Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Man Photographed in Court Building and Photo Published Online ?

2

Comments

  • #32
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Electronic Writer wrote: »
    What would you say if I were to put it to you that , I'd suggest , and I'm not legally trained either , that if a person is working , that person is not a member of the public , but works on behalf of a private entity such as a business.

    working for a private entity does not stop one being a member of the public. we are all members of the public. our job status doesn't change that


  • #33
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Electronic Writer


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    working for a private entity does not stop one being a member of the public. we are all members of the public. our job status doesn't change that

    I'll put it to you this way.

    A man is working for a carpentry firm and is standing on the side of the road with a bag full of tools. He decides to get a public transport bus to move his tools a stop down the road so he doesn't have to carry them to his van.

    Is the bus driver justified in giving him access to the bus service given he is working for a private business and also he is quite different from a man carrying 3 bags of shopping ?


  • #34
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Record your neighbors inside their private home, see how it works out

    I've complained about CCTV on a building site looking in my bedroom window. the local council and Gardaí have said it's perfectly legal.


  • #35
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    GarIT wrote: »
    I've complained about CCTV on a building site looking in my bedroom window. the local council and Gardaí have said it's perfectly legal.

    CCTV must be strictly necessary and pass a three stage test (purpose, necessity the balancing tests), best of luck trying to pass those tests if CCTV is looking in your window!


  • #36
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    GM228 wrote: »
    CCTV must be strictly necessary and pass a three stage test (purpose, necessity the balancing tests), best of luck trying to pass those tests if CCTV is looking in your window!

    It's looking at machinery they park past the end of my garden, back of my house just happens to be caught on it. They claim it only has a 25m range and it's 30m away seems a bit nonsense to me, surely it can still see it even if it's in the distance.

    My point was they didn't see any issue recording what is in private property. But if there are any points to use to get rid of it I'd love to hear them.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Electronic Writer wrote: »
    I'll put it to you this way.

    A man is working for a carpentry firm and is standing on the side of the road with a bag full of tools. He decides to get a public transport bus to move his tools a stop down the road so he doesn't have to carry them to his van.

    Is the bus driver justified in giving him access to the bus service given he is working for a private business and also he is quite different from a man carrying 3 bags of shopping ?

    Are there any CIE regulations that relate to the carriage of a workman carrying tools? i'm not aware of any and neither am i aware of any reason they might exist. I think you are seeing differences where none exist and i also cannot see the relevance to the thread.


  • #38
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Electronic Writer


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    the person being visible directly to the photographer would imply that he/she is also visible to other members of the public and therefore not expectant of a reasonable expectation of privacy (but I'm not legally trained so someone else might be better positioned to give a legalistic view on it)

    Here is the relevancy to the thread.

    Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?

    He is obviously working when he is outside the court taking photographs and working implies he is doing so for a business, whether it be his or not.

    I interpret the quote above as possibly meaning that there could be a difference in the expectation of privacy given to a person walking through the doorway of a court building by a member of the public and those who are not members of the public.

    The difference in expectation of privacy from members of the public and from non-members of the public could of course have been the next question , could we have opinionated Irishphotodesk is possibly a non-member of the public.

    Irishphotodesk would then lead us , no doubt , to further topical discussion.

    Mods may like to shut threads down like dictatorships, their defence is that us mere members of the public have no say over a private business website.


  • #39
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    Electronic Writer wrote: »
    Here is the relevancy to the thread.

    Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?

    He is obviously working when he is outside the court taking photographs and working implies he is doing so for a business, whether it be his or not.

    I interpret the quote above as possibly meaning that there could be a difference in the expectation of privacy given to a person walking through the doorway of a court building by a member of the public and those who are not members of the public.

    The difference in expectation of privacy from members of the public and from non-members of the public could of course have been the next question , could we have opinionated Irishphotodesk is possibly a non-member of the public.

    Irishphotodesk would then lead us , no doubt , to further topical discussion.

    Mods may like to shut threads down like dictatorships, their defence is that us mere members of the public have no say over a private business website.

