• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42
  43. 43
  44. 44
  45. 45
  46. 46
  47. 47

Confidence and privacy torts

Extracts from this document...


CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: CONFIDENCE AND PRIVACY (1) Is there a tort of privacy? (2) Analysing the elements of the potential tort (3) The private law tort of invasion of privacy in other jurisdictions. (4) Proposals for a new tort (5) Defining the new tort. (6) Breach of Confidence (7) Which types of activities or information constitute "Private Life"? CHAPTER 2: THE IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (1) Media law, Privacy and Human Rights (2) Human Rights, Privacy and recent cases CHAPTER 3: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE MEDIA REGULATORS? (1) How extensively is privacy protected? (2) The Regulatory Codes (i) The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) (ii) Private places (iii) Procedural drawbacks of the PCC (3) TV and Radio (i) The Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) (ii) Procedural drawbacks of the BSC (iii) The Independent Television Commission (ITC) and the Radio Authority (iv) OFCOM (v) Survey (vi) Is there a need for reform? CONCLUSION APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER 1: CONFIDENCE AND PRIVACY (1) Is there a tort of invasion of privacy? It has often been said that the English law does not recognise a right to privacy 'as such'.1 It has been widely agreed that privacy rights might find incidental protection by causes of action designed to protect other interests, but there is no distinct cause of action for 'invasion of privacy'.2 This point was graphically illustrated in the case of Kaye v Robertson.3 This case involved a well known actor who had undergone extensive surgery and was in hospital when he was photographed and allegedly interviewed by a tabloid newspaper. The journalist and the photographer for the newspaper ignored notices asking visitors to ask permission from a member of staff before visiting patients. The claimant relied on causes of action in libel, trespass to the person, passing-off and malicious falsehood. It was accepted by the claimant's lawyers that his rights could not be protected by an action for breach of privacy. ...read more.


It was an issue of fact and degree for the regulator.122 The significance of the specialist role of media regulators in determining what is meant by "privacy" was also emphasised in the case of R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte BBC.123 In this case, the BBC had secretly filmed several sales transactions in Dixons stores to check whether they were selling some second hand goods as new. The BSC held that the actions of the BBC had amounted to an unwarranted infringement of Dixons' privacy. The BBC decided to challenge this adjudication through judicial review arguing that a company could cot complain about an infringement of privacy because this was by its very nature personal and human in nature. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the BSC because complaints of invasion of privacy could be made by a corporate body.124 The court of appeal made it very clear that media regulators had a "broad licence" in exercising their judgement and discretion in relation to complaints of infringement of privacy. Lord Woolf summarised this position in the following terms: "So long as the approach which the BSC adopt is one to which, in their statutory context, the words 'infringement of privacy' are capable of applying then the courts should not interfere. It is only if an approach of 'infringement of privacy' by the BSC goes beyond the area of tolerance that the courts can intervene". However, both the Ex parte Granada and Ex parte BBC cases involved challenges by the media to adverse privacy adjudication. In both cases the regulator had given the Code an interpretation which was probably wider than that required by the common law or Article 8. The position may have been different if the regulator had taken a narrower interpretation of 'privacy' than the common law or article 8, as illustrated in the case of R (Ford) ...read more.


100 Younger Committee Report on Privacy (1972) Cmnd 5012; Calcutt Committee Report on Privacy and Related Matters (1990) Cm 1102; Calcutt Review of Self-Regulation (1993) Cm 2135; National Heritage Select Committee 4th Report on Privacy and Media intrusion (1993); Lord Chancellor's Department and Scottish Office Consultation Paper, 'Infringement of Privacy', (1993) 101 Broadcasting Act 1996, s. 107 102 Robertson and Nicol on Media Law, 4th edition, pp.668-679 103 This is illustrated in the Gordon Kaye case (Kaye v Robertson (1991) FSR 62.), where the Sunday Sport completely ignored the Press Council's condemnation of its behaviour. 104 See footnote 100 105 (1998) PCC adjudication, 3 May 106 Sallie Spilsbury, Media Law, Cavendish Publishing, 2000, p. 320 107 (1998) PCC adjudication, 4 June 108 (1998) PCC adjudication, 30 May 109 (2002) EMLR 95 110 At 104, para 26 111 This case will be discussed further in the section covering the Broadcasting standards commission (BSC) 112 Broadcasting Act 1996, s.106 and 107 113 At para 18 114 At para 22 115 At para 25 116 At para 28 117 At para 15 118 At para 14 119 At para 16 120 (1995) EMLR 163 121 At para 167 122 In relation with para 18 of the BSC Code. 123 (2001) QB 885. 124 Section 111 Broadcasting Act 1996 125 See footnote 109 126 At 894, para 17 127 The BSC's predecessor. 128 (1997) 9 Admin LR 265 129 s.111 (1) Broadcasting Act 1996 130 s.111 (7) Broadcasting Act 1996 131 Section 2 of the ITC Code. 132 Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, the self-regulating body for chat lines. 133 Office of Communications Act 2002. 134 Government White Paper "A New Future for Communications", CM 5010 and the Government Response to the second Report from the CMS Select Committee 2000-2001, CM 5316. 135 See page 8 136 Tom O'Malley & Clive Soley, Regulating the Press, 2000, p. 182 137 Humphreys, Mass Media, 1996, pp. 63-64 138 See appendix 2 32 32 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. Does the law of nullity continue to have any valuable role to play in ...

    Plus, the law of nullity governs situations where the marriage is considered to be invalid due to some defect existing, at the time the marriage was celebrated where as the law of divorce governs situations where the marriage was valid at the on set but has broken down irretrievably after the marriage has taken place.

  2. The Wednesbury test, for all its defects, had the advantage of simplicity, and it ...

    The Human Rights Act (1998) however, demands that public bodies operate within the boundaries of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  1. Critically analyse the effectiveness of lay people and compare and contrast the roles played ...

    Lay involvement in judicial decision-making is intended to ensure that the courts are aware of community concerns. However, given the restricted social background of magistrates, and their alleged bias towards the police, the true value of this may be doubtful.

  2. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932].

    between the container and the vaporiser; that the defendants did not know that it was dangerous, but ought, as reasonable men, to have known it. Hamilton J seems to have thought that there was no evidence of negligence in this respect.

  1. A Critical Review of 'Property, Authority and the Criminal Law' by Douglas Hay.

    He claims property, power and authority went hand in hand, and those who had property thus had power and authority. Hay believes the upper classes used their position as rulers to employ the criminal law to enforce a system of 'bonds of obedience and deference'8 that kept the masses in their place, protected their control and promoted their own interests.

  2. 'The Land Registration Act 2002 makes a poor attempt at reforming the law of ...

    This was endorsed in the recent 'Pye'12 judgement, 'the suggestion that the sufficiency of the possession can depend on the intention not of the squatter but of the true owner is heretical and wrong'.13 Thus the acts of the squatter do not need to be inconsistent with the intentions of

  1. H.L.A. Hart's Correction of John Austin

    Primary rules dealt with human behavior and conduct. They outlined what was considered illegal and defined boundaries of human action. Secondary rules set out how primary rules were to be applied and eliminated. They also conferred power and set about how adjudication and change were to take place.

  2. Judges ought to remember, that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; ...

    In this case, instead of creating a new law, judges applied ratios from previous cases and completed gaps in the legislation which can produce finality and certainty of the law.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work