Twitter has not disclosed the finer details of its policy, as it does not want “to comment on hypothetical situations“. That was the line from Twitter’s media office as well its head of global public policy, Colin Crowell who appeared in front of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions on Monday.

It should be noted that Twitter already removes contentious content from its platform; the new development is that they have developed the tools to do it on a country-by-country basis – ie. what is censored in China is not censored to a reader in Britain (and vice versa).

Privacy injunctions are an obvious scenario to consider in the context of English law. When the Joint Committee raised the issue with Crowell on Monday he said he didn’t “pretend to know exactly how an injunction process would work“.  According to Twitter’s media office and Crowell, Twitter has not yet had to deal with the “super injunction” situation yet.

Twitter’s policy is general, although copyright infringement C&D notices dominate the Chilling Effects site, which Twitter is using to post removals. Crowell told the committee that the Twitter would deal with requests from an “authorised entity“. Similarly, Twitter’s media office told me that it “will evaluate each request to remove content that comes from an authorized entity and determine whether or not that content needs to be withheld, reactively, from the site“.

I asked Twitter’s media office what such an “authorized entity” might be – a national court, a government, or the complainant directly? Would specific legal action need to be taken?

“We can’t give more detail on what constitutes an authorized entity because it will be different depending on the situation, the law, the country, etc,” I was told. “There are just too many variables with this stuff to make across the board generalized statements.

If content is withheld in a specific country, users in that country will see a grey “tweet withheld” box and Twitter will also report that removal to Chilling Effects.

The Chilling Effects page will be a useful tool for legal researchers like myself, but presumably in the case of a privacy injunction the specific “withheld” information will not be disclosed to a British audience, as it would rather defeat the object of the removal.

My questions for Twitter:

• You have mentioned the Chilling Effect Clearing House project, which deals mainly with copyright C&D Notices. Will you also log defamation, data protection and privacy complaints there?
• Some media reports have concentrated on ‘government’ requests to remove content but your blog post seemed more ambiguous – does it cover other types of legal complaints too?
• If you receive an English court order (eg. in defamation case, or reporting restriction) would you block content globally, or only to an English & Welsh audience? Either way, could you explain that position, in relation to the general policy?
• At what stage will tweets be removed from certain audiences: in response to informal complaints from users? Or would it have to be a legal complaint (letters before action and/or claim form?)
• How big is your legal team dealing with complaints and how do you manage the process of deciding whether to remove content to certain audiences?

Judith Townend is a freelance journalist and PhD researcher examining legal restraints on the media, who runs the Meeja Law blog. She is @jtownend on Twitter.

The Daily Mail, which is being sued for an article published in 2010, reported that Rothschild “is seeking ‘very substantial damages’… over an article which he claims painted him as a ‘puppet-master’ willing to exploit his friendship with Mr Mandelson to impress his business associate Mr [Oleg] Deripaska”.  Judgment was reserved. The FT has a report here and a story by PA Media Lawyer is available here.

Lord Justice Leveson’s focus broadened to broadcasting and blogs this week, with witnesses including ITN’s head of compliance, John Battle, PopBitch’s Camilla Wright, David Allen Green, Lord Patten and Mark Thompson. Inforrm reported on the details of Week 8 here. Lord Patten discussed his case against Harper Collins after it abandoned publication of his book; the Sun’s Gary O’Shea and Stephen Waring answered questions on the paper’s coverage of Chris Jefferies’ arrest; and Bob Crow accused private investigator Steve Whittamore of “blagging” confidential information from the DVLA.

The session on Thursday morning with Google’s legal director, Daphne Keller, and head of corporate communications in Europe, David-John (DJ) Collins, provided a useful insight into the search giant’s handling of legal complaints. Keller said it was Google’s “clear policy” to honour court orders and “to process removals based on that“. “[I]t’s very helpful to us because it takes us out of the sort of looking at this ‘he said, she said’ situation,” she added.

In the afternoon, Facebook’s director of public policy for Europe, Middle East and Africa, Richard Allan, claimed that defamation complaints could have an expected turnaround time of 24 to 48 hours, with a specialist legal team dedicated to handling notices:

“In many cases it can be fairly obvious, a trademark or a copyright violation, for example, can be very straightforward. Some forms of defamation can be very straightforward, particularly where the case is well known.”

A tweeting intellectual property barrister has been struck off by the Bar Standards Board, according to the Telegraph. David Harris, who tweeted anonymously as @geeklawyer, was criticised by the BSB for his tweets, but more significantly for not disclosing his role in the website – Newzbin – he was defending. The Charon QC blog discussed the episode here. Harris appears to have responded to a post on the Legal Cheek blog here.

Meanwhile, tweeting was banned in the Harry Redknapp trial at Southwark Crown Court, after a journalist tweeted the name of a juror and about evidence given by a witness under oath in the absence of the jury. The matter has been referred to the Attorney General, according to Legal Week, which has a report here.

A former local newspaper journalist has been given a ten-year anti-social behaviour order “for writing ‘offensive’ blogs about members of his local community“, according to industry site HoldtheFrontPage. Christopher Perry, 65, said he would now consider the possibility of pursuing judicial review of the Hull Magistrates Court decision. Hull Daily Mail has a report here.

There has been renewed attention on the Times’ unmasking of the blogger NightJack, as noted in last week’s round-up. The issue was raised at the Leveson Inquiry during David Allen Green’s evidence when a letter by Times’ editor James Harding was read out. Earlier in the week MP Tom Watson asked police to investigate the hacked email account in a letter he copied to the Attorney General.

There was evidence of further friction between News International and Tom Watson after national media were quick to report that Tom Watson’s intern had naively tweeted a joke about “twit-rape”. On his blog, Watson questioned the Sun’s political account (@sun_politics) decision to re-tweet the unfortunate tweet (which they now appear to have deleted).

The psychic Sally Morgan has commenced her libel action against the Daily Mail, for an article published in September 2011 entitled “What a load of crystal balls!” Press Gazette has details of the writ here. In December, David Allen Green reported on the letter-before-action here.

Four journalists from the Sun have been arrested by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Elveden on suspicion of “aiding and abetting misconduct in public office“. This is reported to be as a result of information supplied by the News Corporation Management and Standards Committee. As reported by Inforrm here, there have now been 13 arrests as part of the investigation into payments to police officers and, in total, 32 arrests arising out of phone hacking and related investigations.

Richard Wilson, author of Don’t Get Fooled Again, reports that a state-funded primary school in London, the Durand School, has accumulated over £387,000 in legal costs – including those incurred during a successful libel case against the father of a former teacher – since 2008, according to a Freedom of Information disclosure (PDF).

Statements in Open Court and Apologies

Last week’s Independent on Sunday published an apology to the Sun for an article in April 2011:

“On 10 April last year in an article headlined ‘Royals believe Eugenie and Beatrice targeted’ we reported suspicions held by Prince Andrew that his daughters’ phones may have been hacked. Our article implied that hacking may have been carried out by The Sun newspaper. The Sun has asked us to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever any such hacking was carried out by the title or on behalf of the title. We are happy to make the position clear.“

For a regular apology-tracking service we recommend Craig Silverman’s ‘Regret the Error’ blog on Poynter, which notes apologies in British as well as American titles.

Journalism and the PCC

Just before Christmas, the Bibliophylax blog listed and categorised all the Daily Express headlines of the year, and now blogger Scott Bryan has repeated the exercise for the Daily Star (Hat-tip: Tabloid Watch).

There are no adjudicated PCC complaints to report but resolved complaints include: Sally Low v The Independent, Clause 1, 27/01/2012; Mr Syed Ahmad v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 26/01/2012; Mr Colin Philip v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 26/01/2012; David Bret v The Sun, Clause 1, 26/01/2012; Mr Damien Collis v The Daily Telegraph, Clause 1, 26/01/2012, Mr Peter Reynolds v Lancashire Telegraph, Clause 1, 26/01/2012 Karen Birch v Oldham Evening Chronicle, Clause 1, 24/01/2012; Jemima Khan v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 23/01/2012.

The PCC will give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry this week (see below).

Ofcom has revoked the broadcasting licence of Iranian channel, Press TV (as announced here) after it discovered during the course of a sanction case that Press TV was editorially controlled from Tehran, which its London-based licence did not cover. The full revocation decision is available here.

Research & resources

Inforrm will publish a round up of recent academic articles and resources from the previous six months later this week.

In the Courts

The first libel trial of the year, Rothschild v Associated Newspapers, took place on Monday to Thursday, 23 to 26 January 2012 before Tugendhat J (without a jury).

On 24 January 2012, HHJ Parkes QC heard an application in the case of Singh v Singh. Judgment was reserved.

[Update] On 27 January 2012 HHJ Parkes QC gave judgment in the case of Patel v United ([2012] EWHC 92 (QB)), heard on 20 January 2012.  This was a Norwich Pharmacal case where an order had been made originally on 30 September 2011 by Lindblom J.  A further order was made for examination of material relating to an internet forum by an independent expert.

Events

7 February 2012, The Media Society ‘The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism at the crossroads’

8 February 2012, UCL/Bindmans Annual Debate ‘Freedom of the Press versus Privacy Rights: Time for Parliament to draw the line?’

28 February 2012, 1pm, ‘Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom‘ – Rebecca MacKinnon’, at Polis, LSE, Clement House Room 302 (Third Floor), Clement House, 99 Aldwych.

29 February 2012, 9am-2pm. ‘Justice Wide Open‘. Half-day seminar on legal knowledge in a digital age, with speakers including Geoffrey Robertson QC, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Heather Brooke, Mike Dodd and Adam Wagner. Free to attend, but participants must register here. City University London.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Given the number of twitter-related incidents last week, it seems appropriate to include this link to paidContent’s round up of US cases illustrating ‘five ways Twitter is changing media law’.

Reporters Without Borders has published its annual Press Freedom Index, which sees Finland at number one, and Eritrea in 179th place. The full table can be downloaded here. The organisation commented:

“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.“

Inforrm has previously reported on the Scottish Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. On 20 January it received Royal Assent, as announced by the Minister for Community Safety. eGovmonitor has a report here.  A commencement order will now be laid by the Scottish Government to bring the new laws into force on March 1.

The chair of the Bulgarian Judges Association (BJA), Miroslava Todorova, may file a libel claim against Bulgaria’s interior minister, Tsvetan Tsvetanov, reports a Sofia-based news agency, Novinite. According to the report, “in a spate of media appearances, Tsvetanov accused Todorova of patronizing organized crime and of being incompetent at her job“.

Next week in the courts

On Monday 30 January 2012 Eady J will hand down judgment in Hunt v Times Newspapers (heard 19 December 2011)

On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Tugendhat J will continue the hearing of the CMC in Kim & anr v Tong & ors (part heard from 7 October 2011).

On Wednesday 1 February 2012, the Court of Appeal (Judge LCJ, Neuberger MR, Kay V-P) will hand down judgment in the cases of Phillips v NGN and Coogan v NGN, (heard 28 and 29 November 2011). The issue in the cases is whether Glenn Mulcaire can rely on his privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions about the hacking of telephones in cases which did not form part of the original prosecution.

On the same date the Court of Appeal will hear an oral application for permission to appeal against the decision of Sharp J in the case of Diwany v The Ministry of Justice and the Police Norway ([2011] EWHC 2077 (QB)).

On 1 or 2 February 2012, the Court of Appeal (Pill and Elias LJJ and Sharp J) will hear an appeal against the decision of Eady J in Ashcroft v Foley ([2011] EWHC 1710 (QB)).

On Friday 3 February 2012, Vos J will hear the second Pre-Trial Review in the voicemail interception litigation. The nature and scope of the trial to be heard on 13 February 2012 is likely to be made clear at this hearing.

On the same date there is an application in the case of Cairns v Modi (now listed for trial on 5 March 2012)

Next week at the Leveson Inquiry

Monday 30 January, 10:00 – 16:30, Stephen Abell (director, Press Complaints Commission); Tim Toulmin (former director, PCC)

Tuesday 31 January, 10:00 – 16:30, Lord Grade (commissioner, PCC), Lord Hunt (chairman, PCC), Sir Christopher Meyer (former chair, PCC)

Wednesday 1 February, 10:00 – 16:30, Lord Black (Press Board of Finance), Colette Bowe (Ofcom), Guy Parker (Advertising Standards Agency), Ed Richards (Ofcom)

Next week in Parliament

Monday 30 January, 2.15pm, Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, Witness(es): Lord Allan of Hallam, Director of Policy in Europe, Facebook, DJ Collins, Vice President, Global Policy and Communications, Google, and Alexander MacGillivray, General Counsel, Twitter (via video link); Phil Hall, Chairman, PHA Media and Former Editor of the News of the World and Hello!, and Max Clifford, Max Clifford Associated Ltd. Location: The Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House

Thursday 2 February, 10.15am, Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, Dominic Mohan, Editor, The Sun, Richard Caseby, Group Managing Editor, and Justin Walford, Deputy Legal Manager, News Group Newspapers; Lord Hunt of Wirral, Chair, Press Complaints Commission. Location: The Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House

Judgments

The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding:

WXY v Gewanter, heard 11-15, 18-19 July 2011 (Slade J)

Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 and 18 October 2011 (Supreme Court)

Cambridge v Makin, heard 3 November 2011 (Hughes, Black and Tomlinson LJJ)

McGrath v Dawkins and another, heard 10 and 11 November 2011 (HHJ Moloney QC).

Levy v. Coomber heard 9 and 16 November 2011 (HHJ Moloney QC).

El-Naschie v Macmillan, heard 11, 14, 16 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 28-30 November, 1 -2 December 2011 (Sharp J)

Lord Ballyedmond & anr v Trimble, heard 18 January 2012 (Tugendhat J)

Woodrow v Johansson, heard 19 January 2012 (HHJ Parkes QC)

Singh v Singh, heard 24 and 25 January 2012 (HHJ Parkes QC)

Rothschild v Associated Newspapers, heard 23-26 January 2012 (Tugendhat J)

Also on Inforrm last week

• News: European Data Protection reforms – the main innovations – Gervase de Wilde
• Why the US Web Piracy Bills walked the Plank – Kirsten Sjovoll
• Inforrm: New Feature – Resources
• Leveson: Could Press Regulation include Libel Arbitration? – Hugh Tomlinson QC
• Should bankers be named and shamed? Strasbourg latest – Rosalind English
• Inforrm Blog – Happy Second Birthday

This week’s Round Up was compiled for Inforrm by Judith Townend, a freelance journalist and PhD researcher examining legal restraints on the media, who runs the Meeja Law blog. She is @jtownend on Twitter.

The arrests yesterday were of a  29-year-old police officer, Mike Sullivan the crime editor of the “Sun”, Graham Dudman the former managing editor of the Sun, Fergus Shanahan, the executive editor of the Sun, and Chris Pharo the Associate Editor (News) of the Sun.  All five persons arrested have now been released on police bail.  There are stories about the arrests in the “Guardian“, the “Independent“, and the “Telegraph“.

Police officers searched the offices of News International in Wapping, east London, and the home addresses of the suspects.  A Scotland Yard spokesman said:

“Today’s operation is the result of information provided to police by News Corporation’s management and standards committee. It relates to suspected payments to police officers and is not about seeking journalists to reveal confidential sources in relation to information that has been obtained legitimately.“

News Corporation issued a statement about the arrests and the Chief Executive of News International, Tom Mockridge, issued a statement to its staff which included the following:

“This morning four of our colleagues were arrested by the Metropolitan police service in relation to Operation Elveden. I understand that the arrests resulted from information provided to the MPS by News Corporation‘s Management and Standards Committee.

