Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004)

Model Naomi Campbell, who had publicly denied drug use, was photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The House of Lords held that the newspaper's publication of these photos and details of her therapy breached her right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.

Facts

The claimant, Ms Naomi Campbell, was a world-famous supermodel who had publicly stated that, unlike many in the fashion world, she did not take drugs. The respondent, MGN Ltd, was the publisher of the ‘Daily Mirror’ newspaper. MGN received information that Ms Campbell was in fact a drug addict and was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) for treatment. MGN published an article on 1 February 2001 under the headline ‘Naomi: I am a drug addict’. The article included text which gave details of her addiction and her treatment, including the fact that she was attending NA. It was accompanied by two covertly taken photographs of her in the street as she was leaving an NA meeting.

Issues

The central legal issue was the conflict between Ms Campbell’s right to respect for her private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and MGN’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. The House of Lords had to determine whether the publication of the information and photographs constituted a misuse of private information (an evolution of the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence) and, if so, whether the interference with Ms Campbell’s privacy was justified by the public interest in freedom of the press. Specifically, the court considered whether the additional details published (the nature of her therapy and the photographs of her attending it) were a step too far, given that the newspaper had a legitimate interest in correcting the false public image Ms Campbell had previously projected.

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a 3-2 majority, allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Ms Campbell. The majority (Lord Hope, Baroness Hale, and Lord Carswell) held that the publication had constituted an unjustifiable breach of her privacy.

Majority Reasoning

The majority accepted that MGN was entitled to publish the fact that Ms Campbell was a drug addict to correct the misleading public record she had created. However, they concluded that the publication of further details about her treatment at Narcotics Anonymous and the accompanying photographs overstepped the mark. These elements were considered private and confidential medical information, the publication of which was not justified.

Lord Hope of Craighead emphasised the distinction between the core story and the intrusive details:

The text of the article would have been just as effective without the photograph… But its publication has, in my opinion, a different quality. It was a picture of her in a public place, but it was a picture of her as she was leaving the meeting… The picture added a further layer of intrusion which in my opinion was not necessary.

Baroness Hale of Richmond articulated that the information concerned Ms Campbell’s health, which is quintessentially private:

There is in my view no doubt that the information that the applicant was a drug addict and was receiving treatment for her addiction was both private and confidential. It related to an important aspect of her physical and mental health which she was trying to put right; and it was being given to her in circumstances of confidence which she was trying to respect.

She concluded that the additional information, particularly the visual element, was not justified by the public interest in setting the record straight and was likely to cause her distress and impede her recovery.

Dissenting Opinions

Lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissented, arguing that the publication, taken as a whole, was justified. They contended that since Ms Campbell had presented a false image, the newspaper had the right to expose the full story to give it credibility.

Lord Hoffmann reasoned that editorial judgement should be respected and the details were part of a cohesive and compelling story:

But the editor’s judgment that the story would be more effective if it was accompanied by a picture of Miss Campbell leaving the meeting is in my opinion one which he was entitled to make. A photograph not only illustrates a story but authenticates it.

Implications

This case is a landmark decision in the development of English privacy law. It effectively established the modern tort of misuse of private information, moving the focus away from the traditional requirements of a pre-existing confidential relationship. The judgment confirmed that the courts must conduct a balancing exercise between the competing rights of privacy under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10. The case affirmed that even public figures who court publicity have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly concerning sensitive matters such as their health and medical treatment. The decision highlighted that while media can correct a false public image, the method and detail of that correction must be proportionate and not excessively intrusive.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the trial judge’s finding of a breach of confidence and award of damages to Ms Campbell was restored.

Source: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004)