Media Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words

Media - Case Study Example In addition, with the incorporation of the Human Rights Act of 1998 set forth in Articles 8 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), concerning the 'tort of privacy' (although a merely 'implied' principle and a little more defined in the previous decades) the courts must also decide what is 'proportionate' and necessary, or if the injunction requires a 'social need' with regards protection of privacy.2 What is interesting to note here is that other countries encompassed by the European Union have interpreted this principle akin to the law of privacy. The German courts for instance declared that the statute serves to "ensure that the State complies with its positive obligation under the Convention to protect private life and the right to control the use of one's own image"3 It is clear that the two main foundations of the court's issuance of an injunction are the breach of the law of confidence and the principles of tort of 'privacy' (though still unspecified) as enshri ned in UK's Human Rights Act of 1998 and the ECHR. Based on the principles of the law of confidence, ... .4 It has to be remembered that Sporting Sunday has acquired material 'confidential in nature'5, reminiscent in the case of Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41). The material was apparently not 'something which is public property' or constitutes a 'public knowledge'. 6An important requirement in application of this principle, provides that, 'there had to be an unauthorised use of the information' detrimental to the 'confider.' 7 Clearly, the publication of the 'unflattering' and 'imprudent' photographs of the couple, Jones & Davies is detrimental to the claimants as they are popular public figures. This contention is cemented in the case of Venables & Thompson v New Group Newspapers Ltd and others8 when Dame Butler-Sloss granted injunctions 'against the whole world' barring the disclosure of information which could have led to the recognition of the killers of James Bulger. The court decided that the 'disclosure of the information in question might lead to grave, possibly fatal, consequences for the claimants.'9 The primary importance of this decision is that information or personal data cannot be divulged, regardless of the circumstances. The courts must decide if non-disclosure of information threatens public safety. Based on the aforementioned principles, the circumstance surrounding the case of Davies & Jones and the publication of their photographs are not matters of public importance or public interest. In the case of A v B [2003] QB 195 10 the court bestowed an interim injunction which barred a newspaper from disclosing the claimants sexual liaison with a woman to whom the claimant was not married. The injunction was given based on the consideration that the information was, in nature, confidential and subjected under the principles stipulated in