UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Privacy law and the media Paton, Elizabeth Katrine 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A6_4 P37.pdf [ 7.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077723.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077723-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077723-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077723-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077723-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077723-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077723-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077723-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077723.ris

Full Text

PRIVACY LAW AND THE MEDIA By ELIZABETH KATRINE PATON BCom/LLB, U n i v e r s i t y  of Auckland,  1988  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty  o f Law)  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to  THE  the required  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  September 1990 0  Elizabeth  Katrine  P a t o n , 1990  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  University  of  British  Columbia,  I  agree  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or for  her  of  Lau  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  I further  purposes  gain  that  agree  may  be  It  is  representatives.  financial  permission.  Department  study.  requirements  shall  not  that  the  Library  permission  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  the  an  advanced  shall for  make  extensive  head  that without  it  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT This value It  thesis explores  t h e i s s u e o f how t o r e c o n c i l e t h e  of i n d i v i d u a l privacy with that  argues t h a t there  invasion should  of privacy  o u g h t t o be l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n by t h e media, and t h a t  such  against  protection  be seen a s complementary t o a system o f f r e e  expression  rather  than opposed t o such a system.  A definition  of privacy  contended, meets t h e c r i t e r i a definition. favour  o f freedom o f speech.  Various  i s o u t l i n e d which, f o r a coherent,  i t is  neutral  reasons f o r valuing p r i v a c y  and i n  of protecting the i n d i v i d u a l ' s reasonable  expectations  of privacy  are identified.  I t i s argued  that  l a c k o f p r e c i s i o n i n t h e normative realm,  i n defining  c e r t a i n t y when p r i v a c y  n o t be a n e x c u s e  for  i s invaded,  leaving the i n d i v i d u a l without There follows  privacy  against  Australian  media i n c u r s i o n s  protection afforded  judicial  recourse  f o rvictims  publications.  law a c t i o n s .  and l e g i s l a t i v e  There has  recognition  of the  i n t e r e s t s , a n d many i n t e r e s t i n g  years are discussed.  considered  Zealand,  than the c o i n c i d e n t a l  by c e r t a i n common  developments i n recent countries  protection.  i n E n g l i s h , New  law, o t h e r  need t o s a f e g u a r d p r i v a c y  the  legal  an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f  and Canadian  been s i g n i f i c a n t  should  with  However, none o f  has y e t developed e f f e c t i v e  o f unwarranted and i n v a s i v e  It  i s argued  f r e e speech fact  both  that the relationship  b e t w e e n p r i v a c y and  has been wrongly c o n c e p t u a l i s e d , and t h a t i n  interests  s e r v e t h e same u n d e r l y i n g s e t o f v a l u e s .  P r o b l e m s a r i s e when p r i v a c y a n d f r e e s p e e c h balanced  i n the a b s t r a c t r a t h e r than  simplistic  view o f p r e s s  the r e a l i t i e s  interests are  i n context,  freedom i s adopted  a n d when a  i n disregard of  o f t h e modern mass m e d i a .  I n v a s i v e p u b l i c a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y do n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y advance f r e e speech the  i n t e r e s t s unless they help t o provide  i n f o r m a t i o n needed f o r p u b l i c  Furthermore, without  detriment  identity. privacy  this  i n f o r m a t i o n c a n i n many c a s e s by w i t h h o l d i n g d e t a i l s w h i c h  A three-step test  and f r e e speech  compromise t o e i t h e r balance  these  It will is  i s proposed  since they separate  disclose  t o determine  interests  t h a t a c o n t e x t u a l approach  o f c a t e g o r i e s such  important  as " p u b l i c  t e n d t o be  a n d s h o u l d be eschewed a s a n a l y t i c a l  analysis.  without  i n the context of the case.  a l s o be m a i n t a i n e d  confuse  whether  o f them, o r w h e t h e r i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o  and " p u b l i c p l a c e s " . These concepts  misleading,  be c o n v e y e d  i n t e r e s t s c a n be r e c o n c i l e d  p r e f e r a b l e t o the adoption  figures"  decision-making.  tools,  q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  v  Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION  1  2. THE CONCEPT AND VALUE OF PRIVACY  8  3. PRIVACY LAW I N THE COMMONWEALTH International  Covenants  30 30  U n i t e d Kingdom  32  New Z e a l a n d  52  Australia  69  Canada  75  Conclusion 4. THE MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION  . 9 6 97  5. PUBLIC FIGURES AND PUBLIC PLACES  129  6. CONCLUSION  138  BIBLIOGRAPHY  142  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am v e r y g r a t e f u l  f o r t h e guidance  and a d v i c e  by my s u p e r v i s o r , Dean P e t e r B u r n s , a n d b y P r o f e s s o r  provided Joel  Bakan. I also fiance, and  w i s h t o t h a n k my m o t h e r , K a t r i n e P a t o n , a n d my  Grant  t h e i r help  Simpson,  f o r t h e i r encouragement and i n t e r e s t ,  i n finding  New Z e a l a n d  sources.  1  CHAPTER  1  INTRODUCTION  Two society  o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t  values  i n a modern  a r e f r e e d o m o f e x p r e s s i o n and  e x p r e s s i o n has condition  been c a l l e d  of n e a r l y every  p r i v a c y . Freedom  "the matrix, o t h e r form  it  has  of  i n d i v i d u a l g o a l s under every  of  the indispensable  of freedom".  been s a i d t h a t p r i v a c y i s " c e n t r a l t o t h e theory of the  t h a t has  e v e r c a p t u r e d man's i m a g i n a t i o n " .  declared  i n major i n t e r n a t i o n a l  human  democratic  covenants  1  Likewise  attainment  individual  Both v a l u e s t o be  are  fundamental  rights. Each of these v a l u e s  of the  individual  and  i s an a s p e c t  of the moral  essential to individual  fulfilment.  E a c h o f them a l s o h a s  functioning  o f a system of s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t .  f r e q u e n t l y t h e s e v a l u e s seem t o be other,  a vital  self-  role 4  autonomy  i n the  However,  in conflict  with  each  e s p e c i a l l y where t h e m e d i a i s i n v o l v e d .  Two  examples from  Herald  will  often  arise  stress  one  a recent edition  serve to i l l u s t r a t e and  t h e way  v a l u e and  o f t h e New  the kinds of c o n f l i c t s  i n which s o c i e t y w i l l  s o m e t i m e s t h e o t h e r . One  headline  Palko v Connecticut, 302 US 319 a t 327 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , J ; q u o t e d i n Irwin Toy Ltd c Quebec (Procureur (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 577 a t 606 (SCC).  2  Ruth Gavison, Yale  LJ  421.  3  See  p 30  below.  4  See  chapters  2 and  4.  which  sometimes  1  " P r i v a c y and  Zealand  t h e L i m i t s o f Law"  per  read:  Cardozo General)  (1980)  89  2 "Counsel r o l e t o p r o t e c t c h i l d from media c i r c u s . " s t o r y was  The  5  about an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y p u b l i c i s e d custody case  i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d who,  her mother claimed, was  molested  by  her f a t h e r . On the p r e v i o u s page of the same paper, a t e l e v i s i o n programme was  d e s c r i b e d f o r which hidden cameras and  bugging  d e v i c e s were used t o c a p t u r e on f i l m the underhanded a c t i v i t i e s of a team of r o o f p a i n t e r s . Both of the s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d c o u l d be seen as r a i s i n g q u e s t i o n s about the " r i g h t s t o p r i v a c y " of the i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. There was  a marked d i f f e r e n c e i n the  p u b l i c response t o the two matters as r e g a r d s the p r i v a c y i s s u e s i n v o l v e d . The New  Zealand p u b l i c , as evidenced by  l e t t e r s t o newspaper e d i t o r s ,  6  was  i n d i g n a n t a t the media  coverage of the custody case, e s p e c i a l l y a t the p u b l i c a t i o n of photographs school.  The judge who  7  t h a t "he was paraded  of the c h i l d b e i n g d r i v e n t o and  from  s e t up the Family Court system  ' s i c k e n e d ' by the way  said  the drama had been  i n newspapers and on t e l e v i s i o n and r a d i o " .  1 0  On the  5  New Zealand Herald, 27 February 1990, S e c t i o n 1, p 20, e l a b o r a t i n g on the f r o n t page l e a d e r .  6  See f o r example the New and 9 March 1990.  7  .  .  .  Zealand  Herald,  .  See " H i l a r y i n H i d i n g " , Vancouver Sun, 3 March 1990, p A 3 . The New Zealand Family Court p l a c e d a ban on any f u r t h e r p u b l i c i t y c o n c e r n i n g the proceedings, under the New Zealand Guardianship A c t 1968. "Custody cover ' d i s g r a c e f u l ' " New February 1990.  Q  2 March, 5 March  .  .  Zealand .  Herald  28  .  "Freedom of speech" i s used i n t h i s t h e s i s synonymously w i t h "freedom of e x p r e s s i o n " . L i k e w i s e "freedom of the p r e s s " w i l l be used t o i n c l u d e the freedom of o t h e r media such as b r o a d c a s t i n g and f i l m .  3  other  hand, n o t  reaction  s u r p r i s i n g l y , there  from the  expose the  public regarding  dishonest  From a l e g a l important  and  roof  be  standpoint,  there  any to  the  i n the  the  correct  privacy.  However, i t  questions  literature  resulting in conflict  illustrate  being  involved  and  by  law  s e e n e v e n when  i s none.  conflict  an  e x a g g e r a t e d and  between freedom o f  Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s ways t o e f f e c t i v e l y invasions. the  The  balance  have been v e r y  perception  privacy, hesitant  the  developing  from  i s h e a v i l y weighted against notwithstanding  This  Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s t h e s i s s e t s out  surrounding privacy m e d i a . An  the  isolate  media privacy  i n c l u s i o n of  believed,  will  claims  invasion  privacy w i l l  clarify  the  parties. from the  of be  issues  debate  of p r i v a c y  by  approaching the proposed which,  involved the  to  1 1  i s s u e s which p a r t i c u l a r l y  a l t e r n a t i v e way  f r e e s p e e c h and  of  law  to  are  the  the in  individual privacy  of  r i g h t s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l human r i g h t s a g r e e m e n t s  which the  to the  10  unclear  s p e e c h and  protect  Commonwealth,  privacy  of  and  1 0  in this thesis that  Because of  in  regarding  speech  have been wrongly c o n c e i v e d reform bodies,  if  t h e methods u s e d  both instances  complex q u e s t i o n s  argued  little  painters.  b a l a n c e between freedom o f will  was  in  m e d i a . The  relate  values i t is  deciding thesis is  As may become a p p a r e n t f r o m v a r i o u s r e f e r e n c e s t h a t w i l l be made t o U n i t e d S t a t e s law, e s p e c i a l l y i n c h a p t e r 5, t h e s i t u a t i o n i s n o t much b e t t e r i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , due t o u n n e c e s s a r i l y w i d e e x c e p t i o n s i n f a v o u r o f t h e media. See  p  30  below.  