    Your interpretation has confused me, if I can clarify what I meant.

    If a person is leaving the court (CCJ) and a member of the public can visibly see them while they are inside the glass partition part, the person leaving court cannot assume they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are visible to any member of the public who can see them.

    This would be my logic behind the reason a photographer can take a photo of a person through glass or through an open doorway, directly facing the person.


  • #40
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Electronic Writer


    I understand you Irishphotodesk, as far as you are concerned you or any photographer is able to take the photo I originally described .

    And, thanks.


  • #41
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,738 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Electronic Writer wrote: »
    Irishphotodesk says he is another member of the public. Is he ?
    They aren't connected to either the person being photographed or the Courts Service or any other state agency, so yes, the are a member of the public.

    You might get more mileage along the lines of them being a particular class of member of the public.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    the person leaving court cannot assume they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they are visible to any member of the public who can see them.

    Just on this point, in general any person in public must be able to enjoy a legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life even in when they are in a public place and even for example if they are well known to the public, for example you can be out walking in public or in a restaurant and this is considered part of your private life.


  • #43
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    GM228 wrote: »
    Just on this point, in general any person in public must be able to enjoy a legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life even in when they are in a public place and even for example if they are well known to the public, for example you can be out walking in public or in a restaurant and this is considered part of your private life.

    I fail to understand your point in the context of a person exiting a court (specifically the CCJ), can you explain what this sentence means please....and maybe give an example. "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life "

    In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)


  • #44
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    I fail to understand your point in the context of a person exiting a court (specifically the CCJ), can you explain what this sentence means please....and maybe give an example. "legitimate expectation of protection of and respect for their private life "

    In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)

    Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

    See this thread:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297


  • #45
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,738 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    GM228 wrote: »
    Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

    See this thread:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297

    Might there be a difference between the taking of the photo and its use afterwards?


  • #46
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Victor wrote: »
    Might there be a difference between the taking of the photo and its use afterwards?

    No, the ECtHR has confirmed the protection extends beyond just publication and covers giving permission to record your image also.


  • #47
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    GM228 wrote: »
    Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.

    See this thread:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058081297

    Strange that you say it’s a long held position of the European courts yet, we have people being photographed and recorded on cctvs throughout cities, towns etc in ALL of Europe on a daily basis, if it’s such a long held position WHY do we not have multiple stories about businesses brought to court over the fact that members of the public going about their private business in a public space are recorded by their cameras....invading their privacy !

    I know for my work it would be covered under journalism exemptions, but if you are correct then you are saying street photography is illegal, this is done in pretty much every country as far as I’m aware. You may not remember it but there was a guy on o Connell bridge many moons ago, he would take photos and try sell them to you later, per your assertion, this is now an illegal act.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/street-photography-dublin-5195499-Sep2020/

    Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
    https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/


  • #48
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
    https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/
    Interesting in that it's hilariously wrong.

    Just to pick one example...
    GDPR stands for General Data Protection Regulation, and many street photographers wonder if it has an impact on their photography. Nick explains that, for a photo of a person to be classified as personal data, it needs to be accompanied by some other form of personal data. A photo of a human without the description or tags that give any clue of their identity simply shows an anonymous person.
    Nick has no idea what personal data or quite possibly what a human face is.

    If you have given money to Nick for any form of professional representation or expertise on these matters, you should ask for it back.


  • #49
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    :D Not even a passing familiarity with the law or human faces. Quite the broad-ranging lack of knowledge that.


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    GM228 wrote: »
    Anyone can't simply be photographed in a public space, you have a reasonable expectation to privacy even in a public place for daily activities, it's the long held position of the ECtHR.
    Though, in the context of the present thread, I think we're talking about someone being photographed while entering or leaving court proceedings that he was involved in, either as a party or a witness. Court proceedings are a public function, held in public, and are a matter of legitimate public interest, so I think it might be hard to argue that someone's involvement in them was protected by his "reasonable expectation to privacy . . . for daily activities". It's not on the same level as being photographed while walking your dog or playing in the park with your children.

