CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s63B06C77 { width:35.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s130AA85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18.7pt } .s88F56EE9 { width:16.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDA826467 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.7pt } .sAF135520 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD4779DD7 { width:14.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF995EAC1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C864DC2 { width:5.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD2CEF84A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6D457449 { width:4.23pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34E769F { width:236.98pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s121A67E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:18.7pt; text-align:justify } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s9236CA16 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s719459F8 { width:11.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF MGN LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Application no. 39401/04)                 JUDGMENT (merits)     STRASBOURG   18 January 2011   FINAL   18/04/2011   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ljiljana Mijović, President,   Nicolas Bratza, David Thór Björgvinsson,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,   Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 39401/04) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British company, MGN Limited (“the applicant”), on 18 October 2004. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr K. Bays of Davenport Lyons, a lawyer practising in London, assisted by Mr D. Pannick QC, Mr K. Starmer QC and Mr A. Hudson, Counsel. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Upton. 3.     The applicant alleged two violations of its right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In particular, it complained about a finding of breach of confidence against it and, further, about being required to pay the claimants' costs including success fees. 4.     The Government filed written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits and on the third parties' comments (Rule 44 § 6 and see immediately hereafter) and the applicant responded thereto making also its claims for just satisfaction, to which submissions the Government further responded. Combined third-party comments were received from the Open Society Justice Initiative, the Media Legal Defence Initiative, Index on Censorship, the English PEN, Global Witness and Human Rights Watch, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ). THE FACTS I   THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant is the publisher of a national daily newspaper in the United Kingdom known as The Daily Mirror (formerly known as the Mirror ). It is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bays of Davenport Lyons, a solicitor practising in London. A.     The relevant publications 6.     On 1 February 2001 the “ Mirror ” newspaper carried on the front page an article headed “ Naomi: I am a drug addict ”, placed between two colour photographs of Ms Naomi Campbell, a well-known model. The first photograph, slightly indistinct, showed her dressed in a baseball cap and had a caption: “ Therapy: Naomi outside meeting ”. The second showed her glamorously partially covered by a string of beads. 7.     The article read as follows: “Supermodel Naomi Campbell is attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in a courageous bid to beat her addiction to drink and drugs. The 30-year old has been a regular at counselling sessions for three months, often attending twice a day. Dressed in jeans and baseball cap, she arrived at one of NA's lunchtime meetings this week. Hours later at a different venue she made a low-key entrance to a women-only gathering of recovered addicts. Despite her £14million fortune Naomi is treated as just another addict trying to put her life back together. A source close to her said last night: 'She wants to clean up her life for good. She went into modelling when she was very young and it is easy to be led astray. Drink and drugs are unfortunately widely available in the fashion world. But Naomi has realised she has a problem and has bravely vowed to do something about it. Everyone wishes her well.' Her spokeswoman at Elite Models declined to comment.” 8.     The story continued inside the newspaper with a longer article across two pages. This article was headed “ Naomi's finally trying to beat the demons that have been haunting her ” and the opening paragraphs read: “She's just another face in the crowd, but the gleaming smile is unmistakeably Naomi Campbell's. In our picture, the catwalk queen emerges from a gruelling two-hour session at Narcotics Anonymous and gives a friend a loving hug. This is one of the world's most beautiful women facing up to her drink and drugs addiction - and clearly winning. The London-born supermodel has been going to NA meetings for the past three months as she tries to change her wild lifestyle. Such is her commitment to conquering her problem that she regularly goes twice a day to group counselling ... To the rest of the group she is simply Naomi, the addict. Not the supermodel. Not the style icon.” 9.     The article made mention of Ms Campbell's efforts to rehabilitate herself and that one of her friends had said that she was still fragile but “getting healthy”. The article gave a general description of Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) therapy and referred to some of Ms Campbell's recently publicised activities including an occasion when she had been rushed to hospital and had her stomach pumped: while she had claimed it was an allergic reaction to antibiotics and that she had never had a drug problem, the article noted that “those closest to her knew the truth”. 