4 written  with  especially It  reference  in  will  England, be  in  opposition to  two  ways  not  s o much w h i c h  serving  sacrificed, both  as  privacy  significant privacy  is  for  the  free as  of  and  speech and p r i v a c y when  set  of  in  either  fact  values.  free  is  be underlie  Often  speech or  been  question  that  optimised.  1 2  represent  must  goals  Canada. have  they The  ideals  the  e x p r e s s i o n be  examine  of  will  the  and  be of  identifying  when  uncertainty  does  third  a  loading. its  of  no  individual  be  It  as w e l l  privacy that  examine  privacy  developments  1  2  F o r c o n v e n i e n c e and f o r want o f c o u n t r i e s w i l l c o l l e c t i v e l y be C o m m o n w e a l t h c o u n t r i e s " . No s l i many o t h e r c o u n t r i e s t h a t make  1  3  Gavison,  2.  will  expounded by  Ruth  as  will  the  in  policy  and  to  that  protect  privacy  which  he  remains  in  to  an  current  or  she  invasion,  remaining  the  be  contended  inaction  the  of  then  freedom  of  in  concept  be  amounts  judicial  of  supra n  will  society  argued  will  and  Privacy  expectations  justify  privacy  connection to  the  of  of  coherent  some u n c e r t a i n t y  chapter  and r e c e n t  definition  principle  loss  not  a  emphasised.  norms  nevertheless  concept  offers  reasonable  a  the  of  normative  a value,  to  form  Conceding that  The  Australia,  independent  definition  individual's  will  same  two  free  reasons  according  it  of  a modified  are  lives.  the  2 will  individuality there  free  each other  sacrifice  This  examined  Zealand,  system,  necessary.  Gavison. privacy  New  E n g l i s h common l a w  by w h i c h means w i l l  and  Chapter argue  the  seen that  set  of  to  in  degree this  legal  of  area. status  different  a better term, these r e f e r r e d to as "the g h t i s intended to the up t h e Commonwealth.  5 countries last  as  they a f f e c t the  twenty y e a r s or  so has  media. I t w i l l  be  b e e n a t i m e o f many  developments i n t h i s  area,  way  individual is effectively  t o go  against her  before  the  illegitimate  private  will  tort,  an  argued t h a t  w i t h an  by  freedom of  the  exception  the  e x a m i n e d , and publications  valuing  the  i t will i n one  be  contended t h a t only  seen t h a t  the  law  or  and  be  does not  claim.  pose  the  Furthermore,  a general  privacy of  goals  of  expressive  given  shown how  traditional  It will  each other  changes i n the  liberal  activity  fifty theory  ought t o  the  be  f o r a system of  the  i n the  reasons  for the  same  free expression It is  It  be  seen t h a t  as  impossible  abstract;  rather,  for.  freedom of the media over the  years or of  be  rather  is irreversible.  individual privacy.  to consider  h u n d r e d and  resemble a c t i o n  i t reflects  approach i s c a l l e d  action w i l l  privacy-invasive  harm c a u s e d  i n as much as  p r o t e c t i o n of  Turning  one  i t will  between s p e e c h and  freedom of e x p r e s s i o n .  a contextual  last  position  a c t u a l l y advance the  important respect  t o b a l a n c e them a g a i n s t  be  media w i t h h i s  enforcement of  distinction  type of reasons are for  long  protected  f o r p u b l i c a t i o n of matters  t h a n speech, namely t h a t  protected  a  speech.  First  be  significant  is still  examining the  its critics  g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n , may  will  the  effective privacy  f r e e speech t h a t  be  there  m e d i a i n modern s o c i e t y ,  demonstrated that  it  that  i n t e r f e r e n c e by  f o u r t h chapter,  of the  danger t o  but  the  life.  In the functions  seen t h a t  press,  i t will  course of  the  so h a v e r e n d e r e d  the  freedom of the  press  seriously  6 deficient.  The  advertisers must be  media s e r v e  and  powerful p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s of  large corporations,  defined  i n a way  will  argued t h a t there  and  that reflects  freedom of the the  values  of  press  free  speech. It in  the  be  Furthermore,  can  w i t h o u t any  satisfied  interests  simply  by  often  significant  preserving  speech i n t e r e s t s against  is  of the  truly  at  case,  use  5,  T h e s e two  c a s e s and  and  conceptually  such as  one  be  balance  interests in  be  the  of these i n t e r e s t s  demonstrated t h a t  distinct  and  4  i n American  will  confusing  be  the  "public privacy  i n d i s c u s s i n g the  public interest, misleading,  the  i s preferable to  a " p u b l i c f i g u r e " or  c o n c e p t s , much u s e d  indeed  three  of p r i v a c y this  or whether o n l y  i t will  of p u b l i c a t i o n i n the  The  privacy  i s a need t o  privacy  frequently r e f e r r e d to  unhelpful  harm t o  anonymity. A t e s t w i l l  method o u t l i n e d i n c h a p t e r  of categories  place".  public  stake.  In chapter contextual  of  f r e e speech i n t e r e s t s  proposed t o determine whether t h e r e  context  they are  i n that they c o n t r i b u t e to  decision-making.  free  f r e e speech i n t e r e s t  p u b l i c a t i o n of p r i v a t e matters unless  genuine p u b l i c concern,  be  i s no  exception  shown t o  be  three  issues.  major o b j e c t i o n s which r e c u r  in  the  i n the  media w i l l  be  dealt with  t h e s i s . They have been n e a t l y  discussions  s u m m a r i s e d as  course  of  follows:  (1) A d e c l a r a t i o n of a g e n e r a l r i g h t [of p r i v a c y ] would introduce u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t o the law; (2) i t w o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t h f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h ; and  7 (3) t h e r e [ i s ] no evidence r e q u i r i n g t o be r i g h t e d .  