Campbell v MGN Ltd

Protection for private information through breach of confidence depends on the nature and significance of the disclosure in its context. A public figure retains a private life, but the press will normally be entitled to correct untrue public statements about it. Where publication in the public interest is justified, a journalist has reasonable latitude to provide a credible factual account.

The Data Protection Act 1998 can apply to publication of hard-copy material produced through automated data processing. Its journalism exemption in section 32 can apply both before and after publication, including to publication itself, where its conditions are met.

Naomi Campbell sued MGN Ltd over newspaper articles disclosing her drug addiction, her treatment and details of her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, illustrated by covert photographs. She accepted that the publisher could reveal her addiction and that she was receiving treatment, because she had publicly denied taking drugs.

Morland J held that the further details breached confidence and the Data Protection Act 1998, and awarded £2,500 with £1,000 aggravated damages. MGN appealed. The central issues were whether the additional treatment details were sufficiently significant and unjustified to found liability, and whether the statutory journalism exemption applied to the publication.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court set aside the judgment for Miss Campbell. The additional disclosure that she attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings was not, in context, sufficiently significant to amount to a breach of confidence. A reasonable reader who already knew she was a drug addict would not find that additional fact offensive. The photographs added no separate confidential information, because their captions and surrounding articles conveyed the relevant information.
2. The Court accepted that a public figure remains entitled to a private life. It clarified that an understandable public interest in information about a public figure does not extend to private facts whose disclosure a fair-minded person would regard as offensive. However, Miss Campbell's false public denials entitled the newspaper to put the record straight. The treatment details and photographs were a legitimate part of a credible journalistic account, and the publisher had reasonable latitude in presenting that account under Article 10.
3. The Court rejected the contention that liability for publication of private information requires dishonest publication. The media must identify private information which would ordinarily be offensive to publish and must take responsibility for deciding whether publication is justified in the public interest. This issue did not alter the result because the publication was otherwise justified.
4. The Court held that publication of hard copies by a data controller can form part of the processing of data previously processed by automated means. It also held that section 32(1)–(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 applies after publication as well as before it, and protects publication where the statutory conditions are met.
5. Those conditions were met. The articles were prepared for journalistic publication; the editor reasonably believed publication was in the public interest; and compliance with the relevant data-protection requirements was incompatible with the journalistic purpose. There was therefore no contravention of the Act. The appeal was allowed with costs here and below.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed MGN's appeal and set aside Morland J's judgment for Miss Campbell on breach of confidence and under the Data Protection Act 1998.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: Morland J held that the articles breached confidence and the Act, awarded £2,500, and awarded a further £1,000 aggravated damages.
• House of Lords: the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and refused leave to cross-appeal.