Public interest v what interests the public? - Darned if I know

Mortmain

Hi folks, was looking for a little input to help me out with a project I’m doing. I’m trying to ascertain what exactly would people classify as being in “the public interest” for the purposes of the media running stories on individuals which may involve a degree of invasiveness and/or a breach of confidence.

This is the problem:

Lion Laboratories v Daily Express [1985] Q.B. 526. per Griffiths L.J. – “there is a world of difference between what is in the public interest and what is of interest to the public.

BUT:

A v B & Another [2003] Q.B. 195 per Lord Woolf – “in many … situations it would be overstating the position to say that there is a public interest in the information being published. It would be more accurate to say that the public have an understanding and so legitimate interest in being told the information … the courts must not ignore the fact that if newspapers do not publish information which the public are interested in, there will be fewer newspapers published, which will not be in the public interest.”

So which is it – should the “public interest” be synonymous with what “interests the public”, or should there be further, more stringent requirements?

If it is to be the former there would undoubtedly be grave consequences for those in the public eye. If it is to be the latter, what type of criteria would you suggest the court be mindful of?

Any and all contributions greatly appreciated – cheers!

hullaballoo

Without getting into the legal aspects of the cases and definitions, you can take a purely semantic approach. Public interest means the interest of the public. What interests the public is an entirely different matter altogether.

In Ireland, one could not be criticised for saying that binge drinking interests the public, whereas one could not say that binge drinking is in the interest of the public. Quite the contrary.

maidhc

the public interest == the common good
the public interest != Pg. 3 of the Sun.

interest to the public == Pg. 3 of the Sun.

Mortmain

What both of you are saying is, of course, correct and in itself is the nub of the issue. The law as it stands allows one in possession of information which (s)he knows to be private to breach his/her duty of confidence if to do so would be in the public interest.

A case in point;
Becham v Gibson - The defedant was hired as a nanny by the Beckhams and signed a confidentiality contract. She worked for the plaintiffs for two years and soon after leaving the job sold an expose to the news of the world for £125,000. The Beckams sought an injunction to prevent her revealing aspects of their private life on two grounds - breach of contract and breach of an equitable duty of confidence.

The high court refused the injunction on the grounds that the expose was in the public interest, and that overrode both the contractual and equitable duties owed.

Now, if we return to the semantics issue, if the test for public interest adopted by the courts is "what interests the public" it has sever implications for those in the public eye. On the other hand, if the test is to be constructed along the lines of what is in the interest of the public at large (somewhat related to the concept of the common good) then it becomes hard to justify the decision to refuse the injunction. The latter approach was adopted recently in a case concerning Naomi Campbell and the Mirror Newspaper.

I'm trying to asses the suitability of an existing tort for defending those in the public eye from invasive exposes (e.g. X in three-in-a-bed-shocker!) but any defence will naturally be subject to a "public interest" exception.

Do you think that this type of reporting should be justified on the grounds that people are generally interested in celebrities or should the courts take the more strict common good approach?

ambro25

Mortmain wrote:

should the courts take the more strict common good approach?

gets my vote

I believe there's a question of colouration or well, past behaviour, that should be taken into consideration, when trying to answer your quandary. As in: say the celebs themselves have a history of selling stories (intentionally, whether good or bad, to keep their faces in Hello/The Sun/etc. - they demonstrably make a living off publicising their private life, e.g. Sun/Mirror cheques are part of their balance sheet - you get the gist!), then they then can hardly object to a story coming out which they didn't sell themselves.

Contrarily, however, celebs who exhibit a steadfast record of doing all that is possible to keep their private lives private (i.e. no drugs, no booze, no or very few interviews, etc, etc.) should not be presumed as above.

In other words... fact and degree all the way

mountainyman

have you read the above essay?

mountainyman

ambro25 wrote:

say the celebs themselves have a history of selling stories (intentionally, whether good or bad, to keep their faces in Hello/The Sun/etc. - they demonstrably make a living off publicising their private life, e.g. Sun/Mirror cheques are part of their balance sheet - you get the gist!), then they then can hardly object to a story coming out which they didn't sell themselves.

In my opinion if they don't like it they can stop courting celebrity.
If Caroline of Monaco doesn't think I have a right to know what she had for dinner she can
1 stop stealing from the monagesque people
2 stop being such a ****ing slut.

Death to the rich roll on the tumbrils let the needles click

MM

maidhc

mountainyman wrote:

In my opinion if they don't like it they can stop courting celebrity.