10.     In the middle of the double page spread, between several innocuous pictures of Ms Campbell, was a dominating picture with a caption “ Hugs: Naomi, dressed in jeans and baseball hat, arrives for a lunchtime group meeting this week ”. The picture showed her in the street on the doorstep of a building as the central figure in a small group. She was being embraced by two people whose faces had been masked on the photograph. Standing on the pavement was a board advertising a certain café.   The photograph had been taken by a free-lance photographer contracted by the newspaper for that job. He took the photographs covertly while concealed some distance away in a parked car. 11.     On 1 February 2001 Ms Campbell's solicitor wrote to the applicant stating that the article was a breach of confidentiality and an invasion of privacy and requesting an undertaking that it would not publish further confidential and/or private information. 12.     The newspaper responded with further articles. On 5 February 2001 the newspaper published an article headed, in large letters, “ Pathetic ”. Below was a photograph of Ms Campbell over the caption “ Help: Naomi leaves Narcotics Anonymous meeting last week after receiving therapy in her battle against illegal drugs ”. This photograph was similar to the street scene picture published on 1 February. The text of the article was headed “ After years of self-publicity and illegal drug abuse, Naomi Campbell whinges about privacy ”. The article mentioned that “the Mirror revealed last week how she is attending daily meetings of Narcotics Anonymous”. Elsewhere in the same edition, an editorial, with the heading “ No hiding Naomi ”, concluded with the words: “If Naomi Campbell wants to live like a nun, let her join a nunnery. If she wants the excitement of a show business life, she must accept what comes with it”. On 7 February 2001, the Mirror published, under the heading “ Fame on you, Ms Campbell ”, a further article mocking Ms Campbell's threatened proceedings, referring to the years during which she thrust “her failed projects like the nauseating book Swan and equally appalling record Love and Tears down our throats”, stating that Ms Campbell was not an artist and that she was “about as effective as a chocolate soldier”, implying that her prior campaign against racism in the fashion industry was self-serving publicity and that “the problem is that Naomi doesn't actually “stand” for anything. She can't sing, can't act, can't dance, and can't write.” B. The substantive proceedings 1.   High Court ([2002] EWHC 499 (QB)) 13.     Ms Campbell claimed damages for breach of confidence and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. A claim for aggravated damages was made mainly as regards the article of 7 February 2001.   On 27   March 2002 the High Court (Morland J.) upheld Ms Campbell's claim, following a hearing of 5 days. 14.     He described Ms Campbell as an “internationally renowned fashion model and celebrity”. The first issue was whether there had been a breach of confidence and, in that respect, Ms Campbell was required to prove three elements. The first was that the details divulged by the article about her attendance at NA meetings had the necessary quality of confidence about them. Information to the effect that her treatment was regular attendance at NA meetings was clearly confidential: the details were obtained surreptitiously, assisted by covert photography when she was engaged (deliberately “low key and drably dressed”) in the private activity of therapy to advance her recovery from drug addiction. Giving details of her therapy, including her regular attendance at NA, was easily identifiable as private and disclosure of that information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. There existed a private interest worthy of protection. Secondly, it was found that those details were imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence given the sources of the information (either a fellow sufferer of drug addiction or one of her staff). Thirdly, and having heard evidence on the subject, she had demonstrated that the publication was to her detriment and, notably, the publication of her treatment with NA specifically had caused her significant distress and was likely adversely to affect her attendance/participation in therapy meetings. 15.     The High Court considered these findings to be in conformity with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Douglas v Hello! Ltd ([2001] QB 967 §164-168) which had held that there was no watertight division between the concepts of privacy and confidentiality and that the approach to the tort had to be informed by the jurisprudence of Article 8 of the Convention. Citing Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (22 October 1981, Series A no. 45) it noted that Convention jurisprudence acknowledged different degrees of privacy: the more intimate the aspect of private life which was being interfered with, the more serious the justification required. 16.     The High Court adopted the approach of Lord Woolf CJ in A v B plc ([2003] QB 195, see paragraph 88 below) as regards, inter alia , the qualification of the right to freedom of expression by the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. 17.     The High Court considered at some length the extent to which Ms Campbell had exposed herself and her private life to the media and, in light of this, how to reconcile the demands of Articles 8 and 10. The High Court considered that the applicant had been fully entitled to publish in the public interest the facts of her drug addiction and treatment as Ms Campbell had previously misled the public by denying drug use. “She might have been thought of and indeed she herself seemed to be a self-appointed role model to young black women”. However, the High Court had to protect a celebrity from publication of information about her private life which had “the mark and badge of confidentiality” and which she had chosen not to put in the public domain unless, despite that breach of confidentiality and the private nature of the information, publication was justifiable. The balance of Article 8 and 10 rights involved in the present case clearly called for a remedy for Ms Campbell as regards the publication of the private material. 18.     The High Court heard evidence from, inter alia , Ms Campbell as to the impact on her of the publication. It concluded: “Although I am satisfied that Miss Naomi Campbell has established that she has suffered a significant amount of distress and injury to feelings caused specifically by the unjustified revelation of the details of her therapy with Narcotics Anonymous, apart from that distress and injury to feelings she also suffered a significant degree of distress and injury to feelings caused by the entirely legitimate publication by the defendants of her drug addiction and the fact of therapy about which she cannot complain. In determining the extent of distress and injury to feelings for which she is entitled to compensation, I must consider her evidence with caution. She has shown herself to be over the years lacking in frankness and veracity with the media and manipulative and selective in what she has chosen to reveal about herself. I am satisfied that she lied on oath [about certain facts]. Nevertheless I am satisfied that she genuinely suffered distress and injury to feelings caused by the unjustified publication and disclosure of details of her therapy in the two articles of the 1st and 5th February 2002 complained of. I assess damages or compensation in the sum of £2500.” 19.     As to her claim for aggravated damages (mainly the article of 7   February 2001), the High Court found that a newspaper faced with litigation was entitled to argue that a claim against it should never have been made and that any complaint should have been made to the Press Complaints Commission. Such assertions could even be written in strong and colourful language and it was not for the courts to censor bad taste. However, since the article also “trashed her as a person” in a highly offensive and hurtful manner, this entitled her to aggravated damages in the sum of GBP 1000. 2.   Court of Appeal ([2002] EWCA Civ 1373 20.     On 14 October 2002 the Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Chadwick and Keene LJJ) unanimously allowed the newspaper's appeal. The hearing had lasted two and a half days. 21.     The Court of Appeal noted that Ms Campbell was an “internationally famous fashion model” who had courted, rather than shunned, publicity in part to promote other ventures in which she was involved. In interviews with the media she had volunteered information about some aspects of her private life and behaviour including limited details about her relationships. She had gone out of her way to aver that, in contrast to many models, she did not take drugs, stimulants or tranquillisers, but this was untrue. 22.     As to the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) on the law of confidentiality, the court observed that it had to balance the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, noting that freedom of the media was a bastion of any democratic society. 23.     As to whether the information disclosed was confidential, the Court of Appeal did not consider that the information that Ms Campbell was receiving therapy from NA was to be equated with disclosure of clinical details of medical treatment. Since it was legitimate to publish the fact that she was a drug addict receiving treatment, it was not particularly significant to add that the treatment consisted of NA meetings which disclosure would not be offensive to a reasonable reader of ordinary sensibilities. While a reader might have found it offensive that obviously covert photographs had been taken of her, that, of itself, had not been relied upon as a ground of complaint. In addition, it was not easy to separate the distress Ms Campbell must have felt at being identified as a drug addict in treatment accompanied by covert photographs from any additional distress resulting from disclosure of her attendance at NA meetings. In short, it was not obvious that the peripheral disclosure of Ms Campbell's attendance at NA meetings was of sufficient significance as to justify the intervention of the court. 24.     Relying on Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999 ‑ I), the Court of Appeal considered that the photographs were a legitimate, if not an essential, part of the journalistic package designed to demonstrate that Ms Campbell had been deceiving the public when she said that she did not take drugs and, provided that publication of particular confidential information was justifiable in the public interest, the journalist had to be given reasonable latitude as to the manner in which that information was conveyed to the public or his Article 10 right to freedom of expression would be unnecessarily inhibited. The publication of the photographs added little to Ms Campbell's case: they illustrated and drew attention to the information that she was receiving therapy from NA. 3.   House of Lords ([2004] UKHL 22) 25.     Following a hearing of 2 days, on 6 May 2004 the House of Lords allowed Ms Campbell's appeal (Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell formed the majority, Lords Nicholls of Birkenhead and Hoffman dissenting) and restored the orders made by the High Court. They delivered separate and extensive judgments. (a) Lord Hope of Craighead 26.     