30 September 2003

Privacy

MS DYNAMITE WINS PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR HER HOME

It is a common problem for celebrities to find themselves beset by
unwanted attention, harassment or worse because details have made their
way into the public domain about where they live. An application in June
2001 by Heather Mills McCartney for an order preventing publication of
details of a new property she had bought was rejected by the High Court.
However, this was the result, at least in part, of the newspaper having
offered an undertaking not to publish details.

The law remains unclear as to the extent to which it will protect a
celebrity's Article 8 privacy rights so far as their home is concerned.
The Press Complaints Commission has taken a big step towards recognising
the need for such protection in an adjudication published last week on
behalf of Ms Dynamite (for whom The Simkins Partnership acted in the
complaint).

Ms Dynamite complained to the PCC, through her record company Polydor,
that an article (and accompanying photograph) headlined "Chart Star's
dream house is right next door to my mum" published in the Islington
Gazette on 26 March 2003 intruded into her privacy contrary to clause 3
of the PCC Code of Practice. This PCC provision closely mirrors the
Article 8 wording and reads as follows:

"Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life,
home, health and correspondence. The publication will be expected to
justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent."

The article reported that Ms Dynamite had purchased a new property in
North London, and a photograph of the property was included. This made
it possible to identify Ms Dynamite's new home and placed her at risk
from obsessive fans.
The newspaper claimed that the story was intended to be a positive piece
about a local celebrity, and while the editor wrote to Ms Dynamite
expressing his regret for any problems caused by the publication, it did
not accept that it had breached the PCC Code. The Commission itself was
in no doubt that it had, and published this adjudication:

"While the Commission was pleased that the editor had made efforts to
resolve this complaint, it has previously made clear that when
publishing details about a celebrity's home without consent, newspapers
must take care to ensure that they do not publish the precise address or
material that would enable people to find the whereabouts of the home.
When making this point the Commission has been mindful of the particular
security problems that some celebrities have encountered.

"In this case the Commission was satisfied that sufficient detail was
included in the article for the complainant's home to be identified and
it therefore upheld the complaint under Clause 3 of the Code."

This is good news for celebrities, most of whom face such problems.
Those with celebrity clients should think about pre-emptive steps
notifying the media of their clients' rights under the PCC Code if a new
property is purchased.

Jonathan Coad
30 September 2003
177

If you have any comments on this bulletin or would like further details, please contact stephen.hornsby@simkins.com (tel: +44 20 7907 3023).
This update is © The Simkins Partnership but you are welcome to forward it to anyone who may be interested.
This bulletin is for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court.
Visit our website at http://www.simkins.com or contact us at earlywarnings@simkins.com for more information about The Simkins Partnership media law services or to subscribe to early warnings on any of the following subjects: Film & TV, Music, Advertising & Marketing, Digital Media, Defamation & Privacy, Sport, Photography or Employment.
Past bulletins can be found on our website at http://www.simkins.com/archive/sim_archive.asp.