of  a  substantial  wrong  1 4  The in  first  be  chapter 2 of the d e f i n i t i o n  provision second third in  of these w i l l  countered  by t h e  o f p r i v a c y , and  discussion  by  the  i n c h a p t e r 4 o f a c l e a r e r method o f a n a l y s i s .  objection w i l l o b j e c t i o n was  confronted d i r e c t l y  adequately  refuted  t h e C o m m i t t e e i n w h i c h i t was  by  raised.  i n chapter  4.  a dissenting One  r e p l y was  The The voice that:  The same argument m i g h t h a v e b e e n u s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the legal remedies of trespass, nuisance, and even n e g l i g e n c e . R e l a t i v e l y few p e o p l e u s e t h e s e e a c h y e a r b u t t h e y a r e c o n s i d e r e d e s s e n t i a l p a r t s o f t h e law. Furthermore,  "[t]hough the s c a l e of the problem  the consequences f o r the person catastrophic".  a f f e c t e d may  at  be  small  be  1 6  M i n o r i t y R e p o r t o f D M R o s s i n Report Privacy (chairman: Kenneth Younger), ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Younger 208. Ibid  may  of the Committee on Cmnd. 5012, 1972 Committee Report),  210.  M i n o r i t y R e p o r t o f A W L y o n i n t h e Younger Report, s u p r a n 14, a t 208.  Committee  8  CHAPTER 2 THE CONCEPT AND VALUE OF PRIVACY  In t h i s  chapter,  more c l o s e l y . provides the  the  that the  arguments of  supported  in a legal  as  so  privacy  privacy,  also  There has scholars and  the  listed (1) t h e  will  be t i g h t l y  interests  and some o f  the  it  purpose  of  the  that privacy  a concept,  of  defined,  the  this  that  r e a s o n s why p r i v a c y  a n d law r e f o r m b o d i e s  of  be  following criteria  for  d e f i n i t i o n s h o u l d match  when p r i v a c y  is  is  (near)  a core of  or  is  not  gained  universal  be  that  of the  of even  law.  underlie is  valued. legal  concept of  d i f f i c u l t i e s o f d e f i n i t i o n . One c o m m e n t a t o r the  and  would not  d i s c u s s i o n by  around the  not  be  concept  protection  interests  been a g r e a t d e a l  is  definition will  be c o n t e n d e d  from the  the  briefly  The p o s i t i o n w i l l  best analysis  discusses  Firstly,  d e f i n i t i o n should not  it  examined  attempts to  c o h e r e n c e as  Furthermore,  c o u l d not  for  writers  context.  does have  o f f e r i n g the  far.  chapter  it  q u i c k l y . One p a r t i c u l a r  disqualify privacy The  certain  is  two p u r p o s e s .  Secondly,  task of honing the  abandoned t o o  if  follow.  that privacy  privacy  "privacy"  a working d e f i n i t i o n of p r i v a c y  a u s e f u l concept taken  concept of  T h i s d i s c u s s i o n has  chapters that  counter  the  privacy has  an a d e q u a t e d e f i n i t i o n :  "our or  shared lost",  intuitions noting that  a g r e e m e n t and a p e r i p h e r y  of there of  9 disputed  or d i s p u t a b l e c a s e s ;  1  (2) t h e d e f i n i t i o n  not a r b i t r a r i l y  foreclose  whether p r i v a c y  i s a good t h i n g ;  the  "simplest possible  conditions". It  though,  and  (3)  such  i t should  s e t o f n e c e s s a r y and  comprise  sufficient  i s submitted t h a t the a n a l y s i s which best t o date  i s that  accessibility".  of Ruth Gavison,  Before examining  some o t h e r a t t e m p t s  privacy w i l l  as  2  these c r i t e r i a "limited  issues of substance",  "should  this  fulfils  i n terms of definition  to encapsulate the concept  of  be c o n s i d e r e d .  The f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e i s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e f i r s t c r i t e r i o n : " P r i v a c y i s an o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e word, an o r d i n a r y language c o n c e p t , n o t a f i n e l y honed p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r l e g a l c o n c e p t . T h i s means t h a t we may w e l l f i n d incoherences, i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n the o r d i n a r y concept s u c h t h a t , t o be made a c l e a r , c o h e r e n t , u s e f u l c o n c e p t , i t n e e d s t o be c l a r i f i e d , m o d i f i e d , and made t o be s u c h . However, i f t h i s i s done i n a v e r y r a d i c a l way, t h e new c o n c e p t may l o s e i t s r e l e v a n c e t o t h e o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e c o n c e p t . I s u g g e s t t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e c o n c e p t be e x p l i c a t e d as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e t o t h e o r d i n a r y usage c o n c e p t , and t h e n , i f p r i v a c y s o u n d e r s t o o d seems i n c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s not t o merit, or not t o lend i t s e l f t o , l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e , t h i s be s a i d " { M c C l o s k e y , " N o t e s R e l a t i n g t o Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n S e m i n a r on P r i v a c y " , u n p u b l i s h e d , 8 J u l y 1977, 4; q u o t e d i n A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 22, Privacy ( C a n b e r r a : A u s t r a l i a n Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1983) 11}. A r t h u r Schafer, " P r i v a c y : A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Overview" i n Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed D a l e G i b s o n ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1980), 1 at 4-5. R u t h G a v i s o n , " P r i v a c y and t h e L i m i t s o f Law" (1980) 89 Yale LJ 421. P r o f e s s o r G a v i s o n ' s a n a l y s i s h a s b e e n r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e " b e s t a c c o u n t " i n Raymond Wacks, The Protection of Privacy, Modern L e g a l S t u d i e s S e r i e s (London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1980), a t 15; and t h e "most ambitious attempt t o formulate a coherent concept of p r i v a c y " i n J o h n G F l e m i n g , The Law of Torts (Sydney: Law Book Co L t d , 1987) p 572, n 1.  