Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Already-published information ensures anonymity for privacy case subject, rules court

24 Jan 2011, 9:30 am

The identity of a person at the centre of an alleged photograph and video blackmail attempt can stay anonymous, the High Court has ruled. Anonymity is required because some information about the case is already in the public domain, it said.

A person identified in court papers as 'Lina' took photographs and video of a person identified as POI in a situation in which POI said they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

POI won an injunction preventing the publication of the private information, having argued that the the publishing of the information would breach their rights to privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in the High Court that Lina's rights to publish information as guaranteed by the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the Convention were not as strong as POI's rights under Article 8.

"There is a strong argument that the Art 8 rights of [POI] are engaged, and the argument in support of any rights of [Lina] under Art 10 are very weak," he said in the ruling. "At the present stage of the proceedings the balance falls to be struck in favour of protection of the Art 8 rights of [POI]. But this question will be open to review both at the return date, and at any trial,"

The injunction said that there was evidence that blackmail had been attempted in relation to the photographs and video and that some information about the case had been made public.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that he would not usually order that the parties in this case remain anonymous during the proceedings. But because some information had been published, any naming of the parties would render an injunction useless, he said.

"The circumstances of this case require an order for anonymity. The evidence of attempted blackmail includes evidence that there is some information about the case that has been put in the public domain," he said.

"If the name of [POI] were to be identified, then it is likely that persons who knew, or learnt, both that [POI] had issued these proceedings and what is already in the public domain would be able to deduce information about the contents of the images, or the circumstances in which they were taken, which is private information, and which [POI] is likely to establish should not be published," said the ruling. "It is likely that the policy of the law to protect those alleging they are victims of a blackmailer would be defeated."