    (Obviously, in particular court proceedings - especially family law matters, and certain criminal matters - there may be court rules or orders to protect the identity of the parties, and taking or at any rate publishing a photograph might well violate those rules or orders, but that's a different matter.)


  • #51
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    Strange that you say it’s a long held position of the European courts yet, we have people being photographed and recorded on cctvs throughout cities, towns etc in ALL of Europe on a daily basis, if it’s such a long held position WHY do we not have multiple stories about businesses brought to court over the fact that members of the public going about their private business in a public space are recorded by their cameras....invading their privacy !

    I know for my work it would be covered under journalism exemptions, but if you are correct then you are saying street photography is illegal, this is done in pretty much every country as far as I’m aware. You may not remember it but there was a guy on o Connell bridge many moons ago, he would take photos and try sell them to you later, per your assertion, this is now an illegal act.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/street-photography-dublin-5195499-Sep2020/

    Here’s an interesting piece about street photography and the law which you may want to view
    https://www.diyphotography.net/this-video-answers-the-most-common-questions-on-law-and-ethics-of-street-photography/

    I didn't make any assertion of it being illegal. Illegal and a breach of potential rights are not the same.

    There are competing rights at play, but the premise that you can take a photo of anything, anywhere, anytime in public is simply wrong, there is a lot of case law from both the ECtHR and the ECJ that debunks what is claimed in your link.

    There has been case law on both purely private activities in public aswell as dealing with court cases and the outcomes of those cases often don't go hand in hand with photographers (or the media in general) claims of fact.


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Though, in the context of the present thread

    Note the context of the discussion to which I replied though:-
    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    In regards to away from the court, anyone can enjoy life[/u[, but anyone can be photographed in a public space also (there are exceptions etc but in the general context of someone out and about the place, which is what I take from your post)

    I did start my post with "just on this point" though.


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think we're talking about someone being photographed while entering or leaving court proceedings that he was involved in, either as a party or a witness.  Court proceedings are a public function, held in public, and are a matter of legitimate public interest, so I think it might be hard to argue that someone's involvement in them was protected by his "reasonable expectation to privacy . . . for daily activities".  It's not on the same level as being photographed while walking your dog or playing in the park with your children.

    (Obviously, in particular court proceedings - especially family law matters, and certain criminal matters - there may be court rules or orders to protect the identity of the parties, and taking or at any rate publishing a photograph might well violate those rules or orders, but that's a different matter.)

    Not that hard actually, there has been a few ECtHR cases on just this very point such as the PBild GmbH & Co. KG and Axel Springer vs Germany (No. 62721/13) ECHR 2018, Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH vs German (No 51405/12) ECHR 2017 or the Egeland and Hanseid vs Norway (No. 34438/04) ECHR 2009 cases.

    All concerned the issue being discussed and the competing rights at play (privacy of the individual vs freedom of expression of the media in legal proceedings), and interestingly the media failed in all three cases! Take the Egeland and Henseid case for example, the person concerned wasn't just on trial or a witness, they had been convicted and awaiting sentence, so what did the ECtHR say:-
    In conclusion, the Court found that both reasons relied on in the Supreme Court’s judgment, that is to say protection of B’s privacy and the fair administration of justice, had been sufficient to justify the restriction on the applicant editors’ right to freedom of expression. Moreover, the interest in restricting publication of the photographs had outweighed those of the press in informing the public on a matter of public concern. Given also that the fines imposed on the applicants had not been particularly severe, the Court held that there had therefore been no violation of Article 10.

    Obviously when competing rights are at play each case will be decided based on the individual facts, public policy, national laws and any pressing needs whilst taking into account the margin of appreciation principle, but the various cases all show that the opinion that anything in public and in particular a court case held in public is fair game is far from correct.

    Several states actually ban (and in some cases make it a criminal offence) to photograph anyone involved in criminal proceedings via their national laws and the ECtHR has held this to be compatible with the ECHR (in particular freedom of expression).

