Page 158 - Law and the Media

The ‘New’ Right to Privacy
necessarily rule out the formulation of a limited tort directed towards the publication of
personal information towards the world at large. It specifically excluded from the suggested
definition any material concerning corporate entities, individuals in relation to their business
or employment, and information that was available for public inspection. It also set out what
it considered might be an acceptable form of public interest defence.

In the event, the Calcutt Committee recommended against the introduction of a statutory tort
of privacy, although not because definition would be an insurmountable problem.

Overriding social need
Like the earlier commissions of inquiry, the Calcutt Commission’s consideration of whether
a statutory right of privacy was necessary focused upon two questions:

1. How large is the problem?
2. How adequate is the existing legal protection?

In relation to the first question, Calcutt’s report stated at paragraph 4.8 that his
committee:

. . . found no reliable evidence to show whether unwarranted intrusion into
individual privacy has or has not risen over the last twenty years.

In relation to the second question concerning the extent of existing legal protection, Calcutt
explored the range of remedies available to the individual against the press. As noted above,
there are laws offering protection in the following areas:

Untruths. The libel law and those relating to malicious falsehood are available
against many forms of published untruths, especially those of a personal or
damaging nature.
Confidential information. The law of confidence offers some protection against
abuse or unauthorized use of confidential information, whether of a personal or
business nature. This area of the law has seen its parameters extended in recent
years and can be very effective, particularly at restraining a publication.
Private property. The law of trespass, although not very effective against the
occasional incursion, is there to enforce the individual’s right to decide who
remains on his property.
Private correspondence. Interference with letters and communications is afforded
wide protection through the criminal law and the laws of copyright and
confidence.
Family matters. Under the courts’ inherent powers relating to wardship and the
guardianship over minors, judges are usually willing to protect children and their
families against publicity and press intrusion. Blanket injunctions against all
sections of the media can be obtained very quickly. Reporting of family cases,
including divorce matters, is also severely restricted.
121