Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd

For interim relief against threatened publication, the court must assess whether the claimant is more likely than not to obtain relief at trial. In misuse of private information cases, a limited disclosure to friends or social-media users does not necessarily remove all privacy. The question is whether anything useful remains to be protected. If Article 8 is engaged, the court must intensely focus on the competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights and apply proportionality. Publication which merely satisfies curiosity or titillates, without contributing to genuine public debate, carries little weight. A real risk of harm to children may materially affect the balance. Copyright protection may also justify an injunction against copying photographs where publication in words can still vindicate freedom of expression.

The claimant sought interim injunctions restraining the defendant newspaper from publishing photographs taken at a private fancy-dress party, and a description of their contents. The photographs showed the claimant partially naked and had originally been posted on a guest’s Facebook account with restricted access. The claimant relied on assigned copyright and Article 8 rights. The defendant relied on Article 10, the claimant’s public profile, prior publicity, the Facebook posting, and alleged public interest. The central issues were whether the claimant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy, how Articles 8 and 10 should be balanced, whether publication might harm children in the claimant’s new family, and whether copyright justified separate relief.

1. Interim threshold. Under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the claimant had to show that he was likely, meaning more likely than not, to obtain an injunction at trial. The court applied that test to both the privacy and copyright claims.
2. Article 8. The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in photographs taken at a private party on private premises, showing behaviour in which he would be unlikely to engage publicly. Consent to taking the photographs did not imply consent to publication in a national newspaper. His limited public profile, previous publicity about an earlier marriage, and marriage to a public figure did not create a general waiver of privacy.
3. Limited online disclosure. The Facebook posting did not establish that no useful purpose remained in restraining publication. Personal information differs from commercial secrets. The relevant question was whether the information was so generally accessible that it could no longer be regarded as private, or whether anything remained to be protected. The evidence indicated limited access and subsequent withdrawal of the photographs.
4. Articles 8 and 10. The court applied an intense, fact-sensitive proportionality assessment. The photographs and proposed description would contribute little or nothing to genuine public debate and would principally satisfy curiosity. The defendant’s wish to publish promptly after publicity concerning the claimant’s marriage supported that assessment. The claimant’s modest public profile, the private circumstances in which the photographs were obtained, and the risk of harm to the children in his new family also favoured privacy. The risk to children could tip the balance.
5. Copyright. An injunction against copying the photographs would not disproportionately restrict Article 10 because the defendant could still describe their contents in words. The claimant, as copyright owner by assignment, had a much better than even chance of restraining the threatened copying.
6. Order. The defendant was restrained until trial or further order from publishing or copying the photographs and from publishing or communicating a description of their contents. Existing restrictions on disclosure of evidence continued, subject to liberty to apply.

First-instance interim decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.