to advance her recovery from drug addiction.
To echo the words of Gleeson C.J. in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd  H.C.A. 63 at paragraph 42 information relating to Miss Naomi Campbell’s therapy for drug addiction giving details that it was by regular attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings is in my judgment easily identifiable as private and disclosure of that information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
Or to use the guideline test given by Lord Woolf C.J. in A.v.B. (C.A. 11th March 2002) at paragraph 11(vii) it is obvious in my judgment that there existed a private interest worthy of protection.
2. In my judgment the information giving details of her regular attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings for therapy must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. The undisclosed source whether a fellow sufferer of drug addiction attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings or a member of Miss Naomi Campbell’s staff or entourage owed her an obligation of confidence in relation to the information; whether or not that information was supplemented by a Mirror reporter attending a Narcotics Anonymous meeting or by covert photography. The information clearly bore the badge of confidentiality and when received by the defendants they, Mr Morgan and the Mirror journalists were clothed in conscience with the duty of confidentiality.
I do not accept Mr Desmond Browne’s submission that the claimant must show that the defendants on receiving the information were dishonest in publishing what they did. At one stage Mr Browne seemed to be saying that if subjectively Mr Morgan honestly believed that he was entitled to publish the information no duty of and no breach of confidentiality arose. In my judgment it is for the court viewing the circumstances objectively to determine whether the defendants were clothed in conscience with the duty of confidentiality.
3. In my judgment clearly the publication of information about details of her therapy in regularly attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous was to Miss Naomi Campbell’s detriment. It was, viewed objectively, likely to effect adversely her attendance and participation in therapy meetings.
Although in my judgment the publication of the facts that she was a drug addict and had previously lied in saying that she never had a drug problem, caused her considerable distress, I am satisfied on the evidence that apart from that the publication of the details about her therapy sessions with Narcotics Anonymous caused her significant distress.
In my judgment these conclusions are consistent with what Keene L.J. said in Douglas v. Hello! Ltd  QB 967 at page 1011-2:-
“Breach of confidence
164. It is this which has formed the main plank of the claimants’ case. The claim is put in terms of breach of confidence in the particulars of claim, but it was said in argument by Mr Tugendhat that the case has more to do with privacy than with confidentiality.
165. It is clear that there is no watertight division between the two concepts. Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll  Ch 302 was a classic case where the concept of confidentiality was applied so as, in effect, to protect the privacy of communications between a husband and wife. Moreover, breach of confidence is a developing area of the law, the boundaries of which are not immutable but may change to reflect changes in society, technology and business practice. I reject without hesitation the submission by Mr Carr for the defendants that it cannot encompass photographs of an event. It is said that those photographs in the present case did not convey any information which had the quality of confidence, because the guests were not prevented from imparting the same information subsequently, whether in words, by drawings based on recollection or any other means. This argument is unsustainable. The photographs conveyed to the public information not otherwise truly obtainable, that is to say, what the event and its participants looked like. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Were that not so, there would not be a market for magazines like “Hello!” and “OK!” The same result is not obtainable through the medium of words alone, nor by recollected drawings with their inevitable inaccuracy. There is no reason why these photographs inherently could not be the subject of a breach of confidence.
166. Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts as a public authority cannot act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right: section 6(1). That arguably includes their activity in interpreting and developing the common law, even where no public authority is a party to the litigation. Whether this extends to creating a new cause of action between private persons and bodies is more controversial, since to do so would appear to circumvent the restrictions on proceedings contained in section 7(1) of the Act and on remedies in section 8(1). But it is unnecessary to determine that issue in these proceedings, where reliance is placed on breach of confidence, an established cause of action, the scope of which may now need to be approached in the light of the obligation on this court arising under section 6(1) of the Act. Already before the coming into force of the Act there have been persuasive dicta in Hellewell v. Chief Constable of Derbyshire  1 WLR 804, 807 and Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2)  1 AC 109, 281 cited by Sedley LJ in his judgment in these proceedings, to the effect that a pre-existing confidential relationship between the parties is not required for a breach of confidence suit. The nature of the subject matter or the circumstances of the defendant’s activities may suffice in some instances to give rise to liability for breach of confidence. That approach must now be informed by the jurisprudence of the Convention in respect of article 8. Whether the resulting liability I described as being for breach of confidence or for breach of a right to privacy may be little more than deciding what label is to be attached to the cause of action, but there would seem to be merit in recognising that the original concept of breach of confidence has in this particular category of cases now developed into something different from the commercial and employment relationships with which confidentiality is mainly concerned.
