Naomi Campbell Privacy Victory in House of Lords

Try to imagine two more contrasting environments: the sequins and flashbulbs of the catwalk and the sombre studious court rooms at the House of Lords. The catwalk and the courtroom are worlds apart, but all five judges in Naomi Campbell's appeal against the Mirror Group did their very best to step off the bench and into her Manolo Blahniks in considering whether she should recover damages for infringement of her privacy from the Mirror, which had published details about her treatment for drug addiction with Narcotics Anonymous.

Their Lordships agreed: our law does protect privacy and a major impetus for this has been the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. This firm has acted for clients claiming infringement of privacy for a long time, but it is still helpful to have the principle clarified and confirmed in a judgment from the House of Lords. Protection of privacy in this country is based not on a distinct "tort", or wrongdoing, of infringement of privacy (the Human Rights Act created no such thing as against private persons or corporations) but principally in an action for breach of confidence. Recent case law has expanded the law of confidence to take account of both article 8 (right to respect to your private and family life) and article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The law of confidence is (in the words of dissenting judge Lord Nicholls) "better encapsulated now as a misuse of private information". He parted company from three of his fellow judges on the facts, but none disagreed with his analysis of the law.

All the judges agreed that information relating to drug addiction and treatment should be regarded as private information and attracts the protection of article 8. It was also common ground between Ms Campbell and the newspaper that the Mirror was entitled to report the fact of Ms Campbell's drug addition and the fact she was receiving treatment for it because she had publicly denied she used drugs and the Mirror was entitled to correct the position. The key question in the action was whether the Mirror was entitled to go on to give details of that treatment and to publish a photograph of her leaving the clinic. In a 3:2 majority, the House of Lords decided that it was not: the publication of additional information relating to the fact that Ms Campbell was receiving treatment at Narcotics Anonymous, details of that treatment and a photograph of her leaving the clinic was not necessary or justified and did infringe her privacy. Accordingly they revised the verdict of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial verdict in favour of Naomi Campbell.

The majority judges concluded that whilst, in the words of Baroness Hale "not every statement about a person's health will carry the badge of confidentiality"; (she gives the example of a broken leg), there was a real risk that a report in a newspaper about treatment for drug addiction could do great harm - recovering drug addicts are bound to be in a fragile state. The majority judges also attached significant weight to the publication of the photograph: Lord Hope said that " had it not been for the publication of the photographs …I would have been inclined to regard the balance between [article 8 and article 10 rights] as about even." He concluded the publication of the photographs added greatly to the intrusion.

So there we have it; we do have a law of privacy. Newspapers cannot afford to ignore it. They need to be particularly careful if they are thinking of illustrating an article with an intrusive photograph taken without the subject's consent or of publishing significant detail about someone's private life even if some of the information may be considered to be in the public interest.

Significantly the House of Lords recognised that everyone is entitled to respect for their privacy and this can extend to pictures taken of them in a public street.

Claire Gill