Lord Hope began by noting the powerful international reputation of Ms Campbell in the business of fashion modelling, which business was conducted under the constant gaze of the media. He also noted her “status as a celebrity”. He considered that the issues were essentially questions of “fact and degree” which did not raise any “new issues of principle”. In the present case, where the publication concerned a drug addict requiring treatment and, given the fact that disclosure of details concerning that treatment together with publication of a covertly taken photograph could endanger that treatment, the disclosure was of private information. 27.     The case gave rise to a competition between the rights of free speech and privacy which were of equal value in a democratic society. In balancing these rights, Lord Hope noted that the right to privacy, which lay at the heart of an action for breach of confidence, had to be balanced against the right of the media to impart information to the public and that the latter right had, in turn, to be balanced against the respect that must be given to private life. There was nothing new about this in domestic law. 28.     He examined in detail the latitude to be accorded to journalists in deciding whether or not to publish information to ensure credibility. He noted the principles set out in this respect in this Court's case law ( Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom , 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Jersild v. Denmark , 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298 and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999 ‑ I) . 29.     Having examined the balancing exercise in the Jersild and Fressoz cases, Lord Hope reiterated there was no doubt that the choices made about the presentation of material that was legitimate to convey to the public was pre-eminently an editorial matter with which the court would not interfere. However, choices to publish private material raised issues that were not simply about presentation and editing. Accordingly, the public interest in disclosure had to be balanced against the right of the individual to respect for their private life: those decisions were open to review by the court. The tests to be applied were familiar and were set down in Convention jurisprudence. The rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 had to be balanced against each other, any restriction of those rights had to be subjected to very close scrutiny and neither Article 8 nor Article 10 had any pre-eminence over each other (as confirmed by Resolution 1165 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (“PACE”), 1998). 30.     As to the Article 10 rights involved, the essential question was whether the means chosen to limit Article 10 rights were “rational, fair and not arbitrary and impair the right as minimally as is reasonably possible”. In this respect, the relevant factors were , on the one hand, the duty on the press to impart information and ideas of public interest which the public has a right to receive ( Jersild v. Denmark , cited above) and the need to leave it to journalists to decide what material had to be reproduced to ensure credibility ( Fressoz and Roire v. France cited above) and, on the other hand, the degree of privacy to which Ms Campbell was entitled as regards the details of her therapy under the law of confidence. However, the right of the public to receive information about the details of her treatment was of a much lower order than its undoubted right to know that she was misleading the public when she said that she did not take drugs since the former concerned an intimate aspect of her private life ( Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom , 22 October 1981, § 52, Series A no. 45). While he acknowledged the great importance of political expression and, indeed, of freedom of expression (constituting one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and the self-fulfilment of each individual, Tammer v. Estonia , no. 41205/98, § 59, ECHR 2001 ‑ I), he considered that no political or democratic values were at stake and no pressing social had been identified ( a contrario , Goodwin v. the United Kingdom , 27 March 1996, § 40, Reports 1996 II). 31.     As to the competing Article 8 rights, the potential for harm by the disclosure was an important factor in the assessment of the extent of the restriction that was needed to protect Ms Campbell's right to privacy. From the point of Article 8, publication of details of her treatment (that she was attending NA, for how long, how frequently and at what times of day, the nature of her therapy, the extent of her commitment to the process and the publication of covertly taken photographs) had the potential to cause harm to her and Lord Hope attached a good deal of weight to this factor. The fact that she was a “celebrity” was not enough to deprive her of her right to privacy. A margin of appreciation had be accorded to a journalist but viewing details of treatment for drug addiction merely “as background was to undervalue the importance that was to be attached to the need, if Ms Campbell was to be protected, to keep these details private”. It was hard to see any compelling need for the public to know the name of the organisation that she was attending for therapy or the details of that therapy. The decision to publish these details suggested that greater weight was given to the wish to publish a story that would attract interest rather than any wish to maintain its credibility. 32.     