We believe that those arrested are currently being questioned by the police and we must take care not to pre-judge the outcome of the police interviews. The company has provided legal support to those interviewed today. The police are also conducting a limited search at the Sun‘s offices, supervised by the MSC’s lawyers.

News International is confronting past mistakes and is making fundamental changes about how we operate which are essential for our business. As you know, the MSC is leading an internal investigation into our three remaining titles. While this is ongoing, it is well advanced with regards to the Sun”.

None of the individuals arrested by the three related police operations has yet been charged.  The investigations continue.

It is difficult to know what Lord Justice Leveson will make of the very wide range of different perspectives.  The evidence of the broadcasts suggests that strict regulation does not damage proper journalism but this runs contrary to the strong views of the freedom of speech campaigners and internet users.  As “Module 1″ of the Inquiry draws to a close, the nature of the issues is becoming clearly defined even if the solutions remain as elusive as ever.  It is tolerably clear that whatever the fundamentalist views of editors and campaigners, a tabloid press with little regard for privacy and no regulation needs to be kept on the rails within a statutory framework.

On the morning of Monday 23 January 2012 the Inquiry heard from the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson and its Chairman, Lord Patten.   Mr Thompson told apologised for “Sachsgate” and told the Inquiry that the core of the BBC’s editorial mission was to deliver “the most trustworthy and accurate journalism that we can”. He said the BBC only received two to three privacy complaints a year, and were the subject of genuine mistakes rather than “wilful intrusion of any kind”.  He said that there was “no evidence whatsoever” any BBC journalist had engaged in phone hacking.

Lord Patten has criticised close relationships between journalists and politicians.  He that said political parties had “demeaned themselves” by paying court to proprietors and editors in the last 25 years.  He said that politicians would make “better decisions” if they paid less attention to front pages. He added:

“I have consistently given colleagues and at least one prime minster the advice that they shouldn’t worry as much about the newspapers.  I think it is the case that politicians have got closer to editors and journalists…and not always to their advantage. It has been, indeed very, often the reverse.”

He was asked about his relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Patten sued Harper Collins after Murdoch, owner of the publisher, tried to block a book he had written on his dealings with the Chinese authorities. He secured an apology and £50,000 compensation.  He said Mr Murdoch, was an “entrepreneurial genius” who is “serious about newspapers, whether you like it or not” and who had behaved in China “as a lot of other businessmen do”.

The Inquiry also, “took as read” a “Summary of Evidence presented by the BBC” along with witness statements from Greg Dyke, Nicholas Eldred, Robert Peston , Nicholas Robinson, Richard Watson, Tom Bradby, Maggie Carver, Gary Gibbon, David Mannion, Matthew Hibbert and John Hardie.

On the afternoon of Monday 23 January 2012, the Inquiry heard from two ITN employees. Jim Gray, Channel 4 news editor, said an independent inquiry had been carried out by ITN into illicit newsgathering techniques, but had found no evidence of phone hacking or blagging.  He said he was aware of only two occasions when Channel 4 News used private investigators in order to trace subjects. He said any individuals accused of “serious allegation[s] of wrongdoing or criminality” would be contacted in writing before broadcast.  He said approval for undercover filming would come after a series of tests and would need “prima facie” evidence of wrongdoing to proceed.  John Battle, head of compliance at ITN, said the difference between broadcast and print journalists was not great. He said that reporters from both sides of the media try to report the truth and to work in an ethical way.

The first witnesses on the morning of Tuesday 24 January 2012 were Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN and John Kampfner, of Index on Censorship.  Mr Kampfner said he saw “no need” for statutory regulation of the media, and championed a robust system encouraging ethical editorial practice. He said a strong independent framework of self-regulation continuing the complaint and mediation work of the PCC, but with a strong standards arm, would benefit the press.  He said “I would simply argue that there have been many last chance saloons before but with the right robust and considerable changes…[we could have] a strong system of self-regulation”.

The Inquiry then heard evidence from four women who campaign in relation to sexism in the media.  Heather Harvey, manager at Eaves Housing for Women, a charity working to re-home victims of violence, said  that threatening online comments attacking women who have commented on political issues and women’s rights curtailed freedom of expression. She also said irresponsible reporting by the press can present violence against women as inevitable. Anna Van Heeswijk, campaigns manager for Object, said such violence is often trivialised and even eroticised in the press.

Jacqui Hunt of Equality Now and Marai Larasi, joint chair at the End Violence against Women Coalition also gave evidence.  Ms Larasi told the inquiry she wanted to see an understanding of violence against women in the press, and some “myth-busting” of media stereotypes. on the behaviour, attitude and actions of the victims.

In the afternoon session on Tuesday 24 January 2012, the Inquiry heard evidence from Inayat Bunglawala, of  the Muslim advocacy organisation, Engage.  It then heard from Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre, said press coverage of the MMR vaccine had been falsely balanced and given a significant voice to flawed research claiming it to be unsafe. She told the inquiry columnists often stated “blatantly inaccurate” information as fact.

The Inquiry then heard from “Daily Mirror” reporter, Ryan Parry, a reporter for the Mirror, told the Inquiry he was happy with the way he conducted himself when reporting on Chris Jefferies.  He said “The decisions that are made at an editorial level are out of my hands. All we can do is learn from this and hopefully improve for the future.”

Gary O’Shea, a news reporter at the Sun, accepted his paper’s coverage of  the Chris Jefferies case should been “more neutral and dispassionate”.  He said an ex-pupil of Jefferies had been quoted fairly and accurately in articles he wrote for the paper but that he should not have been quoted at the length he was.  He said “What I’m happy to concede is that there should have been filters applied to that information from that gentleman”.

Stephen Waring, publishing director at the Sun, said he was duty editor when O’Shea’s coverage of the Jefferies stories was published. He said he was responsible for the Sun’s “Obsessed by Death” headline and apologised to Jefferies personally and on behalf of the paper.”

On the morning of Wednesday 25 January 2012, the Inquiry heard first from former “News of the World” journalist, Mazher Mahmood who was questioned over his resignation from the Sunday Times in 1988 following a written statement from Roy Greenslade, managing editor of the paper at the time, questioning Mr Mahmood’s earlier account.

Evidence was then heard from Bob Crow, of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport.  He told the inquiry about a Mail on Sunday story published in 2003, featuring a photograph of Mr Crow on the back of his assistant’s scooter.  He accused private investigator Steve Whittamore of “blagging” confidential information from the DVLA.  He was told by Counsel to the Inquiry, Robert Jay QC that News International had confirmed that Mr Crow was placed under surveillance in January 2011. Mr Crow told the inquiry that a private investigator followed him on a holiday to the Caribbean.

The next witness was David Allen Green, the well known legal blogger.  He said that there is a “great deal of self-regulation and responsibly” amongst bloggers and social media users.  He said

“The notion that bloggers out there are cowboys…is looking at it in a very wrong way. Most alleged abuses by people using social media often can be traced back to someone who may or may not have an agenda.”

He said that important stories not covered in the mainstream media were often taken forward by citizens using social media.  He told the Inquiry that “first rate” information is vital for responsible blogging and urged public bodies to work with social media rather than against it. He advocated people having time to step back and compile material for themselves from online sources. He added: “The better blogs and the better tweeters link to information.”

The final witness of the morning was Jonathan Grun, Editor of the Press Association.  He explained the agency’s central role in the British media, saying that PA likes to be first with stories but puts a premium on being accurate.  He also told the Inquiry of his concern at the plight of the regional newspaper industry.

In the afternoon session of Wednesday 25 January 2012 Lord Justice Leveson dealt with directions for “Module 2″ of the Inquiry – the Press and the Police.  The Chairman made it clear that he did not want to prejudice police investigations into phone hacking.  He said he would examine the history of investigations into the press “with a degree of care”. He added: “I will rigorously follow the self-denying ordinance I set for myself at the beginning of the inquiry, so as not to prejudice an investigation or any potential consequences of that investigation”. The relationship between the police and the press is to be examined at the inquiry from February 27 to April 19. The Metropolitan Police Authority were made core participants for the module. The core participant victims will continue to be represented in the second module. Tamsin Allen, of Bindmans LLP, will take over from Dominic Crossley of Collyer Bristow as the solicitor dealing with victims.