167. Because of these developments in the common law relating to confidence and the apparent obligation on English courts now to take account of the right to respect for private and family life under article 8 when interpreting the common law, it seems unlikely that Kaye v. Robertson  FSR 62, which held that there was no actionable right of privacy in English Law, would be decided the same way on that aspect today. It is noteworthy that no claim for breach of confidence was mounted in that case, and that Duchess of Argyll v. Duke of Argyll  Ch 602 and Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2)  1 AC 109 do not seem to have been cited to the court. In the latter decision the House of Lords had made it clear, that a duty of confidence could arise from the circumstances in which the information was obtained, so that the recipient was to be precluded from disclosing it to others. Consequently if the present case concerned a truly private occasion, where the persons involved made it clear that they intended it to remain private and undisclosed to the world, then I might well have concluded that in the current state of English law the claimants were likely to succeed at any eventual trial.
168. But any consideration of article 8 rights must reflect the Convention jurisprudence which acknowledges different degrees of privacy. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 149 that the more intimate the aspect of private life which is being interfered with, the more serious must be the reasons for interference before the latter can be legitimate: see p. 165, para 52. Personal sexuality, as in that case, is an extremely intimate aspect of a person’s private life. A purely private wedding will have a lesser but still significant degree of privacy warranting protection, though subject to the considerations set out in article 8(2). But if persons choose to lessen the degree of privacy attaching to an otherwise private occasion, then the balance to be struck between their rights and other considerations is likely to be affected.”
“.....under section 6 of the 1998 Act, the court, as a public authority, is required not to act “in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”. The court is able to achieve this by absorbing the rights which articles 8 and 10 protect into the long-established action for breach of confidence. This involves giving a new strength and breadth to the action so that it accommodates the requirements of those articles
5. The court is assisted in achieving this because the equitable origins of the action for breach of confidence mean that historically the remedy for breach of confidence will only be granted when it is equitable for this to happen”
“6. The manner in which the two articles operate is entirely different. Article 8 operates so as to extend the areas in which an action for breach of confidence can provide protection for privacy. It requires a generous approach to the situations in which privacy is to be protected. Article 10 operates in the opposite direction. This is because it protects freedom of expression and to achieve this it is necessary to restrict the area in which remedies are available for breaches of confidence. There is a tension between the two articles which requires the court to hold the balance between the conflicting interests they are designed to protect. This is not an easy task but it can be achieved by the courts if, when holding the balance, they attach proper weight to the important rights both articles are designed to protect. Each article is qualified expressly in a way which allows the interests under the other article to be taken into account”
“...Any interference with the press has to be justified because it inevitably has some effect on the ability of the press to perform its role in society. This is the position irrespective of whether a particular publication is desirable in the public interest. The existence of a free press is in itself desirable and so any interference with it has to be justified”
“If there is an intrusion in a situation were a person can reasonable expect his privacy to be respected then that intrusion will be capable of giving rise to a liability in action for breach of confidence unless the intrusion can be justified”
“xii. Where an individual is a public figure he is entitled to have his privacy respected in the appropriate circumstances. A public figure is entitled to a private life. The individual, however, should recognise that because of his public position he must expect and accept that his or her actions will be more closely scrutinised by the media. Even trivial facts relating to a public figure can be of great interest to readers and other observers of the media. Conduct which in the case of a private individual would not be the appropriate subject of comment can be the proper subject of comment in the case of public figure. The public figure may hold a position where higher standards of conduct can be rightly expected by the public. The public figure may be a role model whose conduct could well be emulated by others. He may set the fashion. The higher the profile of the individual concerned the more likely that this will be the position. Whether you have courted publicity or not you may be a legitimate subject of public attention. If you have courted public attention then you have less ground to object to the intrusion which follows. In many of these situations it would be overstating the position to say that there is a public interest in the information being published. It would be more accurate to say that the public have an understandable and so a legitimate interest in being told the information. If this is the situation then it can be appropriately taken into account by a court when deciding on which side of the line a case falls. The courts must not ignore the fact that if newspapers do not publish information which the public are interested in, there will be fewer newspapers published, which will not be in the public interest. The same is true in relation to other parts of the media. On the difficult issue of finding the right balance, useful guidance of a general nature is provided by the Council of Europe Resolution 116 5 of 1998”
“In drawing up a balance sheet between the respective interests of the parties courts should not act as censors or arbiters of taste. This is the task of others.”
“per Bingham L.J. p.215 and 216.
per Lord Griffiths p.268 to 270.
per Lord Goff p.281 and 282”
“Naomi, I have never, ever started an interview this way, but you know that people call you a bitch
Ms CAMPBELL: Yeah
WALTERS: and you don’t mind?
Ms CAMPBELL: No, I do mind, I think that, for me, a woman that’s in control of her work or makes decisions or is very opinionated is called a bitch. I think a man when he is like that is called nothing. It’s fine, But I mean, being a bitch, if that’s what people want to think of me as, has protected me in so many ways.
WALTERS: Tell me how.
Ms CAMPBELL: I’ve never had any of that stuff we hear of the young girls and guys ..(unintelligible)...giving them drugs or, you know, I never had the sleazy side of what people think there is a in modelling. I never had that. I guess I would put on a look, “Don’t you come near me”.
WALTERS: Do you deliberately try to be controversial?
Ms CAMPBELL: No. But I go on my instinct.
WALTERS: But if someone said, “Naomi Campbell, she’s so sweet, she’s so nice”
Ms CAMPBELL: No, I don’t want to be known as sweet, nice girl, I find sweet and nice a little boring.
WALTERS (vo): Naomi Campbell grew up on the tough streets of South London. Before she was even born, her father left and her mother often away worked tirelessly to put her daughter in prestigious stage school to study singing drama and ballet. It was she says a very lonely and anxious time.
Ms CAMPBELL: there’s a lot of issues I have from childhood.
WALTERS: Tell me about those.
Ms CAMPBELL: Well, for instance, not knowing-- not knowing your father, not seeing you mother. That brings up a lot of--that manifests a lot of feelings.
Ms CAMPBELL: Absolutely. Anger but I think that’s normal. And I mean I’ve not always displayed my anger in the appropriate time. It’s always been the inappropriate time. But it’s a manifestation of a deeper issue, I think, anger. And that for me, I think, is based on insecurity, self-esteem and loneliness
You pose very often in the nude. I have seen some beautiful pictures of you in the nude. You just--do you have any inhibitions?
Ms CAMPBELL: Well, I...
WALTERS: Why did you shudder when I said that?
Ms CAMPBELL: No one would believe it because I posed for Playboy recently, But I do, I do have inhibitions, and that took me eight years to say yes to Playboy, I mean I don’t think being in the nude is vulgar at all if it’s done in an artful way........
WALTERS: But you are very often late. What’s that about? Is that insecurity? Is that a power trip? What is it?
Ms CAMPBELL: It’s just a fault and a defect that has to be put right. And I am trying to put it right. It’s something that I think is very bad, ill-mannered, and it’s not something I’m proud of. But as I said, I am progressing and putting it right.”
“Then you sent a month in a rehab clinic-- is that what I have read? A clinic that tried to help you control your anger?
Ms CAMPBELL: I went away to a place that was to take care of myself not just focusing on anger. At the time, I had a great public life of what it may seem, I have got everything a girl could want. I travel the world. I’m very fortunate. Yes. I know I’m very fortunate. But the worst thing about all of that is you can still be unhappy. And I was really unhappy. And I needed to go away. And it was a big fearful thing for me to take the time off work and think, “God I’m missing something.” And--but I did that because I realised the people that really loved me I was going to lose if I didn’t find out what was making me do the things I did.
WALTERS: Have you found out now? Can you control the anger?
Ms CAMPBELL: I’m progressing with my anger. As I know that it now comes from a deeper issue.”