In the law  i n the  article United  that  States,  venture a d e f i n i t i o n the  term  any  6  5  in itself  Brandeis did  but  "obviously  a completely  i n t e r e s t threatened  T h e y d i d , as  idea that  development of  W a r r e n and  4  of p r i v a c y ,  ' p r i v a c y ' was  d e s c r i p t i o n of the press".  i n s p i r e d the  Professor  reputation,  by  Bloustein  an  not  felt  essence of the  o f p r i v a c y was  that  adequate untrammeled  points  out,  reject  mental d i s t r e s s or property  rights  7  were t h e  privacy  action,  a "spiritual"  .  and  indicated that  wrong r a t h e r  than a  invasion  material  Q  one. One  o f the  originally alone".*  most w i d e l y q u o t e d d e f i n i t i o n s i s t h e  u s e d by  Judge Cooley,  T h i s p h r a s e may  expression  f o r the  a definition. definition,  Not  but  do  as  "the  a loose  r i g h t to privacy, only  also  r i g h t t o be  i t fails  W a r r e n and B r a n d e i s , L Rev 193.  "The  let  alternative  but  i s i t v a g u e and  will  itself  not  suffice  i n need  to distinguish privacy  Right  phrase  to Privacy"  as  of from  (1890) 4  Harv  G a v i s o n p o i n t s o u t t h a t W a r r e n and B r a n d e i s " n e v e r e q u a t e d t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y w i t h t h e r i g h t t o be l e t a l o n e ; the a r t i c l e i m p l i e d t h a t the r i g h t to p r i v a c y i s a s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e l a t t e r " . G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a t 437; w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o W a r r e n and B r a n d e i s , i b i d a t 195. Edward J B l o u s t e i n , " P r i v a c y as an A s p e c t o f Human D i g n i t y : An Answer t o Dean P r o s s e r " , i n Individual and Group Privacy (New B r u n s w i c k , New J e r s e y : Transaction B o o k s , 1 9 7 8 ) , 9. See  Bloustein,  ibid  at  6-9.  W a r r e n and B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n 4, B l o u s t e i n , s u p r a n 6, a t 10. T  C o o l e y , Law  of  Torts,  2nd  ed  at  197;  (1888),  referred to 29.  in  "negative narrow",  liberty", and  1 0  fails  Many s u g g e s t e d b a s i s of the second notes,  so  i t i s " a t once t o o broad  on t h e  first  t h e y pre-empt  important  since,  invaded,  privacy i s desirable.  example,  o r a form  1 1  an  u n d e r what Definitions  others". but  J  i t has  t o determine  f o r themselves  groups,  Not  only i s t h i s d e f i n i t i o n  been c r i t i c i s e d  and  a p p l i e s equally to other d e f i n i t i o n s  1 4  to  to loaded,  f o r not d e a l i n g adequately  forced non-disclosure.  states  or  when, how,  normatively  not  For  1 2  g i v e n by A l a n W e s t i n  i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t them i s c o m m u n i c a t e d  v o l u n t a r y d i s c l o s u r e and criticism  i n terms  area which should  t h a t p r i v a c y i s "the c l a i m of i n d i v i d u a l s ,  what e x t e n t  Gavison  of c o n t r o l are of t h i s t y p e .  a well-known d e f i n i t i o n  institutions  the  q u e s t i o n s about p r i v a c y ,  of a c l a i m , a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e , be  on  rejected  as P r o f e s s o r  e s p e c i a l l y t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r and circumstances  too  criterion.  d e f i n i t i o n s must be criterion  and  The  with latter  i n terms  of  S c h a f e r , s u p r a n 2, a t 6-8. See a l s o Wacks, s u p r a n 3, a t 12-13; Report of the Committee on Privacy (chairman: K e n n e t h Y o u n g e r ) , Cmnd. 5012, 1972 (hereafter referred t o a s t h e Younger Committee Report), 19; G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a t 437-38. See Ibid  Gavison, at  supra  n 3,  at  425-28.  426.  A l a n F Westin, 1 9 6 7 ) , 7.  Privacy  and  Freedom  (New  York:  Atheneum,  F o r more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s s e e G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a t 426-28; and S c h a f e r , s u p r a n 2, a t 8-12. F o r some o t h e r comments, s e e P e t e r B u r n s , "The Law and P r i v a c y : The C a n a d i a n E x p e r i e n c e " (1976) 54 Can Bar Rev 1 a t 7; and L u b o r C V e l e c k y , "The C o n c e p t o f P r i v a c y " i n Privacy, e d J o h n B Young ( C h i c h e s t e r : J o h n W i l e y & Sons, 1 9 7 8 ) , 13 a t 21.  control,  such  a s " c o n t r o l o v e r when a n d b y whom t h e v a r i o u s  p a r t s o f u s c a n be s e n s e d Faced  with  what we c a l l interests,  such  i s of l i t t l e  nothing  a collection  value.  1 6  "four d i s t i n c t  kinds  and a p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t  name a n d l i k e n e s s ,  interests  of invasion  which a r e t i e d  have  identifies,  i n reputation, the interest  Brandeis,  other  almost  1 1 1 7  i n t e r e s t s which Prosser  distress,  of other  interests of the p l a i n t i f f ,  i n common.. . .  interest  namely t h e  i n freedom from  mental  i n e x c l u s i v e use of  a r e t h e ones e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t e d by Warren  as B l o u s t e i n p o i n t s o u t .  