Lord Hope then considered the covert photographs. It was true that, had he to consider the text of the articles only, he would have been “inclined to regard the balance between these rights as about even”, such was the effect of the margin of appreciation that had to be, in a doubtful case, given to a journalist. However, the text could not be separated from the photographs as the captions clearly linked what might otherwise have been anonymous and uninformative pictures to the main text. In addition, the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would regard publication of the covertly taken photographs, linked in that way to the text, as adding greatly to the overall intrusion into Ms Campbell's private life. While photographs taken in a public place had to be considered, in normal circumstances, one of the “ordinary incidents of living in a free community”, the real issue was whether publicising the photographs was offensive in the present circumstances. He reviewed the case-law of the Court (including P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom , no. 44787/98, § 57, ECHR 2001 IX and Peck v United Kingdom , no. 44647/98, § 62, ECHR 2003 I) and applied the reasoning in the Peck case. Ms Campbell could not have complained if the photographs had been taken to show a scene in a street by a passer-by and later published simply as street scenes. However, the photographs invaded Ms Campbell's privacy because they were taken deliberately, in secret, with a view to their publication in conjunction with the article and they focussed on the doorway of the building of her NA meeting and they revealed clearly her face. The argument that the publication of the photograph added credibility to the story had little weight, since the reader only had the editor's word as to the truth of Ms Campbell's attendance at a NA meeting. He continued: “124. Any person in Miss Campbell's position, assuming her to be of ordinary sensibilities but assuming also that she had been photographed surreptitiously outside the place where she been receiving therapy for drug addiction, would have known what they were and would have been distressed on seeing the photographs. She would have seen their publication, in conjunction with the article which revealed what she had been doing when she was photographed and other details about her engagement in the therapy, as a gross interference with her right to respect for her private life. In my opinion this additional element in the publication is more than enough to outweigh the right to freedom of expression which the defendants are asserting in this case. ” 33.     Lord Hope therefore concluded that, despite the weight that had to be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is to play its role effectively, there was an infringement of Ms Campbell's privacy which could not be justified. (b) Baroness Hale of Richmond 34.     Baroness Hale observed that the examination of an action for breach of confidence began from the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test inquiring whether the person publishing the information knew or ought to have known that there was a reasonable expectation that the relevant information would be kept confidential. This was a threshold test which brought the balancing exercise between the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention into play. Relying also on the PACE Resolution 1165 (1998), she noted that neither right took precedence over the other. The application of the proportionality test, included in the structure of Articles 8   and 10, was much less straightforward when two Convention rights were in play and, in this respect, she relied on the above-cited cases of Jersild v Denmark , Fressoz and Roire v France and Tammer v Estonia . 35.     In striking the balance in this case, she noted: “143. ... Put crudely, it is a prima donna celebrity against a celebrity-exploiting tabloid newspaper. Each in their time has profited from the other. Both are assumed to be grown-ups who know the score. On the one hand is the interest of a woman who wants to give up her dependence on illegal and harmful drugs and wants the peace and space in which to pursue the help which she finds useful. On the other hand is a newspaper which wants to keep its readers informed of the activities of celebrity figures, and to expose their weaknesses, lies, evasions and hypocrisies. This sort of story, especially if it has photographs attached, is just the sort of thing that fills, sells and enhances the reputation of the newspaper which gets it first. One reason why press freedom is so important is that we need newspapers to sell in order to ensure that we still have newspapers at all. It may be said that newspapers should be allowed considerable latitude in their intrusions into private grief so that they can maintain circulation and the rest of us can then continue to enjoy the variety of newspapers and other mass media which are available in this country. It may also be said that newspaper editors often have to make their decisions at great speed and in difficult circumstances, so that to expect too minute an analysis of the position is in itself a restriction on their freedom of expression.” 36.     However, Baroness Hale considered it not to be a trivial case and defined the particularly private nature of the information the publication of which Ms Campbell contested. It concerned the important issue of drug abuse and, consequently, her physical and mental health. She underlined the importance of, as well as the sensitivities and difficulties surrounding, treatment for addiction and, notably, of the vital therapy to address an underlying dependence on drugs. Moreover, the Court's jurisprudence had always accepted that information about a person's health and treatment for ill-health was both private and confidential ( Z v. Finland , 25 February 1997, § 95, Reports 1997 ‑ I). While the disclosed information may not have been in the same category as clinical medical records, it amounted to the same information which would be recorded by a doctor in such records namely, the presenting problem of addiction to illegal drugs, the diagnosis and the prescription of therapy. Baroness Hale therefore began her analysis from the fact - which was common ground - that all information about Ms Campbell's addiction and attendance at NA disclosed in the article was both private and confidential because it related to an important aspect of her physical and mental health and the treatment she was receiving for it. It had also been received from an insider in breach of confidence. 