“55. Needless to say, following Lord Fraser’s speech in NWL Ltd v. Woods  1 WLR 1294, if there is a very strong likelihood that the claimant will establish that an article 10(2) justification will succeed at trial this will represent a powerful reason why the court should exercise its discretion to grant an interim injunction to restrain publication. In the present case “Hello!” wished to publish in this country over half a million copies of its issue 639 which it had imported from its printers in Spain. In another case, however, a newspaper might wish to publish a photograph, taken on a private occasion, which it possessed in this country in digital form. In such a case it might run into serious difficulties
56. These difficulties would arise out of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, This statute was enacted, in part, to implement Council Directive 95/46/EC, which was self-avowedly concerned with the protection of an individual’s Convention rights to privacy: see paragraphs (2), (10), (11) and (17) of the preamble to the Directive and article 9 of the Directive itself. It follows that unless the newspaper asserted a section 32(1)(b) justification (viz that it reasonably believed that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expressions, publication would be in the public interest), a claimant who could show that the photograph had been taken of him on some private occasion without his consent would be able to satisfy a court that it was highly probable that an article 10(2) justification would succeed at trial: see the Data Protection Act 1998, section 4 and Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 1(a) and Schedule 2. Section 13 of this Act, incidentally, grants an individual a statutory right to compensation for damage (including distress, in certain specified circumstances) against a “data controller” who contravenes any of the requirements of the Act. This entitlement is subject to any of the defences the Act may provide.”
“Article 1. Objective of the Directive.
1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data
Article 9 reads:-
Processing personal data and freedom of expression
Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter IV and Chapter VI for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.”
“2.1 Freedom of expression and the protection of privacy
Article 10 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR) establishes that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and to impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.[..]
This right is one of the fundamental human rights deriving from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and is one of the most characteristic elements of the legal heritage of democratic societies. Historically it was one of the first human rights to be demanded and indeed guaranteed in law. The press in particular received special legal and constitutional guarantees, in particular against prior censorship.
The right to privacy is similarly guaranteed by article 8 of the EHCR. Data protection comes within the scope of the protection of private life guaranteed under this article. Derogations to the principles of data protection and to article 8 of the EHCR must be in accordance with the law and must respect the principle of proportionality. Equally limits to freedom of expression, such as the ones that might derive from the application of data protection principles, must also be in accordance with the law and respect the principle of proportionality.
However the two fundamental rights must not be seen as inherently conflicting.
One important element that emerges from the current legislative situation in the Member States is that the media, or at least the press, are bound to respect certain rules which although not part of data protection legislation in a proper sense contribute to the protection of the privacy of individuals.”
“Derogations and exemptions under article 9 must follow the principle of proportionality. Derogations and exceptions must be granted only in relation to the provisions likely to jeopardise freedom of expression and only in so far as necessary for the effective exercise of that right while maintaining a balance with the right to privacy of the data subject.
The directive requires a balance to be struck between two fundamental freedoms. In order to evaluate whether limitations of the rights and obligations flowing from the directive are proportionate to the aim of protecting freedom of expression particular attention should be paid to the specific guarantees enjoyed by the individuals in relation to the Media. Limits to the right of access and rectification prior to publication could be proportionate only in so far as individuals enjoy the right to reply or obtain rectification of false information after publication
Individuals are in any case entitled to adequate forms of redress in case of violation of their rights
In evaluating whether exemptions or derogations are proportionate, attention must be paid to the existing ethic and professional obligations of journalists as well as to the self regulatory forms of supervision provided by the profession.”
1. Was the personal data “sensitive personal data” within Section 2?
2 Was the defendant exempted from liability under Section 32?
3. If the defendant is not exempt under Section 32, did the defendant contravene the first data protection principle under Section 4(4)?
4. If the defendant contravened the first data principle, has the defendant established a Section 13(3) defence?
“In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to -
(a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,....
(e) his physical or mental health or condition.”
“(1) References in this Act to the data protection principles are to the principles set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
(2) Those principles are to be interpreted in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 2 (which applies to all personal data) and Schedule 3 (which applies only to sensitive personal data) set out conditions applying for the purposes of the first principle; and Schedule 4 sets out cases in which the eighth principle does not apply.
(4) Subject to section 27(1), it shall be the duty of a data controller to comply with the data protection principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which he is the data controller.”
“References in any of the data protection principles or any provision of Parts II and III to personal data or to the processing of personal data do not include references to data or processing which by virtue of this part are exempt from that principle or other provision”
“(1) Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if-
(a) the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic literary or artistic material,
(b) the data controller reasonably believes that having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c) the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes
(2) Subsection (1) relates to the provisions of-
(a) the data protection principles except the seventh data protection principle,
(b) section 7,
(c) section 10,
(d) section 12, and
(e) section 14(1) to (3)
(3) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) whether the belief of a data controller that publication would be in the public interest was or is a reasonable one, regard may be had to his compliance with any code of practice which-
(a) is relevant to the publication in question, and
(b) is designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this subsection.
