Privacy and Injunctions - Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions: "We believe that the courts are now striking a better balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, based on the facts of the individual case (para 32).
A privacy statute
We believe that any statutory definition of privacy would risk becoming outdated quickly, would not allow for flexibility on a case-by-case basis and would lead to even more litigation over its interpretation. For these reasons we do not recommend one (para 37).
We do not recommend a statute declaring in broad terms the right to privacy. We disagree with criticisms that privacy law has been "judge made" and does not have parliamentary authority; it has evolved from the Human Rights Act 1998 (para 41).
Determining the public interest in private lives
We do not recommend a statutory definition of the public interest, as the decision of where the public interest lies in a particular case is a matter of judgment, and is best taken by the courts in privacy cases. As an alternative, we expect the reformed media regulator, in conjunction with other regulators, to publish clear guidelines as to what constitutes the public interest, and to update them where necessary (para 50).
We do not think that section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in requiring the courts to "have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression" when considering whether to grant any relief, means that article 10 has precedence over article 8. The practical effect of the claimant satisfying section 12(3) (see below) means that article 8 does not have precedence over article 10." 'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment