PRIVACY/IMAGE RIGHTS
Artists

Elizabeth Jagger was entitled to a “legitimate expectation of privacy” Mr Justice Bell has ruled in the High Court, awarding the model an injunction to prevent images of Jagger and boyfriend Callum best taken from a security camera being published. Three of the pictures had already been published in a Sunday tabloid. The pair had been involved in what The Times described as ‘heavy petting’. Mr Justice Bell said that although the claimant may be guilty of misconduct in the most general sense e was not guilty of moral turpitude to prevent her seeking recourse through the courts. Jagger claimed breach of copyright, her rights to data protection, her rights to respect for her private life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998) and at common law. Using wording which stem from the new ‘privacy laws’ resulting from the Human Rights Act, the Judge held that Jagger had a right to privacy and that he could see no public interest in the in further dissemination of the images which would only humiliate the claimant for the “prurient interest of others”. The balance between the article 8 right to privacy and the article 10 right to a freedom of expression came down firmly in favour of restricting publication.
Source: The Times 10 March 2005