(4) Where at any time (“the relevant time”) in any proceedings against a data controller under section 7(9), 10(4), 12(8) or 14 or by virtue of section 13 the data controller claims, or it appears to the court, that any personal data to which the proceedings relate are being processed-
(a) only for the special purposes and
(b) with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material which, at the time twenty-four hours immediately before the relevant time, had not previously been published by the data controller, the court shall stay the proceedings until either of the conditions in subsection (5) is met.
(5) Those conditions are-
(a) that a determination of the Commissioner under section 45 with respect to the data in question takes effect or
(b) in a case where the proceedings were stayed on the making of a claim, that the claim is withdrawn.
(6) For the purposes of this Act “publish”, in relation to journalistic, literary or artistic material, means make available to the public or any section of the public.”
I) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.
ii) The use of long lens photography to take pictures of people in private places without their consent is unacceptable.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
“For my part, I do not accept that there is any need for conflict between the normal meaning to be attached to the words in section 12(3) and the Convention. The subsection does not seek to give a priority to one Convention right over another. It is simply dealing with the interlocutory stage of proceedings and with how the court is to approach matters at that stage in advance of any ultimate balance being struck between rights which may be in potential conflict. It requires the court to look at the merits of the case and not merely to apply the American Cyanamid test. Thus the court has to look ahead to the ultimate stage and to be satisfied that the scales are likely to come down in the applicant’s favour. That does not conflict with the Convention, since it is merely requiring the court to apply its mind to how one right is to be balanced, on the merits against another right, without building in additional weight on one side. In a situation such as the one postulated by Mr Tugendhat where the non-article 10 right is of fundamental importance to the individual, such as the article 2 right to life, the merits will include not merely the evidence about how great is the risk of that right being breached, but also a consideration of the gravity of the consequences for an applicant if the risk materialises. The nature of the risk is part of the merits, just as it would be at trial when the balance had to be struck. That is as relevant at the interlocutory stage as it would be at trial. But that does not require any strained interpretation of section 12(3)”
“1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless-
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”
“In determining for the purposes of the first principle whether personal data are processed fairly, regard is to had to the method by which they are obtained”
“Lord Woolf M.R.
37. Mr Pannick submits that the fact that the filming was secret does not add anything to the filming. I disagree. The fact that it is clandestine can add an additional ingredient. Both the code and the BBC’s own guidance recognise that clandestine filming is regarded as objectionable. The fact that it is secret prevents those who are being filmed from taking any action to prevent what they are doing from being filmed. In this case, it is reasonably clear that, if Dixons had been aware of the filming, they would have regarded it as objectionable. The filming was on their property and although the public were invited to the premises the invitation was not in relation to secret filming.
43. I accept that it is open to the BSC to hold that secret filming of an individual for potential use in broadcasting is in itself an infringement of that individual’s privacy (although it may well be warranted). Notions of what an individual might or might want to be kept “private”. “secret” or “secluded” are subjective to that individual.
44. I also attach particular weight to the context, which is not only the secret filming without consent but also the potential use in the mass media without consent. Furthermore, we are not talking about legal rights but broadcasting standards. If there is a good reason for the infringement then it will not be unwarranted. All this seems to me to justify a wider view of the ambit of privacy than might be appropriate in some other contexts There may well be contexts in which the concepts should be limited to human beings, whose very humanity is defined by their own particular consciousness of identity and individuality, their own wishes and their feelings. But that debate is for another day ”
“for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person”
“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.”
“The personal data are processed in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.”
“The disclosure of personal data -
(a) is in the substantial public interest;
(b) is in connection with -
(i) the commission by any person of any unlawful act (whether alleged or established),
(ii) dishonesty, malpractice, or other seriously improper conduct by, or the unfitness or incompetence of, any person (whether alleged or established), or
(iii) mismanagement in the administration of, or failures in services provided by, any body or association (whether alleged or established);
(c) is for the special purposes as defined in section 3 of the Act; and
(d) is made with a view to the publication of those data by any person and the data controller reasonably believes that such publication would be in the public interest.”