    And just to go back to the point of permission to photo as previously raised versus publication, the ECtHR has held that your face is protected under the principal of personal development an you are entitled to control over the use of any image of your face, the Reklos and Davourlis vs Greece (Case 1234/05) ECHR 2009 sums it up nicely:-
    A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposes the right to control the use of that image. Whilst in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person. As a person’s image is one of the characteristics attached to his or her personality, its effective protection presupposes, in principle and in circumstances such as those of the present case (see paragraph 37 above), obtaining the consent of the person concerned at the time the picture is taken and not simply if and when it is published. Otherwise an essential attribute of personality would be retained in the hands of a third party and the person concerned would have no control over any subsequent use of the image.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Electronic Writer


    So, GM228, would you be of the opinion that when a person is in a court building and proceeding to leave through the front doors but he has not yet taken a step outside , permission by him must be given to use his picture in a newspaper or on a website?

    Because, let's face it, we can go around the roundabout all year, I'll better be direct.


  • #53
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    Electronic Writer wrote: »
    So, GM228, would you be of the opinion that when a person is in a court building and proceeding to leave through the front doors but he has not yet taken a step outside , permission by him must be given to use his picture in a newspaper or on a website?

    Because, let's face it, we can go around the roundabout all year, I'll better be direct.

    In as direct a way as I can say it, it's perfectly legal for the photographer to take the photo and legal for the newspaper to publish in print or online.... If the person is linked to the story published, if the person is not linked to the story then you would be looking at defamation.

    If you re-read gm228's posts you will see that they are not talking about the situation where someone is leaving the court, they have gone off topic slightly to a general person walking around and were not discussing the situation your original post was referring to.

    I have added a pic so that people might get a better understanding of the type of pic involved, I didn't take this pic but know who did and I'm using it with permission.


  • #54
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    In as direct a way as I can say it, it's perfectly legal for the photographer to take the photo and legal for the newspaper to publish in print or online.... If the person is linked to the story published, if the person is not linked to the story then you would be looking at defamation.

    If you re-read gm228's posts you will see that they are not talking about the situation where someone is leaving the court, they have gone off topic slightly to a general person walking around and were not discussing the situation your original post was referring to.

    I have added a pic so that people might get a better understanding of the type of pic involved, I didn't take this pic but know who did and I'm using it with permission.

    You need to re-read my post.

    Oh and tell that to John Olav Egeland and Einar Hanseid of the Dagbladet and Aftenposten magazines respectively in Norway who were fined and convicted for taking pictures of a convicted woman leaving court, they took their case to the ECtHR and lost, the ECtHR held that Article 8 (the convicted persons right to privacy) trumped Article 10 (the magazines right to free speech).

    Obviously each case will depend on the merits as I already noted, but the point being made is your assertion is not absolute.

    This is not my opinion, it is fact backed up by ECtHR case law, also note the Council of Europe's Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (in case anyone is unaware the ECtHR is an institution of the CoE):-
    Principle 1 - Information of the public via the media

    The public must be able to receive information about the activities of judicial authorities and police services through the media. Therefore, journalists must be able to freely report and comment on the functioning of the criminal justice system, subject only to the limitations provided for under the following principles.

    Principle 8 - Protection of privacy in the context of on-going criminal proceedings

    The provision of information about suspects, accused or convicted persons or other parties to criminal pro-
    ceedings should respect their right to protection of privacy in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention.

    Particular protection should be given to parties who are minors or other vulnerable persons, as well as to
    victims, to witnesses and to the families of suspects, accused and convicted. In all cases, particular considera-
    tion should be given to the harmful effect which the disclosure of information enabling their identification
    may have on the persons referred to in this Principle.

    Principle 16 - Protection of witnesses

    The identity of witnesses should not be disclosed, unless a witness has given his or her prior consent, the identification of a witness is of public concern, or the testimony has already been given in public. The identity of witnesses should never be disclosed where this endangers their lives or security. Due respect shall be paid to protection programmes for witnesses, especially in criminal proceedings against organised crime or crime within the family.

    Principle 17 - Media reporting on the enforcement of court sentences

    Journalists should be permitted to have contacts with persons serving court sentences in prisons, as far as this does not prejudice the fair administration of justice, the rights of prisoners and prison officers or the security of a prison.

    Principle 18 - Media reporting after the end of court sentences

    In order not to prejudice the re-integration into society of persons who have served court sentences, the right to protection of privacy under Article 8 of the Convention should include the right to protect the identity of these persons in connection with their prior offence after the end of their court sentences, unless they have expressly consented to the disclosure of their identity or they and their prior offence are of public concern again or have become of public concern again.

    This was adopted by Ireland in 2003, and Principle 8 has been noted and cited by the ECtHR.

    As you can see anyone in ongoing proceedings are afforded the protection of Article 8 of the ECHR weather they are a witness, accused, convicted etc, there are exceptions as noted above, but then it becomes a rights balancing issue, what is considered a public concern can be a tricky issue, people convicted of murder have seen Article 8 trump any public concern arguments so where the line is drawn is not clear. Realistically what we need is Irish case law and a subsequent ECtHR case on the issue dealing also with the margin of appreciation.

    It seems to me the majority of the media* either simply don't know the legal issues or are ignorant to them, it is true that photography happens all the time, the problem is few have taken any action on the issue, those who have have shown the popular beliefs are incorrect, if anyone in the media do eventually fall foul of this they may also quickly get a lesson in another ECtHR concept known as "just satisfaction".

    * To be fair I'd even suggest that many legally trained are not even fully aware unless they like me have a particular interest or specialty in this area of law. The jurisprudence of the ECtHR can be a very eye opening topic!


  • #55
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    Looking up those two names and using google translate to put it into English ... you appear to have neglected a detail.... that there was already a ban on that sort of photography in Norway, I assume you did know this, given your level of expertise in the area, and by the way, thanks for posting the information, it does open my eyes with regards to some of the work that I have done, I would entirely agree that many in the media operate on a do it until told it’s not legal, I would say that the vast majority of the media would not be able to comprehend law and it’s complex network of rules and exemptions.

    “The newspapers deliberately chose to break the ban on photographing the accused on their way in and out of the courtroom, in order to clarify the boundaries of photography. They believed that the case was so special that it should grant an exemption from the ban“

    Original Norwegian link:
    https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/veronica-orderud-ble-oppfattet-som-fritt-vilt/65341437

    Translated version:
    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fkultur%2Fveronica-orderud-ble-oppfattet-som-fritt-vilt%2F65341437

    As regards the OP and his assertion that privacy has been breached, it would appear he could be the type of person who could very well be your test case if they were to bring the matter further, it might help clarify the situation for members of the public, the legal profession and the media in Ireland.


  • #56
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    Looking up those two names and using google translate to put it into English ... you appear to have neglected a detail.... that there was already a ban on that sort of photography in Norway, I assume you did know this, given your level of expertise in the area, and by the way, thanks for posting the information, it does open my eyes with regards to some of the work that I have done, I would entirely agree that many in the media operate on a do it until told it’s not legal, I would say that the vast majority of the media would not be able to comprehend law and it’s complex network of rules and exemptions.

    “The newspapers deliberately chose to break the ban on photographing the accused on their way in and out of the courtroom, in order to clarify the boundaries of photography. They believed that the case was so special that it should grant an exemption from the ban“

    Original Norwegian link:
    https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/veronica-orderud-ble-oppfattet-som-fritt-vilt/65341437

    Translated version:
    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fkultur%2Fveronica-orderud-ble-oppfattet-som-fritt-vilt%2F65341437

    As regards the OP and his assertion that privacy has been breached, it would appear he could be the type of person who could very well be your test case if they were to bring the matter further, it might help clarify the situation for members of the public, the legal profession and the media in Ireland.

    Indeed I am aware of the ban (hence why I said they "were fined and convicted", it was a criminal offence under S131A of Norways Administration of Courts Act 1915), but the overriding point was that the ban was not incompatible with Article 10 and that Article 8 trumped Article 10.

