Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Stoute, owners of a PPE firm that secured government contracts worth £2 billion during the Covid-19 pandemic, purchased a second home in Barbados.
- •Paparazzi photographers took photographs of Mr and Mrs Stoute and their family on a public beach in Barbados without their consent.
- •The photographs were published in The Sun on Sunday and other newspapers.
- •Mr and Mrs Stoute applied for an interim injunction to restrain further publication of the photographs.
- •The High Court refused the application, and Mr and Mrs Stoute appealed.
Legal Principles
Misuse of private information involves a two-stage test: (1) whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) whether the claimant's right to privacy outweighs the defendant's right to freedom of expression.
McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
The reasonable expectation of privacy is an objective question, considering all the circumstances of the case, including the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity, the place, the nature and purpose of the intrusion, consent, the effect on the claimant, and the circumstances in which the information came into the hands of the publisher.
Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
Photographs require special consideration due to their intrusive nature and ability to act as a form of voyeurism.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595
A person is less likely to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a photograph taken in a public place, but this depends on the circumstances.
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Targeting by paparazzi is a relevant factor in determining whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
Article 8 ECHR protects the right to respect for private and family life. Article 10 ECHR protects freedom of expression.
ECHR
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The Court found that the judge had not erred in law or principle and that his decision was within the ambit of reasonable conclusions. The Court considered the judge correctly balanced the factors, including the public location, the lack of additional private information revealed by the photos, and the targeting by paparazzi, concluding that the claimants were unlikely to succeed in establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy.