Mosely wins £60k – Boon for Privacy or Blow for Tabloids' Freedom of Expression?
Mr Justice Eady said: “The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.”
Eady went on to say: “Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.”
However the latter point has been vigorously contradicted by numerous representatives of tabloid media and the privacy v freedom of expression debate …
Mr Justice Eady said: “The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.”
Eady went on to say: “Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.”
However the latter point has been vigorously contradicted by numerous representatives of tabloid media and the privacy v freedom of expression debate has been brought to the fore once again.
News Group has been ordered to pay £60,000, although Eady said that no amount of damages can fully compensate Mosley for the damage done and goes on to say: “He (Mosley) is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined.”
5 Raymond’s Mark Warby QC was instructed by Farrer & Co partner Benjamin Beabey for the News of the World, while James Price QC of the same set acted for Mosley after being instructed by Steeles Law litigation chief Dominic Crossley. Both sets of lawyers have done well on this one with legal fees just shy of £1m for the case!
The £60,000 award is an increase over other recent awards made where privacy was deemed to have been breached. Some tabloid commentators have argued that this is further intervention by government through the courts to restrict their legal rights to free expression. Add your thoughts – public interest or just salacious gossip designed to boost flagging sales? Comments…
Gat a story? Contact team solicitr
July 25, 2008
I think that he should have got nothing, everyone wants to read this stuff, he is a public figure – fair play!
July 25, 2008
Wasnt the legal fees for the case in the region of £1Mn?
thats why i love law.
inrespective of the outcome. you still get paid.
July 25, 2008
Tha’t nonsense the poor guy was having a bit of fun in his own time in a private place, why should he have his life runined over something like that. You might find it interesting or distasteful for whatever reason but there is no genuine public interest there, just tabloids trying to sell more of their intellectually devoid rag to anyone who is still interested…
July 25, 2008
I can’t see why there is a public interest, I had never really heard much about this guy until recently. If you watch sexcetera you would see that what he got up to doesn’t seem that outrageous – loads of people do kinky stuff in private surroundings (some not so private too), what’s the big deal?
July 25, 2008
im still interested.
Not.
a dedicated daily mail reader…
July 25, 2008
This is an attempt at inhibiting the press through the courts; fortunately they have enough cash not to let this minor setback letting them report freely…