“In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.”
“(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if-
(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.”
“The Mirror article on the 1st February 2001
I saw the article when it came out. I spoke with Naomi about it who had also read it. I told her of the conversation I had had with Piers Morgan the night before. Naomi was very upset. She was adamant that someone who was trying to help themselves by seeking treatment and counselling should be able to do so privately. Naomi was very tearful and very distressed. I remember her asking “how could they do this?”. She told me that she believed that the Mirror had been following her, since she could not understand how the Mirror had known she had attended two different meetings on one day and regularly attended NA meetings
I also recall that Naomi was upset and angry about the follow up articles and in particular the article which describes her as a “chocolate soldier”, which she felt was obviously racist, as her agent and also her friend we would regularly talk and she would frequently mention the Mirror articles and the Mirror’s general attitude towards her. Even now I can see that she is still affected by it all.”
“I was very distressed to read the article in the Mirror. Someone, I think my driver, had gone out to get the papers. I recall that a friend of my mother telephoned me and then Carole White rang. Carole White told me about her conversation the night before with the Editor, Piers Morgan, when he said it was a coincidence that a photographer was present. I did not believe that it was a coincidence I was convinced at the time that the Mirror must have been following me. I read the article in the presence of a friend and I was outraged and upset. Of course it was distressing to be branded a drug addict, but what I found particularly unpleasant and intrusive, was that the Mirror printed details of my treatment and photographs of me outside one of the counselling sessions.
I felt shocked, angry, betrayed and violated by the article. My friend who had chaired the lunch time session at World End Place two days earlier rang me as he said he was concerned the article would send me “over the edge”. A number of other friends who knew of NA or attended also rang to offer support but I felt depressed. For the first time in a long while I doubted myself and my resolve to go on.
I felt very uncomfortable at the thought that someone close to me was disclosing private information about me to the world through the Daily Mirror. I was very worried that I did not know who this person was. I was also anxious that I would be seen to be letting down my fellow attendees and it would be damaging to them also. It undermined my confidence in being sure I could attend any NA session in this country in complete security. I felt miserable and very insecure. I didn’t know for sure whether I was being followed, whether a trusted employee had sold secrets about me or whether someone in NA had given this story to the press.
Since the publication in the Mirror I lost my confidence in going to the meetings. It was difficult, I tried to be strong and on the day of the article, Thursday, I went to another NA session accompanied by a friend.
By the time I returned from the NA meeting I believed that I was being followed. There was a pack of press photographers outside my flat when I arrived back home from this meeting. They had obviously been waiting for me. By then I was feeling very vulnerable as well as very angry. NA was no longer a haven for me and I now had my home under siege. I felt I was being harassed. I was panicking and worried. I did not want to leave the house any longer. I began to think NA was not worthwhile and I questioned what was the point in trying to fight the addiction if this was the reaction. I felt judged and branded. I felt myself begin to shut down and withdraw.
After the publication of the Mirror article I never again went to a NA meeting at the World’s End centre. I did go to meetings at other centres, but in the year since the article appeared I have only attended about four NA meetings in England. I never spoke again at any meeting in London as I was too afraid. I have however attended NA meetings abroad and on some occasions I have met privately at my home with other NA attendees.”
“Q. Can you just tell us a little about those four meetings?
A. Two of them were at my home......Two of them were at my home by my friend in the programme, and one of them was eight of my friends in a room in a building in Fulham, and the other one I cannot remember.
Q. When you say they were your friends from the programme, were these people you had met before the article?
A. These were friends of mine that I have known for four or five years that also attend the programme.
Q. Do you still go to Narcotics Anonymous centres abroad?
A. I go in America, Japan, Australia, Italy, France, without any problems.
Q. How often, how regularly do you attend them abroad?
A. Four times a week. It depends on my work. Four times a week.
Q. Can you just briefly tell us why you go so regularly abroad but so rarely here?
A. I have never had any problems in any of the countries I have ever been in. Australia, America. France, Italy: I just go and do my meetings and leave”
“Now, Miss Campbell, in your witness statement you say that you were very distressed to read the article. Was not the reason for your distress that the public now knew that you had lied to them for some years and that you were or had been a drug addict.