demonstrated, a t l e a s t  1 8  I t h a s been  i n respect of Prosser's  two  intrusion  facts,  t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s he i d e n t i f i e s do n o t i n f a c t  be  confused  and p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e o f  first  torts,  adequately  e x p l a i n t h e American c a s e s . with  1 9  embarrassing  Privacy should not  r e p u t a t i o n o r freedom from mental  U n l i k e defamation,  that  T h e b e s t known  b y t h e common name, b u t o t h e r w i s e  The  and  some h a v e c o n c l u d e d  i s P r o s s e r ' s a n a l y s i s o f American  law as c o m p r i s i n g  four different  together  1 5  and t h a t i n t h e absence o f such  of t h i s type  "privacy" of  difficulties,  "privacy" i s really  that p r i v a c y alone account  by o t h e r s " .  distress.  a p r i v a c y a c t i o n seeks "not merely t o  1 R  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was p r o p o s e d by R i c h a r d B P a r k e r , i n "A D e f i n i t i o n o f P r i v a c y " (1974) 27 Rutger's Law Review 275 a t 281; q u o t e d i n B u r n s , s u p r a n 14, a t 8. i fi  See 1  7  Gavison,  supra  William L Prosser,  n 3, a t 422. "Privacy"  1 R  Bloustein, 1  9  Ibid  supra  a t 11-23.  n 6.  (1960) 48 C a l i f  L Rev 383.  prevent its  inaccurate  being  violated  depicted  portrayal of private l i f e , at a l l " .  u  but t o prevent  And a p e r s o n whose p r i v a c y i s  " s u f f e r s outrage or a f f r o n t , not n e c e s s a r i l y  t r a u m a and d i s t r e s s " . Professor of us t h i n k  concept".  2 1  Gavison attempts  " t o v i n d i c a t e t h e way  and t a l k about p r i v a c y  reductionists,  most o f u s c o n s i d e r  She  mental  most  issues: unlike the privacy  t o be a u s e f u l  writes:  To be u s e f u l ... t h e c o n c e p t must d e n o t e s o m e t h i n g t h a t is distinct and c o h e r e n t . . . . M o r e o v e r , p r i v a c y must h a v e a c o h e r e n c e i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . F i r s t , we must h a v e a n e u t r a l c o n c e p t o f p r i v a c y t h a t w i l l e n a b l e us t o i d e n t i f y when a l o s s o f p r i v a c y h a s o c c u r r e d s o t h a t d i s c u s s i o n s o f p r i v a c y and c l a i m s o f p r i v a c y c a n be i n t e l l i g i b l e . S e c o n d , p r i v a c y must h a v e c o h e r e n c e a s a v a l u e . . . . T h i r d , p r i v a c y must be a c o n c e p t u s e f u l i n l e g a l contexts, a concept t h a t e n a b l e s us t o i d e n t i f y those occasions c a l l i n g f o r l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n . . . . Our e v e r y d a y s p e e c h s u g g e s t s t h a t we b e l i e v e t h e c o n c e p t o f p r i v a c y i s i n d e e d c o h e r e n t and u s e f u l i n t h e t h r e e c o n t e x t s , and t h a t l o s s e s o f p r i v a c y (identified by t h e f i r s t ) , i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y ( i d e n t i f i e d by t h e second), and actionable violations of privacy ( i d e n t i f i e d by t h e t h i r d ) a r e r e l a t e d i n t h a t e a c h i s a s u b s e t o f t h e p r e v i o u s c a t e g o r y . U s i n g t h e same word i n a l l three contexts r e i n f o r c e s the b e l i e f that they are linked. Reductionist analyses of privacy - that i s , analyses denying t h e u t i l i t y of p r i v a c y as a separate concept sever these conceptual and linguistic links. 2 3  Professor of are  ^ 2  u  1  Gavison conceives of privacy  "limited accessibility" "distinct  three  condition  components w h i c h  and i n d e p e n d e n t , b u t i n t e r r e l a t e d " .  W a r r e n and B r a n d e i s , Bloustein,  comprising  as a  s u p r a n 4, a t 218.  s u p r a n 6, a t 12. A  2  2  Gavison,  s u p r a n 3, a t 422.  2  3  I b i d a t 422-23.  2  4  I b i d a t 428.  2 4  The  three  components a r e : s e c r e c y ,  or the l i m i t a t i o n of  i n f o r m a t i o n known a b o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l ; limitation  o f a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o an i n d i v i d u a l ;  or the l i m i t a t i o n  of p h y s i c a l access  Raymond Wacks, w h i l e "the  best  account",  referring  nevertheless  d i s t o r t i o n t o describe every of  anonymity,  t o an  individual.  to this  definition  objects that  2 5  as  i t i s "a  as a l o s s o f  He a r g u e s t h a t i n s e e k i n g  of p r i v a c y , P r o f e s s o r Gavison  a neutral  definition  h a s d i v e s t e d i t o f much o f i t s  i n t u i t i v e m e a n i n g , a n d he s u g g e s t s privacy unless  and s o l i t u d e ,  instance of the dissemination  i n f o r m a t i o n about an i n d i v i d u a l  'privacy'."  or the  the information  that there  i s no l o s s o f  i s "personal".  However, t h e u s e o f a word s u c h a s " p e r s o n a l " o r "private" covertly  t o define p r i v a c y involves "the twin importing  circularity".  dangers of  a normative element o r c o l l a p s i n g  ° I t i s submitted  that Professor  into  Gavison's  a p p r o a c h i s p r e f e r a b l e , and t h a t t h e i n t u i t i v e m e a n i n g o f privacy  i s retained. Professor  context  of a similar  definition  2  5  Schafer's  rejoinder i n the  argument i s a p t . I n d i s c u s s i n g W e s t i n ' s  o f p r i v a c y w h i c h was m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , one  These t h r e e elements a r e r e m i n i s c e n t o f Westin's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of four basic states of privacy: solitude, i n t i m a c y , a n o n y m i t y , a n d r e s e r v e ( s u p r a n 17, a t 3 1 ) . R e s e r v e i s s i m i l a r t o G a v i s o n ' s -notion o f " s e c r e c y " , w h i l e i n t i m a c y may be f o u n d i n a l l o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e s t a t e s : i n b e i n g "alone t o g e t h e r " , i n anonymity, and i n s e c r e c y from o u t s i d e r s . Raymond Wacks, Personal Information: Privacy ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , 15.  