Legal Case Summary
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Privacy, treatment information and the limits of a newspaper’s right to correct a misleading public statement.
Facts
Naomi Campbell had publicly denied taking drugs. The Daily Mirror, published by MGN Ltd, reported that she was receiving treatment for drug addiction. Its articles identified Narcotics Anonymous, gave details about her attendance and included photographs taken secretly as she left a meeting. Further articles attacked her after she began proceedings.
Campbell accepted that her previous denials justified publication of the fact of her addiction and the fact that she was seeking treatment. Her complaint concerned the additional treatment details and the publication of the photographs in that context. She did not pursue a separate complaint about the act of taking the photographs.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues and procedural history
Morland J upheld Campbell’s claims for breach of confidence and under the Data Protection Act 1998. He awarded £2,500 in damages and £1,000 in aggravated damages. The Court of Appeal reversed his decision, treating the additional details as part of a legitimate journalistic account.
The House of Lords had to decide whether the disputed material remained protected private information and, if so, whether publishing it was justified by the newspaper’s freedom of expression. The parties agreed that the data protection claim would follow the outcome of the confidence claim.
Decision and reasoning
The House of Lords allowed Campbell’s appeal by three votes to two and restored the trial judge’s order. Lord Hope, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell formed the majority; Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffmann dissented.
The starting point was whether Campbell had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. This was a threshold question, followed by a separate balancing of the interests protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and freedom of expression under Article 10. Neither right automatically took priority. The existing action for breach of confidence could protect private information without requiring a prior confidential relationship between claimant and publisher.
The judgment did not make offensiveness the sole test of privacy. Lord Hope explained that an objective assessment of offensiveness could help where privacy was doubtful, but was unnecessary for information that was obviously private. It had to consider a reasonable person in the claimant’s position, rather than the reaction of a newspaper reader. Baroness Hale similarly emphasised reasonable expectation of privacy as the threshold.
The majority regarded the treatment details and photographs together as a significant intrusion. Confidentiality supported Campbell’s participation in therapy, and publication risked discouraging her from continuing. The photographs linked her to an identifiable meeting place and increased the impact of the accompanying information. Their being taken in a public street did not settle whether publication in this context was justified.
The press was entitled to correct Campbell’s denials and had latitude in presenting its story. The majority nevertheless held that the additional disclosure went beyond what that purpose justified. This did not require proof that publication had actually derailed her recovery: its potential harmful effect mattered in the balance.
The dissenting judges gave greater weight to editorial freedom. They considered the additional details and photographs sufficiently closely connected with the legitimate story to fall within the newspaper’s permissible discretion. The division concerned the application of the principles to these particular facts.
Source: Full House of Lords judgment.
