Public interest journalism should be focus of privacy law reform, say campaigners

Free speech campaigners in the UK are calling on the government to ensure public interest journalism remains the focus of any privacy law changes, following reports that legislation to clarify the law could be considered.

But some media lawyers and commentators say any new legislation would be unwarranted.

According to a report by the Daily Telegraph, Justice Minister Lord McNally said there is a "general consensus" in favour of any law that "clarifies, consolidates and removes some of the more dangerous aspects" that have developed through privacy case law.

It was also suggested that this clarification could come within the government's own draft bill on defamation, which a Ministry of Justice spokesperson government told Journalism.co.uk will aim to find a balance between "individual rights to privacy and rights to freedom of expression".

However, it was added that there are no plans to introduce legislation to codify the law on privacy at the moment.

"The Government recognises the importance of finding the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on one hand with rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other," the spokesperson said.

"The government's proposed reforms of the law of defamation are one aspect of this balancing process. Another is the Master of the Rolls' committee to examine the use of super-injunctions and other issues relating to injunctions which bind the press. However, there are no current plans to introduce legislation to codify the law on privacy."

Mike Harris, public affairs manager at Index on Censorship said while he welcomes the government's attention to privacy law, the focus needs to be the impact on public interest journalism over celebrity "title-tattle".

"It's good news that Lord McNally is turning his attention to privacy law which like our libel laws has developed from rulings at the end of expensive court cases rather than in Parliament, by our elected representatives. Although celebrity title-tattle inspires the most debate on the subject, it's the effect that our privacy law is having on covering up public interest reporting that is more worrying. Legislation on privacy must take free expression as a principle right."

But others feel there is already sufficient legislation which allows courts to make their judgements in relation to privacy and that when it comes to celebrity injunctions against publication of personal matters, the public interest defence often fails to stand up.

Legal and policy freelance writer David Allen Green, who covered the issue in a New Statesman article this week said legislation already exists to provide the balance between privacy and freedom of expression.

"The real background to Lord McNally's comments is the disquiet of the mainstream media at the consequences of legislation already passed, especially the Human Rights Act, which gave effect in English law to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Article 8 provides that a person has a right to privacy which can only be interfered with in certain defined circumstances. The development of privacy law in the courts was a direct and foreseeable consequence of this significant legislative step. And now it has happened, the mainstream media want it to all go away."

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).