J K Rowling’s son wins privacy appeal
7 May 2008
David Murray v Big Pictures
Appeal court grants enhanced privacy rights for children
Download a PDF of the Judgment
Download a PDF of the Notes to Editors for further details of the Judgment
The Court of Appeal today handed down Judgment in the appeal of Dr Neil Murray and his wife, Mrs. Joanne Murray (a.k.a. J K Rowling) against Big Pictures (UK) Ltd. The case was brought by Dr. and Mrs. Murray as “Litigation friends” of their son, David, now aged 5. Dr. and Mrs. Murray made no claim in these proceedings for protection of their own privacy. It was a representative action brought in their son David’s name to protect David’s rights to privacy and family life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court of Appeal upheld David Murray’s appeal in respect of covert long lens photographs of him taken by a photographer whilst David was being pushed in a buggy by his parents down an Edinburgh street on a family outing on 8th November 2004.
In a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said (paragraph 46), “if a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent. In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of ‘ordinary’ parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him.”
In a statement released through their lawyers, Schillings, David’s parents said, "We embarked on this lawsuit, not because we were seeking special privileges for our children, but because we wanted them to grow up, like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances. However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight. We are immensely grateful to the Court for giving our children protection from covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and material difference to their lives."
Keith Schilling, Senior Partner at Schillings said, “This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country. Following the House of Lords decision in Campbell v MGN, which established a right of privacy, this case establishes a law of privacy for children in those cases where, understandably, the parents wish to protect their children from intrusive photography by the paparazzi. It will have a profound effect especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it. After all, the change in the law broadly reflects what was already provided for, voluntarily, in the PCC Code of Practice” (paragraph 6 (v) see below).
“Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.”
Neil Blair, instructing solicitor from J K Rowling’s literary agents, Christopher Little Literary Agency, said that, “Whilst the case concerned photography, which has always been recognised as especially intrusive in privacy cases, the principles that this decision establishes are apposite to the protection of private information concerning children generally.”
For further details of the Judgment, please see the Notes to Editors.
Issued by Schillings, solicitors for Dr. and Mrs. Murray, litigation friends of David Murray.
For further press enquiries and information please contact:
Gideon Benaim, Partner
Schillings
41 Bedford Square
London, WC1B 3HX
Tel: 020 7034 9000
Fax: 020 7034 9200
Email: legal@schillings.co.uk
For PR enquiries please contact:
Colman Getty PR
28 Windmill Street
London
W1T 2JJ
Tel: 020 7631 2666
Fax: 020 7631 2699
Email: info@colmangetty