On 7 July, the UK High Court ruled in Lawrence and Others v. Associated Newspapers Limited, initiated by several claimants, including Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry and Elton John, alleging that the company obtained private information about them through unlawful methods over many years. The Court dismissed these claims, finding that the claimants had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the specific articles and incidents they raised in their complaint resulted from such practices.
However, Justice Matthew Nicklin accepted, as part of the factual background, that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) had used private investigators and that some of those investigators had engaged in practices such as ‘blagging’, or deception. The Court also acknowledged evidence showing that, before 2007, private investigators instructed by ANL regularly supplied information in circumstances that gave rise to at least a prima facie case that it had been obtained unlawfully. Nevertheless, the judge held that the existence of such practices could not, by itself, establish liability in relation to any particular article, if there remained a legitimate and realistic legal way in which it could have been sourced.
The case arises against the wider backdrop of longstanding and historical concerns about press ethics and unlawful information-gathering practices in the UK, most notably examined by the Leveson Inquiry following the phone-hacking scandal. The Inquiry highlighted serious questions about the culture, standards, and accountability of parts of the press.
Reacting to the judgement, Barbora Bukovská, Senior Director for Law and Policy at ARTICLE 19, commented:
‘The judgement shows the limits of relying solely on individuals to address wider questions about press accountability in the UK. It shows precisely why the UK must complete the work begun by the Leveson Inquiry and address concerns about ethical standards and the conduct of media organisations.
‘Some critics argue this would result in censorship. However, freedom of expression is respected when powerful institutions are subject to the same standards of accountability they demand from everyone else.
A free press does not need freedom from accountability. It needs accountability that protects its freedom.’
The Leveson Inquiry was established in 2011 following the phone-hacking scandal to examine the culture, practices, and ethics of the UK press. It was intended to proceed in two stages. While the first resulted in recommendations for reform, the second stage (Leveson Two) was intended to investigate allegations of unlawful conduct within parts of the press and examine the relationships between media organisations, the police, and political power. The UK Government ultimately decided not to proceed with Leveson Two, leaving many of those issues unexamined.
ARTICLE 19 urges the UK government to complete the unfinished work of the Leveson inquiry and to demonstrate that the UK is committed to defending freedom of expression while upholding accountability and the rule of law.
At the time when journalists around the world face violence, imprisonment and all kinds of intimidation, the UK must show that defending freedom of expression goes hand in hand with defending independent and ethical journalism. This is how we protect and stand with brave journalists everywhere who risk everything to inform the public.
Background
Doreen Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost Law, Prince Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, and Simon Hughes brought a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, alleging that the company obtained private information about them through unlawful methods over many years. The claimants say they were victims of serious invasions of privacy, including the use of private investigators, phone interception, bugging devices, deception (‘blagging’), and the unlawful acquisition of confidential personal information.
ANL has vigorously denied all allegations, describing them as ‘preposterous’ and unsupported by credible evidence. The publisher maintains that the articles the claimants complained about were based on lawful journalistic practices and legitimate sources.