Privacy injunction for Kate Winslet family

Today, the Guardian wrote this piece about a privacy injunction made by Kate Winslet and her husband, after The Sun were planning to publish pictures of Edward RocknRoll (her husband) partly naked, but Mr Justice Briggs made the injunction.

The reasoning for preventing them being published was to protect the couple's children from being teased at school.

The Sun had informed them of the intention to publish the photo's(but didn't reveal the source).

he full judgement can be seen here. In it he refers to Articles 8 and 10.

Looking at Article 8, the images showed him at a private party with friends and family, and the partial nudity shows a manner in which he would unlikely act in public, and would therefore have an expectation of privacy. The Judge also claimed there was no sign that the photographs were taken with consent, including Edward saying that he didn't know the photographs were going to be posted on Facebook(which is where they were found).

One way to step around Article 8, can be for certain public figures, as we have seen in the past with people such as Princess Caroline, but the judge explains why that doesn't a play a role in this particular case - 

'Taking those points separately, the claimant's employment with Virgin Galactic comes nowhere to placing him in that narrow category of persons who, although engaged in no public office, may be regarded as having reduced expectations of privacy due to their important role in national affairs. They may include the chairmen of major public companies, and the captains of national sporting teams, but the claimant was, so far as the evidence goes at this stage, no more than a not very conspicuous middle manager in his uncle's private business empire. In any event, that role ceased some two years ago.'

Overall, the decision was that Edward's privacy was of higher standing than freedom of expression for The Sun.

Posted in: