Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1)

A person who is merely under state suspicion of crime ordinarily has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that fact and in the basis for the suspicion. The expectation is particularly weighty where identification would associate an ordinary individual with a grave terrorist offence. Lawful journalistic investigation, local knowledge, and an earlier online publication by another publisher do not, without more, remove that expectation.

At the balancing stage, the publisher must justify disclosure of the identifying information itself. The fact that an article concerns a matter of major public interest, or that a name may attract readers, does not establish a pressing need to name an uncharged suspect. The balance is for the court to strike objectively, with appropriate but limited weight given to editorial expertise.

The claimant was arrested at home on suspicion of offences connected with the Manchester Arena bombing. Police did not name him. On the day of the arrest, MailOnline progressively added his name, nationality, occupation, photograph and other identifying details to an article about the investigation. He was released without charge several days later, but the article was not amended to report that outcome and remained online until February 2018.

He brought claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence, together with claims for aggravated and special damages. The parties agreed that the case could be determined by reference to misuse of private information. The central issues were whether he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether publication was justified by the public interest, and what compensation was recoverable.

1. Judgment for the claimant. The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the defendant would not identify him as the man arrested on suspicion of involvement in the Manchester Arena bombing. Applying ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2020] EWCA Civ 611, the normal starting point was that a person subject only to state suspicion has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The claimant had done nothing criminal in public, the arrest and the relevant telephone call were private, and identification risked exceptionally serious harm to his private life.

2. Neither the visible police activity after the arrest, nor limited local knowledge, defeated that expectation. A distinction had to be drawn between information known to some local people and permanent disclosure to MailOnline's very large readership. The Guardian's later independent identification made inroads into privacy, but did not make the information universally known or permit the defendant to add a further substantial intrusion.

3. The Article's reporting of an arrest in Shoreham contributed to public understanding of the investigation. Identifying the claimant did not. The seriousness of the bombing, public anxiety, reader engagement and commercial competition did not show a pressing social need to disclose his name and personal details. The defendant had not undertaken a considered, case-specific assessment of whether naming him served and was proportionate to the public interest. The Article was therefore an unjustified misuse of private information.

4. The court held that a claim for reputational loss could not fairly be pursued as a shadow defamation action. It would have required determination of meaning, defences and limitation issues without pleadings or procedures fit for that purpose. The reputational-damages claim was an abuse of process. The court nevertheless compensated distress, indignity, loss of standing and financial consequences caused by the wrongful disclosure.

5. General damages of £50,000, including aggravated damages, and special damages of £33,000 for reasonable take-down costs were awarded. No award was made for reputational harm, foreign publication, loss of pilot work, or net loss of earnings.

High Court (Queen's Bench Division): First-instance claim. The claim form was issued on 21 December 2018 after pre-action correspondence. No prior judicial decision in this litigation is stated.