2  7  Ibid  2  8  See S c h a f e r , s u p r a n 2, a t 13, i n r e l a t i o n "private affairs".  and the Law  a t 17. t o t h e term  commentator h a d p o i n t e d declares  my p r i v a c y  out that  "taken l i t e r a l l y , i t  t o be i n v a d e d , o r a t l e a s t a f f e c t e d  somehow, i f my one n e i g h b o u r t e l l s (without  my c o n s e n t ) t h a t  oysters".  2 9  Schafer  my s e c o n d  I am a v e g e t a r i a n  responds t h a t  neighbour or that  I  like  t h e commentator:  . . . p r e s u m a b l y e x p e c t s u s t o f i n d t h i s a b s u r d . I do n o t . If the information c i r c u l a t e d a b o u t me ... c o n c e r n s some h i g h l y i n t i m a t e m a t t e r , f o r example t h e f a c t t h a t my m a r r i a g e i s on t h e v e r g e o f c o l l a p s e , t h e n i t i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l e t h a t my p r i v a c y i s s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d . I f I l i v e i n a Moslem s o c i e t y a n d t h e g o s s i p c i r c u l a t e d i s that I drink l i q u o r , then i t i s unquestionable that my p r i v a c y i s s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d . I f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c i r c u l a t e d a b o u t me a g a i n s t my w i s h e s c o n c e r n s a l e s s i n t i m a t e o r l e s s s e r i o u s f a c t a b o u t my p e r s o n a l life, f o r example t h a t I am a v e g e t a r i a n , t h e n my p r i v a c y i s a f f e c t e d i n o n l y a m i n o r way. B u t i t i s n o n e t h e l e s s affected. 3 0  Schafer's "public"  reply brings  o u t an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t  and " p r i v a t e " . I n e i t h e r a d e s c r i p t i v e o r a  normative sense, these a r e not d i s t i n c t matters o f degree, the  terms " h i g h l y  categories but  e x i s t i n g on a c o n t i n u u m . intimate"  3 1  Schafer  and " l e s s i n t i m a t e " ,  e v e r y d a y s p e e c h we may r e f e r t o a m a t t e r a s " v e r y or,  about  colloquially,  as "kind  uses  and i n private"  of private".  L o u i s Lusky, "Invasion o f P r i v a c y : A C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f C o n c e p t s " (1972) 72 Columbia Law Review 693 a t 695; q u o t e d i n S c h a f e r , s u p r a n 2, a t 11. Schafer,  s u p r a n 2, a t 11.  A n o t h e r problem w i t h u s i n g " p u b l i c " and " p r i v a t e " a s mutually exclusive categories i s that "public" i s u s u a l l y u s e d i n a d e s c r i p t i v e sense, and " p r i v a t e " i n a n o r m a t i v e s e n s e . T h u s , f o r example, t h e f a c t t h a t a p e r s o n h a s been a v i c t i m o f r a p e , once d i s c l o s e d i n a p u b l i c t r i a l , c a n be s a i d t o be " p u b l i c " i n t h e d e s c r i p t i v e s e n s e a n d a l s o t o be " p r i v a t e " i n t h e n o r m a t i v e sense. I t begs t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e f a c t ought t o be made p u b l i c t o m e r e l y s t a t e t h a t i t i s p u b l i c and t h e r e f o r e n o t p r i v a t e .  There are,  a s Wacks p o i n t s o u t ,  people would r e g a r d example,  sexual  a s p r i v a t e i n any  Other matters,  J  "private" until particular To  take  one  context,  the  context.  r e l a t i o n s are regarded  degree i n almost a l l s o c i e t i e s , modern.  m a t t e r s w h i c h most  or u n t i l  example o f  as p r i v a t e t o  p r i m i t i v e as w e l l  t h o u g h , may  is called  not  they  liking  oysters,  concerned saying,  In f a c t , relating never  the  individual  the  circumstances  Furthermore,  information on  i n v a d i n g my  i t is difficult  t o an  i n any  privacy.  " I t ' s not  private; i t ' s just  that  what k i n d s  of  be  that  to conceive  a d d r e s s has  communication  been g i v e n  perceived  should  Younger  as  the  their  the  misleading. concealed  involve  the  real  b e e n drawn t o an  n 26,  in a Public York: Oxford  Report,  supra  n  To  can  focus  obscure  concealing issue i s that  i t , or t h a t  in hostile  supra  would  diminishing  been p u b l i c i s e d but  Information,  Committee  not  Often  resulting  R i c h a r d F H i x s o n , Privacy Rights in C o n f l i c t (New 1987) 11. See  be  been l i n k e d w i t h  t h a t unwanted a t t e n t i o n has  imagine  of which  be  has  was  information  i s can  p e r s o n has  Wacks, Personal  of  i s published  that private information  fact  i t ' s none o f  personal  at a l l .  publicity.  that i t ' s  on how  information  particular  could  a focus  information  as  privacy."  p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , w h i c h may  "private"  undue  i f this  individual  They a r e  as  thought of  are given  i n a n a t i o n a l newspaper, one  business.  be  some  upon t o r e v e a l them i n a  publicised  particularly  For  3 2  not a  an  action,  3 4  or  individual  at  over  23.  Society: Human U n i v e r s i t y Press, 10,  at  48.  some t r i v i a l  matter.  I n some c a s e s ,  i n n o c u o u s enough i n i t s e l f , p r i v a c y by picture. If  being  added t o o t h e r  a newspaper p u b l i s h e s  what o r g a n i s a t i o n s one reads,  has  been a l o s s of p r i v a c y .  published, not  increase  and  the  who  been  other  definition.  do  likes  one  minor d e t a i l  to  books there  is  insignificant,  to regard  known a b o u t an and  and  any  individual  as  regardless  of  whether  objections that could  be  made t o  some o f w h i c h she  not  has  a  loss  anticipated.  o f t e n seen as  D e p e n d i n g on  •  T 7  one's view o f t h e s e  seen as  She  invasions  c o n s t i t u t e l o s s e s o f p r i v a c y by  be  conduct  especially  i t i s clear that  Gavison i s r i g h t  e x c l u s i o n s may  of Gavison's  "not  s u c h a s what one  If only  s e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s which are  It  fuller  "invaded".  