On the morning of Thursday 26 January 2012 the Inquiry heard first from the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham.  He said it is not necessary to inform all victims of data breaches. He was asked about a letter sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office by Hacked Off requesting that people mentioned in the Operation Motorman files, the ICO’s investigation into PI Steve Whittamore, are notified that their personal information may have been obtained illegally.  He said

“I would have to take on a veritable army of extra people [to do this]. I’m also going to say I don’t think it’s necessary. If you said to me I’d have to notify everyone named in the Motorman files, I’d be hardpressed to do so. I think [former commissioner] Richard Thomas put the point very well when he said if having established the identity of the individual and their address, we wrote to them and to say your details appear in the Motorman files, but we can’t tell you why, that might be an even greater breach.  It would be a phenomenal undertaking. There are an awful lot of names and in most cases that just isn’t possible.”

Evidence was then heard from David John Collins, vice-president of global communications for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Google and the company’s legal director Daphne Keller.  Mr Collins told the Leveson Inquiry self-regulation was important, but could be aided by a legal backstop. He added: “There is already a body of regulation…particularly in areas around data. [But] self-regulation doesn’t cover everything.” Ms Collins said Google took privacy very seriously and provided users with transparency, choice and control over sharing data.

In the afternoon session the first witness was Richard Allan the director of public policy for Europe, Middle East and Africa for Facebook. He said that the website’s “ecosystem” helped to police online activity. He said that “We find the strongest protection is that community of users. We have an 800 million strong Neighbourhood Watch system.”  He said Facebook had a three-option policy for dealing with complaints: encouraging users to sort out disputes between themselves, involving a third-party and resorting to site moderators made up of trained staff. He said privacy, defamation and intellectual property claims were among the most common complaints.

The final witness of the week was Popbitch’s Camilla Wright. She told Leveson her stories are designed to entertain and inform the newsletter’s 350,000 subscribers. She said that stories came from a circle of 200 to 250 trusted sources, unsolicited email tips and the website’s message boards. She told the inquiry Popbitch had made five or six apologies since 2000, and had paid damages to actor Max Beesley over a libellous story published in 2007.  She said that the case had taught her not to get things wrong, and to resolve complaints as quickly as possible.

The witness list for next week has been published.  On Monday and Tuesday the Inquiry will hear from a number of PCC witnesses – Stephen Abell, Tim Toulmin, Lord Grade, Lord Hunt and Sir Christopher Meyer.  On Wednesday and Thursday it will hear from Lord Black (Press Board of Finance), Colette Bowe and Ed  Richards (OFCOM) and Guy Parker (Advertising Standards Agency).

This post has been based on the useful and informative daily “Round ups” produced for the News Section of the Hacked Off website by Hacked Off web reporter Natalie Peck.  We thank Hacked Off for the use of this material.

The publication of the proposed legislation was previewed by an announcement of some of its content by Viviane Reding, the Commission Vice President who has been one of the driving forces behind it, at the annual Digital Life Design Conference in Munich on January 22. The Regulation and Directive are intended to supersede the piecemeal provisions for data protection and privacy which exist across the 27 Member States with a single, Union-wide legal framework; in the UK, this will mean overriding the Data Protection Act 1998.

The new rules, said Reding, aim to

“ensure a smoother exchange of information between member states, police and judicial authorities in the fight against terrorism and serious crime while at the same time protecting people’s fundamental rights to data protection.”

They are a response to concerns arising from the increasingly widespread use of social media and e-commerce, with all the sacrifice of personal information that the phenomenon entails. The Commission quotes a survey which found that 70% of European citizens are worried about misuse of their personal data, and the effect of the new rules seems broadly to be a re-balancing in favour of the interests and rights of the data subject over those of data controllers and processors.

Concerns about the long-term implications of giving up personal information online are particularly relevant to so-called digital natives, who have grown up sharing details of their entire lives via social networks, and a spokesman for the Commission confirmed that the rules are

“particularly aimed at young people as they are not always as aware as they could be about the consequence of putting photos and other information on social network websites, or about the various privacy settings available.”

The Regulation (and the separate Directive on protecting personal data processed for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences and related judicial activities) will be the subject of detailed commentary and analysis in the weeks and months ahead, but these are some of the main innovations, and one respect in which the law’s approach to the media remains the same:

 The right to be forgotten

Article 17 is a right to be forgotten, that is for the data subject to

“obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child”

This is perhaps the most headline-grabbing and contentious aspect of the reforms, although it is worth noting that it is, of course, a circumscribed right rather than an absolute one. Potentially alarming for data controllers is that, where they have made data public in the first place, their obligations in effacing it extend to third parties involved in processing or publishing that data.

In his detailed post for Inforrm, Paul Bernal draws attention to the often emotional reactions to this aspect of the proposals, which has been painted by some as a potential restriction on free speech, or as making provision for attempts to erase the past, and Reding herself sought to address this kind of alarmism, saying that

“[i]t is clear that the right to be forgotten cannot amount to a right of the total erasure of history. Neither must the right to be forgotten take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media.”

Bernal argues that the right is really intended to address “the deletion of data that is no longer needed” and points to the existence of similar principles of data minimisation in the current law. It seems, however, that this aspect of the new rules, along with the right to object to the profiling and processing of personal data under Articles 19 and 20, will change the approach of online businesses which store data on customers, profile and target advertising at them.

No presumption of consent

There is a focus throughout the legislation on the data subject’s consent to the processing of her data, which will have to be “freely given specific, informed and explicit” under Article 3. Silence or inactivity will not suffice, and consent must be given “by a statement or by a clear affirmative action”. Article 6, which addresses the lawfulness of processing, details scenarios in which processing data without consent is acceptable, including when it is “for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller”.

The requirement to obtain consent is a major plank of the proposed reforms and should have a significant impact on the widespread practice of obtaining, and even trading in, consumers’ personal information without their being aware of it. It could, however, have a detrimental effect on the web browsing experience, resulting in all internet users spending more time dealing with data-related aspects of web-use.

Notification of data breaches

Articles 31 and 32 introduce an obligation to notify the relevant parties of personal data breaches, and they develop the personal data breach notification provisions in Article 4(3) of the e-privacy Directive 2002/58/EC. The most onerous aspect of the two articles is the obligation to notify the national supervisory authority of any personal data breach within 24 hours of it taking place, but the breach must also be communicated to the individual data subject “without undue delay”, a timescale which, according to Reding, also means 24 hours.

The Outlaw blog has commentary on this aspect of the provision, pointing out that the timing provisions will make it difficult to issue meaningful communications to customers, and that the prospect of fines for non-compliance will probably result in the sending of large numbers of reports. Data related spam is not an appetising prospect. However, Reding’s assertion that the new regulations will result in an increase of consumer trust in those they give their data to is perhaps best borne out by this aspect of the proposals.

Data Protection Officers

Article 35 obliges data processors and controllers to designate a data protection officer where processing is carried out by a public authority or body, or where it is carried out by an enterprise employing 250 persons or more, or where the activities carried out “require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects”. This individual will have to have expert knowledge and be appointed for at least two years.

This undoubtedly will be an additional cost to businesses, and is one focus of anxiety from the commercial world. But it does not seem particularly disproportionate when compared with the requirements surrounding Health and Safety, particularly as the nature and amount of data held by businesses increases.

Fines and enforcement

Many news organisations, including the BBC, have led on the fact that companies face fines of up to 2% of turnover for breaches of the legislation. Article 79 outlines a sliding scale of administrative sanctions, starting with a written warning and increasing to 2% of turnover or 1,000000 Euros for the most serious breaches.