Q. that was the distressing part, was it not?
A. No it was not.
Q. well, let us just consider how distressed you were when you gave your--
A. The distressed part was that I do not feel I can live in this country and walk into a NA meeting or an AA meeting without having been followed or without having to read headlines like what I had to read with the Daily Mirror.
Q. The headline was “I am a drug addict”?
A. Which is something I never said. I never said that.
Q. Which is something you have never complained about and cannot complain about for reasons you know very well?
A. I never said in those meetings that I was a drug addict so that is also a lie and I feel that I have the right to have my anonymity and everybody else in recovery does. Recovery is a healthy thing: it is not a thing to be ashamed of. You are taking care of yourself and trying to solve your solutions and your problems, and you put this in, or your client puts this in the Daily Mirror, as if it is something to be ashamed of. I had been going for a year and a half before in England and was left alone.”
“I’ve never been camera shy, but there are limits”
“They’ve been having a go at me for years and I have put up with it.” she says. “But this time they’ve gone too far,”
There used to be an unwritten rule that the press would leave patients alone, but that’s changed and it’s gone to a new and disgusting level”.
When someone is having medical treatment they should have a right to privacy. This is not just about me, it’s about everyone in my situation. I’m doing this for everyone out there who needs and wants to keep their anonymity when dealing with something like over-eating, anorexia, or depression”
“Many people I have known have had their anonymity broken and it’s just not right. Everyone should have a right to make that choice”.
This is not about me” the next she’s saying “this is the tip of the iceberg. I’m fed up with the press”
“I saw that piece and got upset for 5 minutes.”
“It would be wrong, would it not, to set out to seek to deter someone from pursuing an action by seeking to aggravate the anxiety which necessary attends litigation? ”
“You have an assumption there that we have ever sought to deter her from litigation; nothing could be further from the truth. I have actually been waiting to have a chance to speak publicly on this particular issue for some time in a Court of Law.”
“I think our intentions towards Miss Campbell changed after she sought to take legal remedy against us”
Because I found the whole idea of her trying to go after us on privacy on this particular matter utterly absurd”
I found her attempts to seek legal redress on the grounds of privacy in relation to what we had done absurd and worthy of condemnation”
“The object of her wrath is the press in general. The Mirror in particular, for revealing the very positive fact that here’s a famous woman facing up to her drug problems by attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. A revelation which clashes with the London launch of her perfume, Eau dear.
If she had any sense at all Naomi would appreciate that to us mere mortals the sight of her going to gruelling counselling sessions to root out her problems would appear to be one of the saner decisions in her rather erratic life.
Sadly, she has neither the wit nor the wisdom to see it that way and now plans - after years of thrusting her failed projects like the nauseating book Swan and equally appalling record Love and Tears down our throats-- to launch a campaign for better rights for celebrities or “artists” as she calls them: though it has to be said if Naomi’s an artist I’m a rocket scientist.
Gosh, I bet Elton, Geri and Robbie are trampling over themselves to beat a path to her door on this one. As a campaigner, Naomi’s about as effective as a chocolate soldier. She was sacked as figurehead of the animal charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals after she wore a fur in the Fendi show. Doh!
Her “fight” - albeit worthy - against racism and “narrow minded-ness” in the fashion industry came about when, after years in the business, she was relegated from the cover to the inside pages of an issue of American Vogue magazine. The problem is that Naomi doesn’t actually “stand” for anything. She can’t sing, can’t act, can’t dance, and can’t write.”
“Did you tell Mr Landesman you had seen the piece and got upset for 5 minutes?
A. We were talking about the piece of the chocolate cookies the chocolate soldier and, at that point I just had to laugh because if they had to go as low as discriminating the colour of my skin, which I am very proud to be. I had to laugh and that is what I was talking about for 5 minutes. But, on the whole, the general thing is I am going to put on a brave face giving an interview, not breaking down crying for sympathy. I fee strongly that what I am doing is correct for myself, so I am going to stand up for myself”
“It is not a blatant lie. It is something that I did know about which did upset me. I am confusing all the articles in one”
“The more I talked to her, the more I sensed that Naomi does not seem personally very hurt by the invasion of her privacy.”
“I found that part of the problem was that Naomi did not manage to articulate her feelings or her case in a very clear comprehensive way at times”