During the debate of John Brown MPs Private member’s bill on Protection of privacy, the government’s spokesman, Timothy Renton, put both sides of the argument. Stating that; “the truth is that the government starts from the premise that you cannot have a free society without a free press” Saying that the newspaper only say and show the good things. As a result he said that he thought legislative curbs on newspapers should only be imposed, after careful thought and when overriding national interest is concerned. The newspapers don’t often consider how their stories invade the private lives of individuals and as a result often destroy reputations and families in the process. John Browne believes that newspapers should suffer real consequences rather than just higher their circulation figures. He states “At times it seems the press has degenerated into unpleasant, unforgivable licence” E.g. in the Max Mousley case.
Although a privacy law is desperately needed both the Justice Report (Privacy and the law (1970) and the Younger committee report (report of the committee on privacy ,1972) pointed out that it would be very difficult to find a precise or logical formula which could either minimise the meaning of the word privacy or define it excessively. However they both created their own definition of privacy, the first; the justice report understood privacy as a meaning “that area of a mans life which in any given circumstance, a reasonable man with an understanding of the legitimate needs of the community would think it was wrong to invade.” While on the other hand, the younger committee interpreted the right of privacy by creating in two different aspects. The first meaning; “freedom from intrusion upon ones self, ones home, family and relationship.” The second is the “privacy of information that is the right to determine for one self how and to what extent information about one self is communicated to others”. But more recently , the Calcutt committee adopted the definition of privacy to be “the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by the publication of information.” Which gives the impression or view that newspapers often intrude into the privacy of others.
Although many definitions of privacy have been given in the past, in our legal system today privacy is not recognised and therefore a general right to privacy is not provided for and isn’t likely to exist anytime soon. This can be seen in Kaye v Robertson, When the star of “Allo Allo” underwent drastic surgery to his head and brain to help injuries caused by storm debris falling on to his car. In the interest of his health the hospital authorities placed a notice on the door of his private room asking visitors to contact a member of staff before visiting. Acting from their editor, a journalist and photographer went into the hospital and into his room. They then interviewed him and took photographs showing the injuries to his head. The editor later describing it as “a great old-fashioned scoop” but they didn’t have permission to obtain both the photographs or the interview. The plaintiff later obtained an injunction based upon the case Tolley v Fry which refrained the defendants from publishing the interview and photographs. The defendants later appealed to the court of appeal. Where Glidewell LJ stated;
“it is well known that in English law there is no right of privacy and accordingly there is not right of action for a breach of a person’s privacy” Which overall is passing the blame to the government for the lack of a privacy law.
The court of appeal later acknowledged that there is no right of privacy in English law that follows similar facts such as those in Malone v Metropolitan police Commissioner (1979) and stated Lord Denning’s Speech in Re X (a minor) “ we have as yet no general remedy for the breach of someone’s privacy, the reason given being that on balance it is not in the public interest that there would be…” meaning that although many people are asking for a Right to privacy law, it is not really in the public interest to have one.
Another valuable and important report is the Report of the Calcutt committee on privacy and related matters which was published in june1990 and recommended the creation of a statutory right to privacy but effectively gave the press one final chance. The main points of the first paragraph ; last chance to prove self regulation can work, press complaints commission to replace the press council and if self regulation failed, they could use the statutory press complaints tribunal. But the main was that the government should not introduce a new tort of infringement of privacy. But the final chance to the press remained ineffective and still resulted in the press reverting to their usual gutter press state. However since breach of confidence became popular again the press have had to become more careful as the courts now tend to favour the individual versus the free press.