The majority of the technology businesses likely to be most affected by the regulations and the possible sanctions are based in the United States and would prefer the minimal controls that exist at the moment. Although Reding has said that sanctions are to be seen as a last resort, and it’s notable that their extent has been significantly reduced from a 5% maximum since an earlier draft of the proposals was leaked, they may be necessary to give teeth to the new framework.

 Media Exemptions

Commissioner Reding emphasised freedom of expression and freedom of the media in her announcement, and the Regulation does, like the Data Protection Act, contain explicit provisions relating to the media. Article 80 provides for exemptions or derogations from the Regulation’s provisions

“for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the rules governing freedom of expression”.

This provision is based on Article 9 of Directive 95/46/EC, which is in force  in the UK as s32 of the 1998 Act.  A margin of appreciation is left to the Member State in the implementation of Article 80, so it seems likely that the existing test applied by the courts in this jurisdiction, that the publication of personal data should be in the public interest, will persist in some form.

The ECJ held in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia (C-73/07, ECR 2008 p. I-9831) that the notion of journalism in Article 9 should be interpreted broadly, including all activities whose object is “the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas”, irrespective of who is carrying them out (although this must not encroach unnecessarily on the fundamental right to privacy). Explicit reference to this decision in the preamble to the Regulations points to the continued existence of a broad exemption, encompassing both old and new media.

 Gervase de Wilde is a student barrister and former journalist at the Daily Telegraph

As the bills temporarily rest in Davy Jones’s Locker, we are left to consider whether the protests were a misconceived overreaction to an important step towards combating copyright theft online or an important step in the protection of the free Internet? And if this legislation was not the way to do it, how can the right balance be struck in future?

SOPA and PIPA in a nutshell

Both SOPA and PIPA were broadly similar in their scope and application. SOPA, the bill put forward by the Senate, also made it illegal to stream unauthorized copyright content. Fundamentally however, both bills sought to prevent US companies from providing funding, advertising, links or any other assistance to foreign sites that “engage in, enable, or facilitate” pirated material. They also provided for a private cause of action both for the owner of the copyright material and the Attorney General against the foreign site. It would not matter that the foreign website was not making a profit from the material; a simple link would be sufficient to fall within the scope of the legislation. Furthermore, while the individual or company could not go after a search engine for failing to remove a link to the offending site, the Attorney General could. Moreover, an individual or company could sue a credit card company which failed to cut off payment services to a pirate website on the basis that it was then facilitating the act.

The bills also allowed the Attorney General to instigate individual prosecutions against copyright thieves based abroad under the same terms of those who “engage in, enable, or facilitate”. The Justice Department could also seek a court order to shut down foreign sites that “engage in, enable, or facilitate” copyright theft. This in turn would extend to US based intermediaries: search engines, Internet service providers, payment providers, and advertisers who would all be required to take “reasonable and technologically feasible steps” to comply with these orders. In practice, this would mean anything from removing a link to blocking advertising or payment services to a website.

What was all the fuss about?

The bills were narrow in their focus but broad in their application. There are often difficulties in identifying and punishing the real perpetrators of copyright infringement or IP theft, particularly when they are based abroad. Laws already exist against web-piracy but there are further difficulties in pursuing criminal or civil actions against those individuals or companies. The US is never one to shy away from seeking extradition of offenders once they have been identified, as the 23 year old British founder of the TV Shack website recently found out. Yet these sites may exist for several years and cost copyright owners many millions of dollars while a criminal case is built up. It is with that in mind that the US decided to go after the intermediaries; the global corporations as well as the small US-based ones; the credit card companies and the online payment sights in an effort to limit the damage and reduce distribution.

Companies like Google and Wikipedia were most concerned at the implications for free speech and information sharing online. However, there is the additional, related question of how effective the new provisions would really be at stopping the most blatant violators of copyright law, compared with the collateral damage inflicted on the rest of the Internet.

It is helpful to consider a hypothetical example to illustrate the potential reach of the legislation. Facebook is a site based in the US. It is directed – in part – at US users. It is therefore within the scope of the legislation. Now imagine that the user in question is based in Norway, with no US users on his friend list but whose privacy settings are such that it may be possible for those based in the US to access uploaded material on his page. The Attorney General could take direct action against him. However, the Justice Department would also be entitled to order Facebook, as a site based in the US and directed at US users, to remove links to the content on other users pages, or even remove to it completely.

For this type of regulation to work, there is necessarily a heavy degree of state monitoring and intrusion. While SOPA expressly states that there is no duty on the part of payment providers or advertisers to monitor activity, the same is conspicuously not said of search engines and does not mean that the state will be keeping close watch over the Internet.

Of course, taking action in any case is discretionary; the Justice Department may consider it disproportionate to order such action in relatively small cases. This is not a solution. Firstly, it is unsatisfactory and dangerous to rely on the common sense of state officials to save overly broad and ill defined legislation. Some of the charges brought under the Providing Material Support for Terrorism offence created by the second Bush Administration stir up some particularly uncomfortable memories of this.

Secondly, SOPA and PIPA provided for private causes of action. These would not only be available against websites hosting pirated content but also extend to payment processors and advertisers. Furthermore, the Attorney General would be able to pursue civil action against a search engine that failed to remove a link to the content. From a practical standpoint, it is easier for American-based copyright holders to pursue civil litigation against American-based corporations. The risk of such litigation is therefore high and has a detrimental effect on trade and e-commerce. Indeed, there is a real risk that in attempting to preserve one aspect of the American economy, substantial damage is caused to another.

The companies targeted by SOPA and PIPA are big and they have global reach but they are not the source of the problem. This is the lazy way to legislate.

The EU approach: Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM

The EU’s digital agenda commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is the latest to add her voice to the anti-SOPA movement. This is unsurprising. The EU staunchly protects the protection of personal data and undoubtedly would have concerns over an intrusive system of regulation such as that proposed by SOPA and PIPA. Furthermore, the EU takes the view that the proper approach to web privacy is one of balance.

Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011, concerned Scarlet’s (an internet service provider) refusal to install a system for filtering electronic communications which use file-sharing software in order to prevent any file sharing which would infringe copyright. SABAM, a Belgian management company responsible for authorising the use by third parties of musical works of authors, composers and editors had reason to believe that users of Scarlet’s services were unlawfully downloading SABAM’s works through “peer to peer” file sharing. The Belgian courts granted an injunction against Scarlet, requiring it to take measures to prevent this copyright infringement from continuing. Scarlet appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal alleging that this injunction was not in conformity with EU law because it imposed a general monitoring requirement contrary both to Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, and with fundamental rights. It was this question which was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

In its Judgment, the CJEU held that the terms and scope of any injunctions granted by a member state to a copyright holder against a third party intermediary such as an Internet service provider is a matter for national law. Crucially, however, such injunctions must not run contrary to the limitations set out by EU law, particularly the prohibition in the electronic commerce Directive pursuant to which national authorities must not adopt measures which would amount to a monitoring requirement on the part of internet service providers. Any injunction that did this would be an infringement of the applicable fundamental rights (freedom to conduct a business, protection of personal data, freedom to receive and impart information). Further, while the right to intellectual property is also enshrined in the Fundamental Charter, it is not absolute and must therefore be balanced against other Charter rights.

The CJEU also pointed out that an injunction such as this would inevitably result in the infringement of Scarlet’s customers’ data protection rights because of the need to collect and identify the IP addresses of all its users.

Taking all of the above into consideration, the CJEU found that the proposed injunction did not strike a fair balance between the right to intellectual property and the rights of freedom to conduct business, protection of personal data, and to receive and impart information.

This is useful guidance, although it does not help the US in its quest for comprehensive copyright regulation. What is clear, however, is that if SOPA and PIPA do go ahead in the future, the EU is likely to have some serious concerns at least in relation to the data protection rights of its citizens.

Is effective protection against copyright theft possible in the Internet age?

