A media regulator established, ultimately, by Royal Charter under the Royal Prerogative. Since primary legislation includes non-statutory exercises of the Royal Prerogative its duties must be given effect in ways which are compatible with Convention rights and since the Trust performs a public authority, it is arguably a public authority under section 6 HRA.
A media regulator which is established entirely by voluntary agreement - it does not have a statutory basis. Its predecessor was amenable to judicial review and it is likely to held to be exercising functions of a public nature and so bound by section 6(3)(b) HRA.
A media regulator established by statute and exercising statutory powers. It is likely to be thought of as a 'core' public authority, bound by Section 6 HRA; it is also exercising statutory powers which must, under section 3, be given effect in ways that are compatible with the Convention rights such as article 10, freedom of expression and Article 8, which includes private life. Originally set up, in respect of broadcasting, to regulate commercial broadcasting, Ofcom has, since the BBC's Charter of 2016 came into effect, also become the regulator of the BBC. For instance, it sets the 'Operating Framework' for the Corporation.
A media regulator which, unlike the others, is concerned with considering, evaluating and classifying material before it is made available to the public. It is established by industry agreement (not statute) but exercises some statutory powers (which need to given effect for compatibility with Convention rights). As a body exercising public functions it is likely to be thought of as a "public authority, bound by Section 6 HRA.
The right of a famous person to a private life needs to be balanced with the rights of the media to free speech. Where there is no significant public interest in the story (although the public may be interested, the story has little objective importance for society), the balance, under the Convention, is likely to tip towards the private life of a celebrity.
The right of a famous person to a private life must be recognised and weighed against freedom of the press. Where there is hypocrisy on the celebrity's part, media exposure is likely to be protected. Where a celebrity is protecting privacy over medical treatment, Article 8 is likely to outweigh freedom of the press.
An injunction may be granted when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This depends on a range of factors such as the identity of the person, the place they were in, whether there were children involved and so on. On this basis a married celebrity with children was able to supress stories about extra-marital affairs, even though their identity was known on the internet.
Article 8 can influence the development of private law. Celebrities who have traded on the public interest in their lives by making exclusive deals with elements of the media may still have rights to private life in the traded information.
Printed from , all rights reserved. © Oxford University Press, 2024
.png){kind=icon}