Mosley v United Kingdom (unreported, dated 10th May 2011) was a 2011 decision in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An application to the court was made by Max Mosley, former president of the FIA following his successful breach of confidence lawsuit against the News of the World (known as Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)). In the case the court unanimously rejected the proposition that Article 8 required member states to legislate to prevent newspapers printing stories regarding individual's private lives without first warning the individuals concerned, instead holding that it fell within each state's margin of appreciation to determine whether to legislate on this matter.
Contents |
On 29 September 2008, Mosley filed an application to the Court claiming Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights were breached by the United Kingdom failing to impose a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance of publication of the story. This would allow him the opportunity to seek an interim injunction and thus prevent publication.[1] If the Court decided that there was admissibility in the application,[2] Mosley intended to argue that the damages awarded to him by the high court were an insufficient remedy.
Mosley then attempted to challenge the state of English privacy law by arguing for a doctrine of prior disclosure, which would require journalists to give at least two days' notice of intention to print stories about the misbehavior of a public figure. John Kampfner, the chief executive of the press freedom group Index on Censorship, and author of Freedom for Sale, argued that a doctrine of prior disclosure would stifle investigative journalism[3] and damage press freedom.
In March 2010, a brief was filed[4] to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the case, which has been fast-tracked through the system.[5] The brief in opposition was prepared by renowned human rights lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens at the instance of a host of media organisations including Media Legal Defence Initiative, Index on Censorship, European Publishers Council, the Media international Lawyers Association, Romainian Helsinki Committee, Global Witness, Media Law Resource Centre and The Bulgarian Access to Information Committee.[6] On 11 January 2011, a hearing was held by a Chamber of the Court.[7]
On 10 May 2011, judges found in favour of the UK and ruled that domestic law was not in conflict with the Convention.[8] The court ruled that although there was a clear obligation to ensure that personal privacy was protected, there were existing protections in place, including the options of referral to the Press Complaints Commission and the possibility of seeking civil damages.[9] The Court ruled that the damages awarded under the earlier case at the English High Court represented an adequate remedy in respect of the breach of Mosley's rights.
The case was widely followed and reported in the mainstream media, with The Daily Telegraph describing the case as "a significant victory for free speech"[10] and The Sun describing the case as a "crushing defeat" for Mosley.[11] Several papers including the Daily Mail[12] presented the case with reference to the superinjunction phenomenon, but whilst both involve privacy law they are not related legally. Others commentators criticised tabloid coverage of the case, for instance The Guardian’s Richard Peppiatt accused the tabloid press of "quote-picking" and downplaying elements of the judgement, including the court's reaffirmation of Mosley's 'victim status' and its admonition of the News of the World's conduct in relation to Mosley.[13]
|
|||||||||||||||||