Wait for the forthcoming "Privacy" Bill, inspired by Martin Cullen and Monica Leech!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-2103993,00.html

ambro25

mountainyman wrote:

In my opinion if they don't like it they can stop courting celebrity.
If Caroline of Monaco doesn't think I have a right to know what she had for dinner she can
1 stop stealing from the monagesque people
2 stop being such a ****ing slut.

Death to the rich roll on the tumbrils let the needles click

MM

Well, your posts conforms to my point exactly. Going by your example, CDM sells her stories to the press / doesn't go out of her way to ensure her private life stays private...

Moreover, she's a celebrity by birth, so to speak, because she is a member of the family ruling the land, so yet again a different class (threshold?) or privacy applies, potentially.

As a voting member of the public, I'm more concerned to learn whether the politicians making decisions that affect my life are inept p*ssheads, than I am to learn who's CDM's boyfriend of the month. Again... fact and degree

And, that said, privacy's got f*ck all to do with whether she steals from Monégasques or not.

Victor

ambro25 wrote:

As in: say the celebs themselves have a history of selling stories (intentionally, whether good or bad, to keep their faces in Hello/The Sun/etc. - they demonstrably make a living off publicising their private life, e.g. Sun/Mirror cheques are part of their balance sheet - you get the gist!), then they then can hardly object to a story coming out which they didn't sell themselves.

How about a claim for unfair competition?

ambro25

Victor wrote:

How about a claim for unfair competition?

I'd have to look up relevant provisions, I don't think every country has such Statutes (I suppose the EU Commission is always a possibility with Arts 81/82, but again would have to check / other than that, and/or in combination with, EU Human Rights re. deprived of right to earn a living ).

Seriously, the test for privacy should ideally read onto a test for any sort of injuction which, as I have laboured already in the thread, only ever turns on facts and degree of case - I really don't believe that a hard and fast rule that applies in every circumstances can ever be achieved with such matters

Mortmain

Ambro, you're right - the courts, both here and in the U.K. have (perhaps unfortunately but that's a whole other debate) refused to recognise a tort of unfair competition. The project i'm working on is looking at the possibility of extending the scope of passing off law to cover instances where journalists/gutter press/makers of 'sex tapes' etc. seek to profit by cashing in on the goodwill inherent in a celebrity's personality. According to a number of judges, passing off law should be capable of adapting to reflect changing commercial realities. My argument is as follows:

i) Passing off is really concerned with protcting goodwill from being exploited by those who have not contributed to its creation (you shall not reap where you have not sown)

ii) The reality of commercial celebrity trade today is that many 'celebrities' trade on nothing more than image itself (e.g. 'stars' of reality T.V. shows, kiss 'n tell celebs etc.) so they effectively rely on the goodwill built up in their image.

iii) Expose (can't find that damn accent yoke) type reporting in the ilk of "Kerry, broke and fat", "Colin's three-in-a-bed sex romp" etc. seeks to shift units be they papers, magazines, videos etc. by cashing in on the goodwill of the celebrity in question.

iv) Therfore it should not be too far a conceptual leap to extend passing off law to cover this type of situation.

However, such an approach will always be subject to the 'public interest' defence. If the test is taken to be "that which interests the public" my argument is dead in the water as celebrities by their very nature interest the public.

I don't believe that celebrities should have no right to privacy due to the fact that they opted for a certain career. Rather i think that the meia should have a right to report in cases where the public have been deliberately misled - E.G. Naomi Campbell saying "I don't take drugs" - see Campbell v MGN.

This is the reason I am so interested in finding out what people deem as being within the public interest.

Victor

Mortmain wrote:

The project i'm working on is looking at the possibility of extending the scope of passing off law to cover instances where journalists/gutter press/makers of 'sex tapes' etc. seek to profit by cashing in on the goodwill inherent in a celebrity's personality.

Well, this is how Hilton, P. hit back at the guy who sold the tapes. As the star (which he couldn't claim to be), she demanded that she be paid an appropriate fee - quantum meruit.

Mortmain

Victor wrote:

Well, this is how Hilton, P. hit back at the guy who sold the tapes. As the star (which he couldn't claim to be), she demanded that she be paid an appropriate fee - quantum meruit.

Granted, however this is only of use to those who wish for financial reward, it doesn't solve the problem for those who seek and injunction to prevent publication - this is why i'm attempting to explore another avenue.