It is trite that an author, who creates an original work, generally owns the rights to that work. It is equally trite that reproducing the work on a website or making it available for download – either free of charge or for a fee – without the permission of the author is an infringement of copyright. Interestingly, the entertainment industry – or at least the non-executive portion of it – is not universally opposed to this type of sharing. Indeed, the recently indicted “Megaupload” group had a number of Hollywood supporters.  There is also the usual debate over how much loss web piracy actually causes, although the Megaupload site alone is alleged to have caused the entertainment industry $500 million in lost revenue. It is not a controversial proposition that those who steal the ideas and works of others repeatedly and on a widespread scale, for considerable financial benefit, should face the appropriate sanctions.

At the other end of the spectrum is an individual uploading a video of him singing another artist’s song without the artist’s permission. The individual gets little to no financial benefit from this and the financial loss to the artist is negligible.  Yet, the idea is stolen all the same. That theft continues every time that video is reposted or a link to it shared. It is unlikely that criminal proceedings are going to be brought against the individual in that case. Nevertheless, SOPA and PIPA proposed to shut down access to all types of copyright theft (as long as the perpetrator was based abroad) by targeting every associated host site or intermediary, regardless of knowledge or intent.

It is not possible to devise a system of Internet regulation that comprehensively prevents and attacks copyright theft at both ends of the spectrum without heavily restricting the information available on the Internet. Any system of regulation such as that proposed by SOPA and PIPA would also necessitate a heavy degree of state monitoring of the Internet. There are not only issues of free speech but of data protection, which have not been properly thought through.

Already, there are attempts to push an alternative to SOPA and PIPA through Congress. The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (“OPEN”) was proposed in the House and the Senate last week and proposes empowering the US Federal Trade Commission with the ability to enforce online piracy laws. It is essentially a watered down version of the previous two bills and, while currently enjoying the support of Internet companies has met with dissatisfaction amongst media companies which feel it is too soft on piracy laws. While still going after foreign websites “directed at US users” it does not appear to go much beyond that which is already provided for in US law.

Perhaps one question to consider is whether the existing copyright and intellectual property laws are fit for purpose in the Internet age. The Universal Copyright Convention came into force in 1952. The principles it established are sound and important but should be adapted to reflect current circumstances. Moreover, states have to protect the national interest but important lessons can be learnt and greater progress made through multilateral discussion and cooperation.

The Internet is one of civilisation’s most innovative creations and while it cannot be used as a vehicle for criminal activity protected by an immunity of “freedom”, it should not be used as a vehicle for state censorship and heavy handed restrictions on the information it holds. Quite how the balance is going to be struck is a question even Wikipedia doesn’t yet hold the answer to.

Kirsten Sjovoll is a trainee barrister at Matrix Chambers

Inforrm Resources

Our regular readers will have noticed a new feature on the home page this week – a “Resources” box in the right hand column.  We have introduced this to provide instant access to some resources which are useful to media lawyers but which some readers may find difficult to locate quickly.

The first link in this box is something which is, in fact, not available elsewhere.  It is an editable Word version of the Model Non-Disclosure Order attached to the Master of the Rolls “Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders” (also in the box).

On an application for an Interim Non-Disclosure Order the proper practice is now to use the Model Order as a template and to explain to the judge any additions or deletions in the draft order which the Court is being asked to make.  At the same time the Judge’s attention should be drawn to Practice Direction 51F the “Non-Disclosure Injunctions Information Collection Pilot Scheme“.

We have also included in the Resource Box a link to the Court of Appeal Case Tracker – an under-used resource which shows the present position of all Civil Appeals pending before the Court of Appeal – including the presently proposed “constitution” of the Court for any forthcoming hearing.

We thought it unnecessary to include a link in the Resource Box to the invaluable Bailii – which provides up to date case law from England and Wales (and around the world).  Instant access to this can be obtained by clicking the Bailii Logo on our Home Page.

Please let us know if there are any other useful and not immediately accessible media law resources which could usefully be placed in the Resource Box on our Home page.

During the first seven weeks of evidence at his inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson has visited the outer reaches of journalism and ethics. But he has to look beyond the paparazzi packs and the story-lobbing editors and make practical recommendations for “effective policy and regulation”. A tempting menu of at least 12 regulatory models has been presented. The large and difficult question is which of these is at once practical and strikes the right balance between individuals, the public, and the press.

The judge has given some indications of the kind of model he finds attractive. On Tuesday 10 January 2012 he “floated the concept” of “some sort of arbitral system for speedy resolution of privacy claims, [and] potentially small libel claims“. Such a model of press regulation could improve access to justice while helping to solve the notorious problem of excessive libel costs. Would such a system work?

An arbitrator is an independent person who makes a final and binding decision about a dispute. There is no problem with a regulatory body including an arbitration system. This could decide privacy and libel cases. The arbitrators could have the power to award compensation or require the publication of corrections. Organisations that were subject to the new regulator could be required to take part in such a scheme.

But there is a problem. Everyone has a right – both under the common law and under article 6 of the European convention on human rights – to “access to court”. This involves a right to have disputes resolved by an “independent and impartial tribunal”. Of course it is possible to agree to resolve a dispute in another way, such as arbitration. But there must be agreement. The “right to court” cannot be taken away by compulsion.

Claimants could refuse to take part. As Leveson noted, “if it’s consensual, then the very, very wealthy will simply say ‘I’m not interested’“. So members of the public would have to be given a choice as to whether to take part in a new regulator’s arbitration system and there would be a risk of “two-tier” justice: the courts for the rich and cheap arbitration for everyone else.

Two ways out of this problem have been suggested. The first is to create a “libel tribunal”. This would have to have all the basic characteristics of a court – independence, impartiality and fair procedures such as cross-examination and proper access to documents. There would be no “access to court” objection to everyone who wanted to bring a libel or privacy claim against the media being required to use such a tribunal, just as anyone bringing an unfair dismissal claim must use an employment tribunal. This is, for all practical purposes, a court and the libel tribunal would have to proceed along similar lines. But the disadvantages are obvious. It would be expensive to set up and run, and would risk becoming over-legalistic.

More interesting is a scheme all would-be complainants would be required to use, which involves only interim determination. Such a scheme, modelled on the construction industry adjudication scheme, has been championed by Alastair Brett, a former legal manager of Times Newspapers and long-time advocate of the early resolution of libel disputes (he discussed this on Inforrm last year).  This proposal would mean that those bringing claims against regulated organisations would have to submit them to adjudication by independent experts. Court proceedings would be temporarily “stayed”. Adjudicators would make swift decisions on compensation and corrections.

Under the Brett proposal, this process would be paid for by the newspapers and unsuccessful claimants would not have to pay costs. The adjudicator’s decision would not be final. If either party did not like the result they could still go to court – although construction industry experience suggests that most adjudicators’ decisions are accepted. The possibility of participation in such a system could be an important carrot to attract the media into a new, voluntary regulator. Many practical issues remain to be worked out but an “adjudicatory” system might overcome the problem of compulsion and deliver the cheaper, more effective access to justice which Leveson seems keen to achieve.

Hugh Tomlinson QC is a barrister at Matrix Chambers specialising in media law and an editor of the Inforrm blog. He is a a contributor editor of a new proposal for a Media Standards Authority, including an adjudication element, to be launched later this month.

This article was originally published in Media Guardian and is reproduced with permission and thanks.

Background

The applicant company, Standard Verlags GmbH, owns the Vienna daily newspaper Der Standard. The case concerned an article it published in April 2006 reporting on enormous speculation losses incurred by a state-backed bank, and the ensuing criminal investigation for embezzlement brought against the bank’s senior management. The article identified a member of the bank’s treasury department as Christian Rauscher, the son of a former regional government member with responsibility for finance. The article reported that in 2004 Rauscher was not dismissed but merely demoted and transferred, being relieved of his duties only after the incident of the losses had become known. But it made it clear that the losses had thus been incurred under his responsibility.

Rauscher as head of the bank’s treasury brought proceedings against the applicant company for disclosing his identity in that article. In its defence, the applicant company contended that the article had not depicted the claimant as the person responsible for the losses but rather as the “scapegoat”. The public interest in the disclosure of his name outweighed his private interests since he had held a leading position in the bank and there was also a connection with the political sphere on account of his father’s position. This argument, initially successful, was ultimately rejected by the Vienna Court of Appeal, which, whilst it agreed that there was a public interest in reporting that the claimant had been presented as someone suspected of embezzling a large sum of money, found that the lower courts had carried out the wrong balancing act. “The mere public interest” in the reporting of a crime did not by itself suffice. At the time the article was published, the investigation into the affair was still in the early stages and no proceedings had yet been brought against the claimant. The subject matter of the article in question was only the rumours of accusations against him by two senior bank officials. Therefore, at this time

there was no independent value in the disclosure of the claimant’s name that would have outweighed the legitimate interest in protecting his anonymity….The claimant’s name was clearly disclosed in order to make a connection with his father, the former regional government member responsible for finance, and by doing so create a “story” which would satisfy the public’s curiosity and appetite for the sensational to a high degree.

Rauscher was awarded EUR 5,000 compensation.

Before Strasbourg, the applicant company relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, contending that it had not gone beyond its remit of responsible reporting by disclosing Mr Rauscher’s name; that being able to mention the names of those responsible it would not have been possible for the press to convey the extent to which politics and banking were intertwined.

The Court found that Article 10 had indeed been violated, and awarded the applicant company EUR 7,602.12 by way of pecuniary damage (just satisfaction, in Article 41 terms) and its costs and expenses.

The Court’s reasoning

The Court agreed with the Austrian courts that the case concerned a balancing of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 against the claimant’s right to protection of his identity. It repeated the mantra that the concept of “private life” protected by Article 8 of the Convention includes aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person’s name or picture (Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, para 50). When balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression, one factor it has taken into account is the position of the person concerned by the publication: whether or not he or she was a “public figure” or had otherwise “entered the public scene” . However, the Court observed, significantly, (and perhaps ominously, at least for those witnesses participating in the Leveson inquiry)

the question whether or not a person, whose interests have been violated by reporting in the media, is a public figure is only one element among others to be taken into account

Where other factors of “public interest” are in play, such as the close connection of politics and banking, said the Court, there was ”little scope” under Article 10(2) of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest. Despite the potential for undermining the presumption of innocence principle where the person identified is subject to criminal proceedings, the Court attached particular significance to the fact that the article at issue was “not a typical example of court reporting” but focussed “mainly on the political dimension of the banking scandal at hand.”

Names, persons and personal relationships are clearly of considerable importance in this sphere. It is difficult to see how the applicant company could have reported on these issues in a meaningful manner without mentioning the names of all those involved, including the claimant

The Court therefore concluded that the domestic courts had overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to them with regard to restrictions on debates of public interest. It followed that the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

Comment

So whatever tighter manacles are forged for the press by the Leveson report, if at all, the moral to be drawn from this story is that journalists may still be able to enlist the protection of Article 10 for “naming and shaming” by peppering their copy with references to broader political points, whether or not the identification of the individual itself adds anything to the debate at issue.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (the executive arm of the Strasbourg Court’s ruling body) have in place a non-binding Recommendation Rec(2003)13 on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings. The principles behind this recommendation are 1) that 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, but that 2) any information relating to ongoing criminal proceedings should only be disseminated through the media where this does not prejudice the presumption of innocence of the suspect, and that in all events their rights to privacy under Article 8 should be respected.

As we can see however these principles are easily circumvented in practice. Celebrities and other public figures will not find anything of comfort in Strasbourg’s jurisprudence on this particular matter; the judgment in Von Hannover in other words is an exception that proves the rule.

This post originally appeared on the UK Human Rights Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks

Associated Newspaper’s application to for judicial review of Lord Justice Leveson’s ruling on the admission of anonymised evidence was rejected by the Administrative Court last Friday. Inforrm has a commentary on the decision here.

The Guardian reported extensively on the NI settlements, and reproduced statements in open court here. Nineteen individuals “did not wish to make a statement or have details of their settlement made public,” but “the settlements are likely to have cost the News of the World publisher a total of more than £1m,” the newspaper reported.

PA Media Lawyer reports there are 10 cases, including Charlotte Church’s, which have not yet been formally settled and will be tried on February 13. On Inforrm, Brian Cathcart argued

“it took courage for these people to sue, and collectively they made the difference between News International escaping scot free and what we have now: substantial police investigations, a couple of dozen arrests, and the historic and far-reaching Leveson Inquiry“.

The Observer’s Peter Preston took a look at the wider picture, pointing out

“the nature of this miserable affair, in short, goes deeper than Leveson. It involves punishment, not prescription. It deals in law that already exists, not fresh rules for a refurbished game.”

David Allen Green has been vigorously pursuing the question of a hacked email account at the Times, and his post on the matter was cross-posted on Inforrm here. Green has published a timeline of events concerning the unmasking of the NightJack blogger by the Times, on his personal blog here.

HoldtheFrontPage reports that Keith Hart, a reporter at the Dartford Messenger successfully challenged a Section 39 court order at Maidstone Crown Court which would have prevented the naming of a mother in a child cruelty case.

Tim Turner’s 2040 Info Law blog has a fascinating post about the ICO’s decision not to prosecute newspapers which employed the private investigator Steve Whittamore. Turner has attempted to obtain information relating to the decision – without much success.

Inforrm published the answers to its annual quiz, and announced that there was a clear winner with an impressive 100% of correct answers – Mr Benjamin Pell.

Statements in Open Court and Apologies

News Group Newspapers apologised to Paul Gascoigne for a story in the Sun in July 2010 that wrongly alleged that he groped a shop assistant.”The allegation was published in good faith but it was nevertheless false,” Gascgoine’s counsel Richard Pitkethly told the High Court. “Mr Gascoigne did not grope the shop assistant as alleged in the article, or at all, and the defendant now accepts this.” Ben Beabey, solicitor for NGN, apologised for any distress and embarrassment caused. Reports can be found on PA Media Lawyer and the Guardian.

As noted above, there were 18 statements in open court, regarding settlements with News Group Newspapers in the phone hacking litigation. These included: Chris Bryant (MP); Sadie Frost; HJK; Gavin Henson; Ben Jackson; Jude Law; Denis MacShane; Ciara Parkes; Guy Pelly; John Prescott; Tom Rowland; Christopher Shipman; and Joan Smith.

Journalism and the PCC

There are no adjudicated PCC rulings to report, but several “resolved” cases including: Miss Catherine Lemon v Western Daily Press (Clause 1, 20/01/2012); A woman v The People (Clauses 3, 6, 9, 19/01/2012); A woman v Daily Mail (Clauses 3, 6, 9, 19/01/2012); Mr Alan Shannon v Ayr Advertiser (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Mr Alan Shannon v Sunday Mail (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Dr Esther Hobson v The Star (Sheffield) (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); A woman v Merthyr Express (Clause 1, 6 19/01/2012); Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith v Trout & Salmon (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Adam Corlett v Daily Mail (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Sir Suart Bell MP v Daily Mail (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); The Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP v Daily Record Daily Record (Clause 1, 19/01/2012); Mrs Tracy Woodward v Daily Mail (Clause 1, 17/01/2012); Ms Cheryl Cole v The People (Clause 1, 16/01/2012).

Tabloid Watch has questioned a Daily Express headline, claiming ‘Daft EU want all plastic shopping bags made illegal’. “It appears that, not for the first time, the Express has, in a front page headline, attributed a point of view to the EU which it hasn’t expressed, simply because it fits the paper’s agenda to do so,” remarks TW.

Research & resources

Morrison & Foerster’s Socially Aware Blog has a useful run-down of key moments in the history of social media law, from 1984 to the present day.

