STOP PRESS: Victory for Son of Potter in privacy appeal

It's not yet on BAILII, but it's officially news: JK Rowling has won her appeal against the High Court's refusal to award damages and to prohibit publication of paparazzi photos taken of her son David being pushed in a buggy when he was 18 months old. According to a statement from JK and her husband, "We wanted our children to grow up like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy".

Right: now that the threat of the paparazzi has gone, the IPKat reckons it's safe to come out of hiding

It seems the judgment was delivered by Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, whom The Telegraph quotes as saying:
"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".
Defendant Big Pictures is believed to be facing a bill for the lion's share of the costs, estimated at £600,000.

Further comment will follow once the IPKat has a chance to read the decision in full.

Decision of Mr Justice Patten here
IPKat comment on earlier ruling here
See further on The Telegraph, Teletext, MSNBC and The Guardian.
Paparazzi here
STOP PRESS: Victory for Son of Potter in privacy appeal STOP PRESS: Victory for Son of Potter in privacy appeal Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.