Schillings recommend key changes to privacy and reputation protection

1 March 2010

Download a PDF of the press release

Schillings, the leading law firm protecting the privacy and reputations of businesses and high-profile individuals, has released the findings of their recent research called “A private life in the public eye”. The research report sets out a ‘Blueprint for change’ to help people protect their privacy and reputation without compromising the vital principle of freedom of expression. The launch of the report co-insides with the Government’s DCMS Select Committee’s comprehensive report into Press Standards, Privacy and Libel.

The overarching aim of the research was to discover what it means to be in the public eye today and where the line should be drawn that separates the part of a person’s life that should remain private. The key areas of interest included: Attitudes towards privacy; Importance of legal measures; Due prominence of apologies; The effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission; Dissatisfaction with press reporting; Prior notification and the future challenges facing reputations.

The research provides convincing evidence that many people are dissatisfied with the current position regarding reputation and privacy. The opinions of the audience presented in the report do not necessarily represent those of Schillings. An area of common ground is the view showing that whilst it is important to permit publication of matters that are genuinely in the public interest, too often reputations are damaged, and privacy invaded, by the publication of stories that are untrue, or where the main aim is to satisfy salacious curiosity about the lives of the rich and famous irrespective of the distress caused to them, their families and their friends.

Commenting in respect of the issue of public interest, Gideon Benaim, Partner at Schillings, who led the research project commented: “Schillings have been at the forefront of developing privacy law in this country and have set legal precedent providing everyone the right of protection in respect of their home life, their children and medical information, as well as other areas considered private. This means their private life should not be reported by the press unless it is truly a matter in the public interest. However, in some areas we find the media don’t make the correct distinction between ‘public interest’ and ‘of interest to the public’ which are quite different concepts.”

In concluding Schillings found that the aims of existing laws are sound. But in practice, they frequently fail to achieve a satisfactory balance between the public interest, the truth and privacy. The report suggests the following three key recommendations for reforms to reputation laws under the proposal called the ‘Blueprint for change’; each of which are supported by the recommendations in today’s DCMS report.

1. The press should have to notify people before publishing stories that will seriously invade their privacy.

Once privacy is lost it is lost forever. To help restore the balance if the media propose to publish private information they should give advance warning to the target in order to give them the opportunity to defend themselves and seek suitable redress before the irreversible damage is done.

86% of the audience believe that the press should contact the subject prior to the publication of a damaging article. However, less than a quarter, 23%, of those surveyed are actually contacted on a regular basis

In the DCMS report they recommend that the Press Complaints Commission should amend it’s Code of Conduct to include a requirement that journalists should normally notify the subject prior to publication subject to a public interest test and a failure to pre-notify will be an aggravating element in assessing damages.

2. It should be easier to obtain injunctions preventing the publication of untrue allegations.

Because the damage caused can’t always be undone Schillings’ suggestion is that the law is extended to permit injunctions in respect of false and defamatory allegations.

Only 16% of the audience believe that the majority of what they read is accurate. It is generally not possible to obtain a court order preventing the publication of untrue allegations. Although if you know the media are going to run a story that invades privacy it is possible to stop it. Given that it is very rare that the apology is given the same level of prominence as the offending article, a view supported by 63% of the audience in the research, it is hard to rectify the damage caused by untrue allegations.

In the DCMS report they recommend that the Ministry of Justice review injunctions and how they are operating within their overall review on reforms in libel and privacy.

3. Introduce a pre-publication system to resolve disputes.

Schillings’ suggestion is a fast track system dedicated to quickly resolving pre-publication issues before untrue or intrusive stories are published.

Only 15% of the audience think that the Press Complaints Commission is an effective watchdog, with the majority believing it is ineffective. The research shows that the vast majority of the audience believe that the decline in print media and the rise in online media have made managing reputations harder. Further, almost half of the audience believe new media poses more of a risk than an opportunity. As the risks are considered to be on the increase, in the future there need to be alternative solutions to ensure people are properly able to protect their reputations. Schillings’ suggestion is a fast-track system dedicated to quickly resolving pre-publication issues before untrue or intrusive stories are published.

In the DCMS report they recommend there should be a fast track scheme for privacy injunctions.

Speaking regarding the Schillings reports, Senior Partner Keith Schilling said: “There is currently widespread discussion in the media and within Parliament regarding privacy and libel reform, however this discussion has been heavily weighted in the media’s interest. With the DCMS’s report and our own research we are able to put forward the view that there needs to be an improvement in press standards. More importantly, the right we all have to a private life, as set out by our Supreme Court needs to be respected.”

- END -

Notes to Editors

Key findings – ‘A private life in the public eye report’

86% of the audience think that prior notification should always be given my the media
80% believe that children should receive special protection
63% of the audience do not feel that apologies by the media are given as due prominence as the offending article
64% of the audience feel that the PCC in an ineffective watchdog
Over half of the audience think that over 50% of articles they read in the press are inaccurate
Stories that misrepresent, distort or embellish the truth are considered the most damaging to reputations
‘Paparazzi harassment’ and ‘door stepping’ are the top two most offensive journalistic techniques used
88% of the audience found that managing reputations has become harder in light of changes in the media
Almost half, 47% of the audience see the Internet as more of a risk than an opportunity to managing reputations
Over half of the audience see new technologies and the rise of online media as a the main challenges going forward
A third of the audience find the obsession with celebrity and an increasingly voyeuristic society as a major future challenge.

The opinions of the audience presented in the report do not necessarily represent those of Schillings.

Schillings PR contact
Christopher Mills
Commercial Director
Schillings, 41 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3HX
+44 (0)20 7034 9000