HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

The House of Lords ' judgment in Campbell v Mirror Group Newss Ltd demonstrates the courts ' shift in favor of a concept of a right to privacy , but not quite . This case is significant as it distinguishes between concepts of confidentiality and privacy within the context of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act . The judgment also balances the right to freedom of expression against the right to privacy and /or confidentiality as contained in the Data Protection Act 1998 , the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention

of Human Rights . This balancing act lends itself to the notion that rather than creating an independent right to privacy , the courts are more inclined to extend the law relating to a breach of confidentiality

The House of Lords readily acknowledged that unlike the United States of America , the United Kingdom does not have the exhaustive protection against invasion of privacy and remedies in respect of breaches thereof However , with the passing into law of the Human Rights Act 1998 , there has been protection of various aspects of privacy ' which until recently is a fast developing area of the law

Lord Nicholls of Brickenhead , summed up the importance of the Campbell decision in the context of developing the laws relating to privacy within the United Kingdom when delivering the opinion of the House of Lords . Lord Nicholls noted that the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Strasbourg jurisprudence has been the primary influence in the British Courts with regards to this area of the law . However the overlapping of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

.have prompted the courts of this country to identify more clearly the different factors involved in cases where one or other of these two interests is present

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a general right to privacy whereas Article 10 makes provision for freedom of information . The European Convention on Human Rights has been endorsed by the Human Rights Act 1998 . There is no doubt that the two articles contemplate interests of others that are diametrically opposed Lord Nichols , went on to point out that the court is duty bound to test `the common law against the values encapsulated in these two articles Lord Nicholls went on to observe that the time for accepting that the cause of action or remedies afforded by the provisions of Articles 8 and 10 are to be found in remedies for a breach of confidentiality is now

The result of this distinction , Lord Nichols explained creates an entirely different approach to the question of privacy and the freedom of expression conflict . Previously , all the court had to do was to satisfy itself

.whether the published information engaged article 8 at all by being within the sphere of the complainant 's private or family life

Now , in balancing the interest to be served by both Articles , the correct question to be asked...