    Note from the link you provided:-
    He notes that the Human Rights Court, in contrast to the Supreme Court, sees privacy considerations as the most important in the case.

    Now don't get me wrong, there has and will be occasions were the argument goes the other way concerning topics of public interest, but the point is the notion (believed by so many) that anything is fair game is completely wrong.

    I recommend anyone in the media to read and familiarise themselves with Rec(2003)13.


  • #57
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed I am aware of the ban (hence why I said they "were fined and convicted", it was a criminal offence under S131A of Norways Administration of Courts Act 1915), but the overriding point was that the ban was not incompatible with Article 10 and that Article 8 trumped Article 10.

    But that doesn’t imply that the photography of an individual in a public space is an invasion of their privacy, it is as you have said above, “the ban in Norway was not incompatible with article 10 and article 8 trumped article 10” in the context of the case put before the court.

    From what I can find on google:
    article 8 is the right for a convicted criminal to have privacy.

    Article 10 the right to publish information - subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

    So article 8 trumps article 10 on this specific occasion, not that it will be the same in other cases....or am I completely off the mark?


  • #58
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    But that doesn’t imply that the photography of an individual in a public space is an invasion of their privacy, it is as you have said above, “the ban in Norway was not incompatible with article 10 and article 8 trumped article 10” in the context of the case put before the court.

    From what I can find on google:
    article 8 is the right for a convicted criminal to have privacy.

    Article 10 the right to publish information - subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

    So article 8 trumps article 10 on this specific occasion, not that it will be the same in other cases....or am I completely off the mark?

    As I said not every case will not be the same and depend on the facts of the case, but, the ECtHR held that member states have positive obligations to afford the protections to those involved in criminal proceedings as per Rec(2003)13.
    The subject matter at issue in this case relates, on the one hand, to the right of the press under Article 10 of the Convention to inform the public on matters of public concern regarding ongoing criminal proceedings and, on the other hand, to the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to protect the privacy of convicted persons in criminal proceedings (see Principle 8 in the Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the provision of information trough media in relation to criminal proceedings, quoted at paragraph 21 above) and its obligations under Article 6 of the Convention to ensure a fair administration of justice.

    This is important as the court recognises positive obligations apply to member states as per Principle 8 which I outlined previously, a ban or otherwise on photography by the member state would in no way reduce member states obligations to those in criminal proceedings.


  • #59
    ...Ghost...
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,427 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    GM228 wrote: »
    As I said not every case will not be the same and depend on the facts of the case, but, the ECtHR held that member states have positive obligations to afford the protections to those involved in criminal proceedings as per Rec(2003)13.



    This is important as the court recognises positive obligations apply to member states as per Principle 8 which I outlined previously, a ban or otherwise on photography by the member state would in no way reduce member states obligations to those in criminal proceedings.

    What about civil proceedings? The quote only mentions criminal proceedings.

    Stay Free



  • #60
    Electronic Writer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭Electronic Writer


    Irishphotodesk wrote: »
    I have added a pic so that people might get a better understanding of the type of pic involved, I didn't take this pic but know who did and I'm using it with permission.


    I see the picture but the people appear to be outside the building. Just sayin! A few steps earlier and the people would be beyond the doorframe and in the building.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    GM228 wrote: »
    As I said not every case will not be the same and depend on the facts of the case, but, the ECtHR held that member states have positive obligations to afford the protections to those involved in criminal proceedings as per Rec(2003)13.



    This is important as the court recognises positive obligations apply to member states as per Principle 8 which I outlined previously, a ban or otherwise on photography by the member state would in no way reduce member states obligations to those in criminal proceedings.

    Did you just repeat the same statement twice ?

    I understand what you are saying with regards to member state obligations .... but ... as you have said and I think it’s more important to emphasize the opening line of your first paragraph .... every case is different, in the case you highlighted the court found that publication was the incorrect thing to do, and as I have said in my previous post, the judgement made by the court does NOT mean that any other person photographed in a public place will have their privacy breached.


Advertisement