Why McNally may be wrong on privacy law

Tom McNally calls for yet more legislation on privacy law, but this could be last thing that privacy

From a simplistic point of view there is a certain force in reported comments by the justice minister Lord (Tom) McNally that the development of privacy law should be left to parliament, and not to the courts.

But it may not actually be that straightforward.

What is often not realised is that parliament has already legislated heavily in respect of privacy rights. There is the Data Protection Act 1998 and its alarmingly expansive and ever-growing subordinate legislation. There is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. There are the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. In fact, there are scores of pieces of legislation currently in force, and all this is before one even gets to the multiplying codes of practice and Information Commissioner guidance. There is certainly no lack of parliamentary or other official intervention in respect of privacy law. In fact, there is probably far too much.

What McNally means, of course, is not privacy law generally, but a particular aspect of privacy law: the extent to which the mainstream media can rely on the pretext of "free expression" to intrude into the private spaces of individuals and to publish hitherto personal information to the world at large. This is because, in recent years, the courts have (rightly) developed the equitable and historic doctrine of confidentiality into a basis on which an injunction can be obtained for such wrongful disclosure or misuse of private information.

Yet even on this, parliament has already legislated, almost in anticipation of this welcome and overdue judicial development. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which, ironically, was included at the behest of the mainstream media for their supposed protection) forces the court to conduct a balancing exercise whenever it is asked to grant any relief (including injunctions) that affects free expression. Indeed, under Section 12(4) the court must have "particular regard" to free expression, and also take into account any privacy code that has been freely adopted by the mainstream media.

So there has been no failure by parliament to legislate in respect of privacy generally -- or in respect of press intrusion in particular.

The real background to McNally's comments is the disquiet of the mainstream media at the consequences of legislation already passed, especially the Human Rights Act, which gave effect in English law to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 provides that a person has a right to privacy which can be interfered with only in certain defined circumstances. The development of privacy law in the courts was a direct and foreseeable consequence of this significant legislative step. And now it has happened, the mainstream media want it all to go away.

This is not to deny that there are problems with how the courts are currently dealing with privacy law cases. In particular, there is a legitimate question as to what test should be adopted when granting "super-injunctions". There are also grave concerns over the extent to which privacy law can be used to hide improper business or even public activity.

All that said, it really is more for the higher courts -- the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court -- to determine the practical tests for injunctions. Such relief is always discretionary, not mandatory; and injunctions are part of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and do not usually have a statutory basis. Moreover, in granting injunctions, the courts already have to comply with Section 12 of the Human Rights Act. It is difficult to see what else legislation can do on this point.

Personal privacy is of fundamental importance in a free and civilised society. There is no automatic right of intrusion into a person's private life. Each intrusion, whether it be by the government or the mainstream media, should have a lawful basis and be no more than required to serve a wider public good.

Whether an injunction should ever be granted against the mainstream media to protect this right should be left to the court to decide in all the circumstances, having appropriate regard (as is now the case) to the right of free expression.

In my view, the courts have done a generally good job in developing privacy from the legislative tools already provided by parliament.

Now does not seem the time for statutory intervention in privacy law. Indeed, it is not even clear what that statutory intervention should be.

Instead, McNally and the Ministry of Justice should focus their attention on getting on with libel reform, where contributions to public debates are being prevented by an area of law that does need statutory intervention. Ensuring the efficacy of such public debates by libel reform is of far greater importance than seeking to limit the courts' ability to protect private lives with injunctions where there is no sufficient public interest in the threatened intrusion.

David Allen Green wrrites the Jack of Kent blog.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.