Case Law, Sobrinho v Impresa: Serious allegations do not always mean serious harm – Nathan Capone

31 01 2016

expresoThe case of Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) was a defamation claim in respect of an article in a Portuguese newspaper which alleged illegality on the part of a banker.  Dingemans J held that this had not caused serious harm to the banker’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the proceedings were an abuse of process, his reputation already having been vindicated in Portugal. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements




Case Law: R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice, An open or shut case? – Alasdair Henderson

30 01 2016

lady-haleWhen is it right to keep the names of parties to litigation a secret? That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of  R(C) v. Secretary of State for Justice ([2016] UKSC 2). The decision to allow a double-murderer to remain anonymous led to outraged headlines in the tabloids. Yet the Court reached the unanimous conclusion that this was the right approach. Why? Read the rest of this entry »





Theedom and Impresa: Lessons on serious harm – Claire Gill and Isabella Piasecka

29 01 2016

Defamation ActAt first blush, the two most recent libel cases in which the question of serious harm has been tested, yielded contradictory findings.  Both cases were argued on the same day before different Judges at separate trials of preliminary issues. In Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) the court found that the Claimant had satisfied the threshold test of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. In Alvaro Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) the court found that the threshold test had not been met and further, that the claim was an abuse of process. Read the rest of this entry »





Intrusion into physical privacy – Nicole Moreham

28 01 2016

Law of Privacy and the MediaIt is possible to breach a person’s privacy without disseminating any information about him or her?  Many theorists and judges have recognized this non-informational aspect of the privacy interest, often labelling it ‘intrusion’ or physical privacy. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, R (Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Stop Powers under Terrorism Act incompatible with Article 10 – David Scott

27 01 2016

David Miranda 2On 19 January 2016 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in R (on application of Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2016] EWCA Civ 6).  The case concerned David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000.  While upholding the lawfulness  of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10. Read the rest of this entry »





Harassment by Publication in the Media – Nicole Moreham

26 01 2016

Law of Privacy and the MediaThe Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the Act”) is becoming an increasingly important tool for those seeking to protect their privacy against intrusion by the media and private individuals.  The Act was introduced to combat stalking, racial harassment, and disruption from neighbours, but ‘harassment’ is not defined in the Act and its reach is therefore in fact much wider.  It has the potential to catch a range of media news-gathering activities including persistent photography, trailing, and door-stepping. Read the rest of this entry »





Law and Media Round Up – 25 January 2016

25 01 2016

New Round UpIMPRESS, the first independent press regulator, has announced that it has submitted its application for recognition to the Press Recognition Panel and its first members. The chair of IMPRESS, Walter Merricks, gave a lecture entitled “IMPRESS the future of press regulation in the UK” at the LSE on 20 January 2016. Read the rest of this entry »