{"title":"Privacy, reputation and anonymity until charge: ZXC goes to the Supreme Court","authors":"R. Craig, G. Phillipson","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.2016211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article seeks to defend the emergent consensus that suspects should be entitled to anonymity until charge and that the tort of misuse of private information (‘MPI') is the appropriate action to protect this right. It systematically addresses Nicole Moreham’s argument, in this journal, that breach of confidence, rather than MPI, should ground such claims, and that the case law to date risks awarding damages for harm to an undeserved reputation. The authors argue that multiple sources of law and theoretical accounts of privacy confirm this information is properly treated as private. In contrast, breach of confidence would provide an inadequate remedy. In response to the concerns on reputational harm, it argues that, in practical terms, the tort of defamation need not be undermined, as claimed. It further contends that the presumption of innocence can act as a guiding light in resolving the problems raised at the level of principle.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.2016211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article seeks to defend the emergent consensus that suspects should be entitled to anonymity until charge and that the tort of misuse of private information (‘MPI') is the appropriate action to protect this right. It systematically addresses Nicole Moreham’s argument, in this journal, that breach of confidence, rather than MPI, should ground such claims, and that the case law to date risks awarding damages for harm to an undeserved reputation. The authors argue that multiple sources of law and theoretical accounts of privacy confirm this information is properly treated as private. In contrast, breach of confidence would provide an inadequate remedy. In response to the concerns on reputational harm, it argues that, in practical terms, the tort of defamation need not be undermined, as claimed. It further contends that the presumption of innocence can act as a guiding light in resolving the problems raised at the level of principle.
期刊介绍:
The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?