Nick Cohen’s new polemical book, ‘You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom‘ was published by 4th Estate on 19 January 2012. An extract concerning defamation and libel had already appeared in the Observer last Sunday, but the book’s remit is far wider, with exploration of religious fanaticism as well as recent developments in privacy law. It also provides a detailed history of the Satanic Verses affair in 1988, which was back in the news last week, with reports that Salman Rushdie has cancelled his appearance at the Jaipur Literary Festival, after receiving intelligence that he may be the target of assassination.

The LSE based thinktank Polis has published a new report, ‘Is Comment Free? Ethical, editorial and political problems of moderating online news’ by Sanna Trygg, a visiting research fellow, that compares the moderation of news in Sweden and the UK. Download the full report here.

In the Courts

On 18 January 2012, HHJ Parkes QC gave judgment in the case of WXY v Gewanter (on an appeal from Master Eyre, after a private hearing). On the same day, Mr Justice Tugendhat reserved judgment in the case of Lord Ballyedmond & anr v Trimble

On Thursday 19 January 2012 Mr Justice Vos heard the pre-trial review in the phone hacking litigation. A number of settlements were announced and 18 statements in open court were read. Mr Justice Vos also granted an application for specific disclosure by the Claimants and gave judgment.  On the same date HHJ Parkes reserved judgment in the case of Woodrow v Johansson

On 20 January 2012, the Administrative Court handed down judgment in the R (Associated Newspapers) v Lord Justice Leveson ([2012] EWHC 57 (Admin)). The application for judicial review of the Inquiry’s ruling on anonymity was dismissed. We had a comment on the case.  On the same date HHJ Parkes QC heard a “Norwich Pharmacal” application in the case of Patel v Unite.

The Sunday Times abandoned its application for judicial review of decision requiring it to disclose emails relating to Chris Huhne MP to the police which was due to be heard in the Administrative Court. There was a report of this in the Guardian.

Events

25 -29 January 2012. Centre for Investigative Journalism annual film week. Series of investigative films, followed by a Q&A session with the filmmakers. On Saturday 28 January, after the screening of The Whistleblower, there will be a networking party with opportunity to talk to the filmmakers and other journalists. City University London.

7 February 2012, The Media Society ‘The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism at the crossroads“

8 February 2012, UCL/Bindmans Annual Debate ‘Freedom of the Press versus Privacy Rights: Time for Parliament to draw the line?

29 February 2012, 9am-2pm. ‘Justice Wide Open’. Half-day seminar on legal knowledge in a digital age, with speakers including Geoffrey Robertson QC, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Heather Brooke, Mike Dodd and Adam Wagner. Free to attend, but participants must register here. City University London.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

On Wednesday 18 January websites in the US and other parts of the world – including Wikipedia – took part in a blackout in opposition to forthcoming US legislation, known as PIPA (The PROTECT IP Act) and SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act). The Berkman Center for Internet & Society has a useful round up of related commentary here.

A court in Illinois has ruled that the US-based technology blog, TechnoBuffalo, does not qualifiy for state shield law and must disclose its source’s identity. “The decision against the consumer electronics blog TechnoBuffalo comes just one month after a federal district court in Oregon made a similar ruling regarding a Montana blogger, finding that she did not qualify as a journalist under Oregon’s reporter’s shield law” reports RCFP.

In Canada, the Quebec Court of Appeal has upheld a defamation judgment that awarded over Can$250,000 damages to a school teacher. Parents Hagop Artinian and Kathryn Rosenstein were found to have defamed their son’s former teacher Mary Kanavaros in 2010, for comments made to the media. The Montreal Gazette has a report here.

In July 2011, the editor of newspaper El Universo and three executives received prison sentences and were ordered to pay $40 million for defaming the president of Ecuador Rafael Corre, as reported here by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Now, the case is due for appeal and CPJ has published another commentary, which argues “the ramifications are enormous for free expression in Ecuador: The verdict, if upheld by the high court, could bankrupt the newspaper, put its managers in jail, and send a chill quashing dissent for years to come“.

Next week in the courts

On Monday 23 January 2012 Mr Justice Tugendhat (sitting without a jury) will hear the first libel trial of the year, Rothschild v Associated Newspapers. The trial is listed for 5 days. There was an interim judgment on 21 December 2011 which explains the issues and the background to the case ([2011] EWHC 3462 (QB)).

On Tuesday 24 January 2012 HHJ Parkes QC will hear applications in the cases of Singh v Singh (a 10 day judge alone trial is listed for later this term) and Carroll v Milne.

Next week in Parliament

Monday 23 January 2012, 2.15pm: Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. Witness(es): Sly Bailey, chief executive, Trinity Mirror, Marcus Partington, group legal director, Trinity Mirror Richard Wallace, editor, Daily Mirror (at 2:15); Martin Clarke, Publisher, Mail Online Edward Roussel, Digital Editor, Telegraph Media Group Philip Webster, editor, Times Online (at 3:15pm). Location: The Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House.

Next week at Leveson

Monday 23 January, 10:00 – 16:30: John Battle (ITN) Jim Gray (C4 News) Lord Patten (BBC) Mark Thompson (BBC). To be taken as read – BBC: Greg Dyke, Nicholas Eldred
Robert Peston, Nicholas Robinson, Richard Watson. ITN: Tom Bradby, Maggie Carver, Gary Gibbon, John Hardie, David Mannion. SKY: Matthew Hibbert.

Tuesday 23 January, 10:00 – 16:30: Inayat Bunglawala (Engage), Fiona Fox (Science Media Centre), Heather Harvey (Eaves Housing for Women), Jonathan Heawood (PEN), Anna Van Heeswijk (Object), Jacqui Hunt (Equality Now), John Kampfner (Index on Censorship), Marai Larasi (End Violence against Women), Gary O’Shea (News International), Ryan Parry (Trinity Mirror) and Stephen Waring (News International).

Wednesday 24 January, 10:00 – 13:00: David Allen Green (Jack of Kent)
Mazher Mahmood (tbc). 2pm: Directions Hearing for Module 2.

Thursday 25 January, 10:00 – 16:30: Richard Allan (Facebook) David-John Collins (Google), Christopher Graham (ICO), Jonathan Grun (PA), Daphne Keller (Google), Camilla Wright (Popbitch).

Judgments

The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding:

WXY v Gewanter, heard 11-15, 18-19 July 2011 (Slade J)

Flood v Times Newspapers, heard 17 and 18 October 2011 (Supreme Court)

Cambridge v Makin, heard 3 November 2011 (Hughes, Black and Tomlinson LJJ)

McGrath v Dawkins and another, heard 10 and 11 November 2011 (HHJ Moloney QC).

Levy v. Coomber heard 9 and 16 November 2011 (HHJ Moloney QC).

Phillips v NGN, heard 28 and 29 November 2011 (Judge LCJ, Neuberger MR, Kay V-P)

El-Naschie v Macmillan, heard 11, 14, 16 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 28-30 November, 1 -2 December 2011 (Sharp J)

Hunt v Times Newspapers, heard 19 December 2011 (Eady J)

Lord Ballyedmond & anr v Trimble, heard 18 January 2012 (Tugendhat J)

Woodrow v Johansson, heard 19 January 2012 (HHJ Parkes QC)

Also on Inforrm last week

• US Media Law in 2012 – the year ahead. Gervase de Wilde looks at what the year might hold for privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.
• A Leveson question for Paul Dacre. Professor George Brock has a query about the Daily Mail’s reporting of Sir Fred Goodwin’s anonymised injunction.
• Terrorist suspect BBC interview can be shown, rules High Court. Karwan Eskerie reports on the recent case of R (on the application of the BBC) v Secretary of State for Justice ([2011] EWHC 13 (Admin)).
• Opinion: “Leveson: reasons to be wary of press promises”. Brian Cathcart suggests that “however much we might wish to believe the editors, and indeed however sincere they may be, we would be foolish to trust them.”

This week’s Round Up was compiled for Inforrm by Judith Townend, a freelance journalist and PhD researcher examining legal restraints on the media, who runs the Meeja Law blog. She is @jtownend on Twitter.