Children's Privacy
Download as a PDF
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in David Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Limited the Court of Appeal held that a photograph of a child in a public street taken and published without his parents’ consent could breach the child’s right to privacy unless there was some justification, such as a genuine public interest.
In our view, the occasions when there will be a genuine public interest in the publication of paparazzi-style pictures of children will be extremely rare. In accordance with the Press Complaints Commissions Code of Practice the public interest includes exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting public health and safety or preventing the public from being misled by individuals or organisations.
The Court made it clear that the children of famous or high profile people are entitled to the same rights of privacy as the children of people who are not in the public eye: as a general rule the press should not publish a photograph of a famous person’s child if they would not have published a similar picture of a child whose parents are not famous.
If your child was, for example, participating in a major public sports competition or some other genuinely public event which was legitimately covered by the press, the publication of a picture in those circumstances may be less likely to amount to an
invasion of privacy. Much will depend on the circumstances and factors to be taken into account will include whether you knew that pictures may be published and whether you consented to the publication. However, the fame or notoriety of a parent must not be the sole justification for the publication of pictures of a child nor will participation in such an event disentitle the child to privacy in other situations.
The Court found that whether the publication of a photograph amounted to a breach of privacy would depend on the circumstances of each case. However the following factors were taken into account:
That the parents objected to photographs of the child being published and, crucially, that the paparazzi agency knew they objected was an important factor in their finding a potential breach of privacy
That the photographs were taken covertly with a long lens
That the family had been targeted by the paparazzi and the likelihood that the child would be targeted again in the future meant that the photograph in issue impacted on his right to privacy
That the parents of the child had not courted publicity for themselves by encouraging publication of photographs of their children
If parents have encouraged or consented to the publication of photographs of their children in the media, then their children may be entitled to less protection against the paparazzi.