37.     As to the nature of the freedom of expression being asserted on the other side, Baroness Hale recalled the main forms of expression which she recorded in descending order of importance: political speech (which included revealing information about public figures, especially those in elective office, which would otherwise be private but was relevant to their participation in public life), intellectual and educational expression as well as artistic expression. However, Baroness Hale found it difficult to see the contribution made by “pouring over the intimate details of a fashion model's private life”. It was true that the editor had chosen to run a sympathetic piece, listing Ms Campbell's faults and follies and setting them in the context of her addiction and her even more important efforts to overcome addiction and such publications might well have a beneficial educational effect. However, such pieces were normally run with the co-operation of those involved and Ms Campbell had refused to be involved with the story. The editor, nevertheless, considered that he was entitled to reveal this private information without her consent because Ms Campbell had presented herself to the public as someone who was not involved in drugs. Baroness Hale questioned why, if a role model presented a stance on drugs beneficial to society, it was so necessary to reveal that she had “feet of clay”. However, she accepted that the possession and use of illegal drugs was a criminal offence and was a matter of serious public concern so that the press had to be free to expose the truth and put the record straight. 38.     However, while Ms Campbell's previous public denial of drug use might have justified publication of the fact of her drug use and of her treatment for drug addiction, it was not necessary to publish any further information, especially if it might jeopardise her continued treatment. That further information amounted to the disclosure of details of her treatment with NA and Baroness Hale considered that the articles thereby “contributed to the sense of betrayal by someone close to her of which she spoke and which destroyed the value of [NA] as a safe haven for her”. 39.     Moreover, publishing the photographs contributed both to the revelation and to the harm that it might do. By themselves, the photographs were not objectionable. If the case concerned a photograph of Ms Campbell going about her business in a public street, there could have been no complaint. However, the accompanying text made it plain that these photographs were different in that they showed Ms Campbell outside a NA meeting in the company of some persons undoubtedly part of the NA group and they showed the place where the meeting took place, which would have been entirely recognisable to anyone who knew the locality. Photographs by their very nature added to the impact of the words in the articles as well as to the information disclosed. The photographs also added to the potential harm “by making her think that she was being followed or betrayed, and deterring her from going back to the same place again”. 40.     Moreover, there was no need for the photographs to be included in the articles for the editor to achieve his objective. The editor had accepted that, even without the photographs, it would have been a front page story. He had his basic information and he had his quotes. He could have used other photographs of Ms Campbell to illustrate the articles. While the photographs would have been useful in proving the truth of the story had this been challenged, there was no need to publish them for this purpose as the credibility of the story with the public would stand or fall with the credibility of stories of the Daily Mirror generally. Baroness Hale added, in this context, that whether the articles were sympathetic or not was not relevant since the way an editor “chose to present the information he was entitled to reveal was entirely a matter for him”. 41.     Finally, it was true that the weight to attach to these various considerations was “a matter of fact and degree”. Not every statement about a person's health would carry the badge of confidentiality: that a public figure had a cold would not cause any harm and private health information could be relevant to the capacity of a public figure to do the job. However, in the present case the health information was not harmless and, indeed, as the trial judge had found, there was a risk that publication would do harm: “... People trying to recover from drug addiction need considerable dedication and commitment, along with constant reinforcement from those around them. That is why organisations like [NA] were set up and why they can do so much good. Blundering in when matters are acknowledged to be at a 'fragile' stage may do great harm. 158. The trial judge was well placed to assess these matters. ... he was best placed to judge whether the additional information and the photographs had added significantly both to the distress and the potential harm. He accepted her evidence that it had done so. He could also tell how serious an interference with press freedom it would have been to publish the essential parts of the story without the additional material and how difficult a decision this would have been for an editor who had been told that it was a medical matter and that it would be morally wrong to publish it.” (c) Lord Carswell 42.     Lord Carswell agreed with Lord Hope and Baroness Hale. It was not in dispute that the information was of a private nature and imparted in confidence to the applicant and that the applicant was justified in publishing the facts of Ms Campbell's drug addiction and that she was receiving treatment given her prior public lies about her drug use.   He also agreed with Lord Hope as to the balancing of Articles 8 and 10 rights and, further, that in order to justify limiting the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, the restrictions imposed had to be rational, fair and not arbitrary, and they must impair the right no more than necessary. 43.     Having examined the weight to be attributed to different relevant factors, he concluded that the publication of the details of Ms Campbell's attendance at therapy by NA, highlighted by the photographs printed which revealed where the treatment had taken place, constituted a considerable intrusion into her private affairs which was capable of causing and, on her evidence, did in fact cause her, substantial distress. In her evidence, she said that she had not gone back to the particular NA centre and that she had only attended a few other NA meetings in the UK. It was thus clear, that the publication created a risk of causing a significant setback to her recovery. 44.     He did not minimise the “the importance of allowing a proper degree of journalistic margin to the press to deal with a legitimate story in its own way, without imposing unnecessary shackles on its freedom to publish detail and photographs which add colour and conviction”, which factors were “part of the legitimate function of a free press” and had to be given proper weight. However, the balance came down in favour of Ms Campbell. (d)     Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead 45.     Lord Nicholls began by noting that Ms Campbell was “a celebrated fashion model”, that she was a “household name, nationally and internationally” and that her face was “instantly recognisable”. He noted that the development of the common law (tort of breach of confidence) had been in harmony with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention   so that the time had come to recognise that the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 were now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence (Lord Woolf CJ, A v B plc [2003] QB 195, 202, § 4). 46.     He found that the reference to treatment at NA meetings was not private information as it did no more than spell out and apply to Ms   Campbell common knowledge of how NA meetings were conducted. 47.     However, even if Ms Campbell's attendance at meetings was considered private, her appeal was still ill-founded since: “On the one hand, publication of this information in the unusual circumstances of this case represents, at most, an intrusion into Miss Campbell's private life to a comparatively minor degree. On the other hand, non-publication of this information would have robbed a legitimate and sympathetic newspaper story of attendant detail which added colour and conviction. This information was published in order to demonstrate Miss Campbell's commitment to tackling her drug problem. The balance ought not to be held at a point which would preclude, in this case, a degree of journalistic latitude in respect of information published for this purpose. It is at this point I respectfully consider [that the High Court] fell into error. Having held that the details of Miss Campbell's attendance at [NA] had the necessary quality of confidentiality, the judge seems to have put nothing into the scales under article 10 when striking the balance between articles 8 and 10. This was a misdirection. The need to be free to disseminate information regarding Miss Campbell's drug addiction is of a lower order than the need for freedom to disseminate information on some other subjects such as political information. The degree of latitude reasonably to be accorded to journalists is correspondingly reduced, but it is not excluded altogether.” 48.     He observed that Ms Campbell's repeated public assertions denying her drug addiction rendered legitimate the publication of the facts that she was a drug addict and in treatment had been legitimate. The additional impugned element that she was attending NA meetings as a form of therapy was of such an unremarkable and consequential nature that its disclosure had also been legitimate. The same applied to information concerning how long Ms Campbell was receiving such treatment given that the frequency and nature of NA meetings was common knowledge. Hence, the intrusion into Ms Campbell's private life was comparatively minor. 49.     Lastly, and as to the photographs, Lord Nicholls observed that she did not complain about the taking of the photographs nor assert that the taking of the photographs was itself an invasion of privacy, rather that the information conveyed by the photographs was private. However, the particular photographs added nothing of an essentially private nature: they conveyed no private information beyond that discussed in the article and there was nothing undignified about her appearance in them. (e) Lord Hoffmann 50.     Lord Hoffmann began his judgment by describing Ms Campbell as “a public figure” and, further, a famous fashion model who had lived by publicity. He noted that the judges of the House of Lords were “divided as to the outcome of this appeal” but the difference of opinion related to “a very narrow point” concerning the unusual facts of the case. While it was accepted that the publication of the facts of her addiction and of her treatment was justified as there was sufficient public interest given her previous public denials of drug use, the division of opinion concerned “whether in doing so the newspaper went too far in publishing associated facts about her private life”. He continued: “But the importance of this case lies in the statements of general principle on the way in which the law should strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, on which the House is unanimous. The