King v Sunday Newspapers Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, who is the Appellant in this appeal, brought a claim against the Defendant, the Respondent and cross-Appellant, concerning a series of articles published in a newspaper from 2002 onwards. These articles contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff involving criminal activity, including murder and drug dealing, and portrayed a lifestyle allegedly funded by crime. The Plaintiff's claim was not directed at the truth of the allegations but focused on the content and form of the articles, which he argued created a real and immediate risk to his life and security, infringed his right to privacy, and damaged his family life and relations.

The newspaper had published numerous articles over several years relating to paramilitary crimes in Northern Ireland, including reports about the Plaintiff and his alleged involvement in the murder of a journalist employed by the newspaper in 2001. The articles included allegations implicating the Plaintiff and his brother in the murder, descriptions of the Plaintiff as a paramilitary figure and drug dealer, and detailed personal information about the Plaintiff’s partner, child, and family life.

The Plaintiff issued a writ in December 2009 seeking damages for harassment, breach of statutory duty, misuse of private information, and breaches of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in relation to the publication of his address, photographs with his partner, wedding plans, family details, and the religious denomination of his child. An interim injunction was granted restraining the Respondent from publishing the Plaintiff’s address or references to his child’s existence and religion.

The trial was conducted in two stages, with liability and injunctive relief determined first, followed by a hearing on damages if necessary. The trial judge granted an injunction preventing publication of the Plaintiff’s current and future addresses, certain personal details of the partner and child, but allowed publication of the partner’s identity and photographs of the Plaintiff with the partner. The harassment claim was dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the protection of the Plaintiff’s Article 8 rights extended to details of the partner, child, and members of the partner’s family, none of whom were parties to the proceedings ("the proper claimant issue").
2. Whether the publication of the partner’s name was justified.
3. Whether the publication of the partner’s religion was unjustified.
4. Whether the publication of the photograph of the Plaintiff and the partner together at a wedding was justified.
5. Whether the trial judge was correct in holding that the harassment claim had not been made out.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff challenged the judge’s refusal to restrain publication of the partner’s name and photographs, arguing these infringed his Article 8 right to respect for family and private life.
• Counsel cited authorities to support the proposition that publication of private photographs is particularly intrusive, and that prior public availability of information does not justify publication of private images.
• The harassment claim was argued on the basis that the Respondent’s sustained campaign, including publication of private information such as the Plaintiff’s alleged address and vehicle details amid known death threats, amounted to harassment.
• It was contended that the articles exposed the family unit to hostility and that publication of religious details was inappropriate under the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Conduct.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that Article 8 rights of the Plaintiff did not extend to the partner, child, or family members who were not parties to the action, and the Plaintiff could not assert privacy rights on behalf of the partner.
• The Respondent asserted there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the photograph of the Plaintiff with the partner, and the partner’s religion was relevant to the story as it demonstrated the Plaintiff’s hypocrisy.
• It was maintained that the articles related to serious criminal conduct and the press had a legitimate interest in reporting the Plaintiff’s lifestyle, including associations.
• The harassment claim was defended on the basis that the Respondent acted bona fide in publishing matters of public interest, and the conduct did not constitute harassment as defined by law.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering the scope of Article 8 rights in the context of private and family life, recognizing that these rights extend to relationships involving partners and children. It held that the Plaintiff could claim for breaches of privacy involving his partner and child, even though they were not parties to the proceedings, as the impact on intimate relationships is multi-faceted and interconnected.

The court applied the two-stage test for misuse of private information: first, whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, and second, whether the publication was justified by a balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 rights. The trial judge’s findings that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of his partner’s identity, workplace, family details, and religion were affirmed. However, the judge’s decision that publication of the partner’s name was justified was overturned, as the identification of the partner also led to the identification of the child, whose privacy was paramount.

The court emphasized the paramountcy of protecting the child’s identity, noting that the naming of the mother (the partner) was inappropriate absent exceptional public interest. This led to the conclusion that publication of the partner’s name and the photograph of the Plaintiff with the partner was unjustified, as it further identified the child and violated the child’s privacy.

Regarding the partner’s religion, the court accepted that the trial judge’s reasoning was flawed but agreed with the outcome that publication of the religious details was unjustified. The court recognized that while the Plaintiff’s lifestyle and alleged hypocrisy could be relevant, the identification of the partner and child in this context was disproportionate and unjustified.

On the issue of harassment, the court reviewed the legal criteria requiring conduct to be oppressive and unreasonable, and recognized the importance of freedom of expression for the press. It agreed with the trial judge that the series of articles, although distressing to the Plaintiff, did not amount to harassment as there were no exceptional circumstances justifying restrictions on press freedom. The Plaintiff’s failure to challenge the truth of the allegations through defamation proceedings further supported this conclusion.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED IN PART the appeal, specifically overturning the trial judge’s decision to permit publication of the partner’s identity and the photograph of the Plaintiff with the partner. The court prohibited publication of the partner’s name and photographs on the basis that such publication unjustifiably infringed the privacy rights of the child and the Plaintiff.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to restrain publication of the partner’s religion and other personal family details, and confirmed the dismissal of the harassment claim.

The decision directly affects the parties by enhancing the privacy protections afforded to the Plaintiff’s family members in this context, particularly the child, but does not establish any new precedent beyond the application of established privacy and harassment principles. The court ordered to hear submissions on the form of the order and costs.