ARTICLE
17 December 2008

Confidentiality: When Does A “Reasonable Expectation” Of Privacy Arise?

WB
Wedlake Bell

Contributor

We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
Two recent court decisions concerning photographs taken without consent analyse the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and highlight the demarcation in the law between photographs of individuals engaged in a private activity and a public activity.
UK Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Two recent court decisions concerning photographs taken without consent analyse the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test and highlight the demarcation in the law between photographs of individuals engaged in a private activity and a public activity.

The Court of Appeal decision in Murray v Express Newspapers Plc shows how the reasonable expectation of privacy is greater when children are the subject of unwanted publicity.

The first question for the court in deciding whether there has been an infringement of Article 8 (respect for private and family life) is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. Once this is established, the court must decide on the balance between the claimant's right to privacy and the publisher's right to publish.

In this case, the Court of Appeal held that it was at least arguable that Murray had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was because he was a child and his parents had sought to keep him out of the public eye. If the child of ordinary parents could reasonably expect to not have photographs published in the media, then the same principle applied to the child of famous parents.

The private activity engaged in when the photograph is taken can be either recreational or routine, and simple activities such as walking along the street can attract a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain circumstances.

In Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the court took a different view because the photographs in question were of Wood attending a company's AGM in his capacity as media officer for his employer. His employer was involved in a public campaign and the police anticipated trouble. It was unsurprising that there was media interest in the event and Wood's reasonable expectation of privacy was limited. The photographs were taken on a public street by police who were carrying out their job and it was held that there was no interference with Wood's Article 8 rights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More