Recent Cases - Media Law

Lily Allen v Daily Mail
Singer Lily Allen took legal actions against the Daily Mail alleging invasion of privacy and copyright infringement after they published pictures on their website of her home in September, 2010. Lily Allen has earlier won damages against French sports magazine 'So Foot' over an article where they claim she has called Cheryl Cole 'stupid and superficial' and Victoria Beckham a 'monster' and also received an apology from the Sun and £10.000 in damages for repeating some of the claims made in the same 'So Foot' article.

The Spycatcher Affair
The controversial book 'Spycatcher' contains information aquired by Peter Wright, senior officer of MI5, and was published in 1987. The British Government lost the battle to stop the publication of this book. Law Lords ruled that extract from this book could be used by media as any damage to national security had already been done by publications abroad. But it was agreed that Mr. Wright had committed a serious breach of confidence by publishing this book.

In 1991 the European Court of Human Rights found that Mr. Wright's freedom of speech had been violated by the government's actions.

Bill Goodwin Case
Trainee reporter Bill Goodwin refused to hand over the documents that would reveal his source as he investigated the financial difficulties Tetra Ltd faced. Mr. Goodwin's risked imprisonment by refusing to reveal his source - but ended up paying a £5.000 fine.

In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights held that the fine and the court order violated Mr. Goodwin's right to freedom under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Catherine Zeta Jones Case
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones were awarded £14.600 for breach of confidence and an additional £3m in costs after paparazzi pictures of their wedding were published in Hello! magazine.

Campbell v MGN Ltd
In 2002 Naomi Campbell sued Mirror Group Newspapers for publishing a story about her receiving treatment for a drug addiction at Narcotics Anonymous and publishing photographs of Ms Campbell emerging from a treatment session. The paper argued it was in the publics interest they published the story and the photographs - Ms. Campbell had earlier stated that she was not taking drugs, and therefore disclosure was necessary to correct a false public image.

In 2004 it was ruled that it was in the publics interest to report the fact of Ms. Campbell's drug addiction and the treatments she was receiving - but there was no justification for reporting on the details of her receiving it at Narcotics Anonymous, neither of the photographs published alongside the story.

________________
Further reading on:
Lily Allen v Daily Mail - the Guardian
The Spycatcher Affair - BBC
The Spycatcher Affair - MI5
Bill Goodwin Case
Catherine Zeta Jones Case - BBC
Campbell v MGN Ltd - McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, chapter 23