Gavison's d e f i n i t i o n ,  of p r i v a c y but  of  l o s s of p r i v a c y i s small  i n information  There are  a l l kinds  one's f r i e n d s a r e ,  non-existent.  p r i v a c y has  these  t o form a  b e l o n g s t o , what k i n d o f  o f p r i v a c y , however s l i g h t ,  lists  be  c o n t r i b u t e to a l o s s of  information  about one's l i f e ,  one  but  may  i n f o r m a t i o n may  3 5  private" details eat,  but  the  her  situations,  a weakness o r a s  a  strength  account.  i s submitted  t h a t government r e g u l a t i o n o f p r i v a t e  i s properly excluded  Gavison gives,  and  that  f o r the  i t s inclusion  reasons that i n American  Professor law  has  3  5  As i n t h e c a s e o f d i s c l o s u r e o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l a t e d by c o m p u t e r , and t h e a n e c d o t e a b o u t t h e p r i e s t i n G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, 430-31.  3  6  Gavison,  ~K 7  ibid,  at  436-40. • .  P r o f e s s o r Wacks r e g a r d s t h e s e e x c l u s i o n s a s a s t r e n g t h ; s e e Wacks, Personal Information, s u p r a n 26, a t 16.  done much t o o b f u s c a t e d i s c u s s i o n s Gavison suggests, may  be  "A  b e t t e r way  t o t r e a t them as  w h i c h e n f o r c e m e n t may  noises,  mail  and  loss  of p r i v a c y .  raise difficult  privacy As  or  u n w a n t e d phone c a l l s ,  p r i v a c y was  "disturbed",  rather  i t i s not  the  these instances,  we  does not  4 0  identity.  4 2  rather  itself.  or  the  their value  light"  l i k e n e s s , Wacks that  light"  i s at  an  and  stake  in  her  be  helpful  d i f f e r e n t issues  is closely related  reputation,  of  suggests  p r o t e c t i o n of h i s or  involve rather  defamation, which p r o t e c t s  3 9  4 1  s u c h a d i s t i n c t i o n may  "False  in  suffer a  that  individuals in a "false  s i n c e t h e s e c a s e s seem t o cases.  thereby  i n d i c a t i n g a l o s s of the  While subtle,  from p r i v a c y  liberty, issues."  would t e n d t o say  individual's privacy  but  issues  s i g h t s , or to u n s o l i c i t e d  c o m m e r c i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n o f name o r that  privacy  than a l o s s of p r i v a c y  for presenting  of  As  a  i s exposed t o u n p l e a s a n t  smells,  Instead  law.  to deal with these  involving questions  L i k e w i s e a p e r s o n who distracting  of p r i v a c y  aspect  to  of  G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a t 436-38. The e x a m p l e s l i s t e d a r e p r o h i b i t i o n s o f s u c h c o n d u c t as a b o r t i o n s , u s e o f c o n t r a c e p t i v e s , and " u n n a t u r a l " s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , and r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e way f a m i l i a l o b l i g a t i o n s s h o u l d be d i s c h a r g e d . See a l s o H i x s o n , s u p r a n 33, e s p e c i a l l y c h 4; Wacks, The Protection of Privacy, s u p r a n 3, a t 1213. Gavison,  s u p r a n 3,  Ibid  436.  at  at  439.  The i d e a o f t h e l o s s o f t h e v a l u e o f p r i v a c y was d i s c u s s e d i n a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t by P a r k e r , s u p r a n 15, a t 284-88; s e e B u r n s , " C a n a d i a n E x p e r i e n c e " , s u p r a n 14, at 9-10. Wacks, The  Protection  of  Privacy,  s u p r a n 3,  at  166.  Identity. notions  Appropriation  4 3  of property  essence of  the  individual  action.  overlap,  by  the  appropriation  treatises,  t h a n t o any  that  i s "at  underlying  compelling  The  As  owe  an  of this  r a t h e r more  to  format of American  privacy  logical  but  analysis",  r e s e m b l a n c e " between  same c o u l d  light.  of  subsumption of  ' p r i v a c y ' may  h i s t o r y and  in a false  the  the  i s drawn t o  equally  be  B l o u s t e i n has  p r o t e c t i o n of both p r i v a c y  and  said  the  of  pointed  identity  more b a s i c d e s i r e t o e n h a n c e i n d i v i d u a l i t y  dignity.  and  out, 4 6  is  human  4 7  I n any of  4 5  i d e n t i t y and  been s a i d  "the  least a familial  involved.  presentation  the  to the  these are  as when undue a t t e n t i o n  heading of  and  interests  p r o t e c t i o n of  p o r t r a y a l . I t has  tradition,  entail  4 4  of p e r s o n a l i t y that  t o p i c under the  there  i d e n t i t y tends to  r i g h t s , whether or not  O f t e n , however, t h e privacy w i l l  of  case,  appropriation the  i t will  be  convenient to exclude the  of p e r s o n a l i t y from a d i s c u s s i o n  law  and  media, s i n c e the  are  d i f f e r e n t . Appropriation  types of p u b l i c a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y  of  tort  privacy  involved  i s more  likely  4  3  See a l s o D i a n e Zimmerman, " F a l s e L i g h t I n v a s i o n o f P r i v a c y : The L i g h t t h a t F a i l e d " (1989) 64 NYULR 364, for an a n a l y s i s and c r i t i q u e o f t h e " f a l s e l i g h t " t o r t i n the United States.  4  4  For 6,  4  5  J o h n I r v i n e ' s commentary on 37, a t 39.  4  6  B l o u s t e i n d i d not use t h e s e d i v i s i o n s h i m s e l f , but c o n t e n d e d t h a t a l l o f t h e s e m a t t e r s were p r i v a c y m a t t e r s because of the u n d e r l y i n g i d e n t i t y of i n t e r e s t .  4  7  Bloustein,  an a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e y a r e a t 24-30.  supra n  6.  not,  Saccone  see  Bloustein,  v Orr  supra  (1981) 19  n  CCLT  to  occur i n a d v e r t i s i n g  and  the focus of t h i s t h e s i s  promotional material,  i s on t h e news and  whereas  entertainment  media. One  type of privacy  w i t h i n Gavison's where an  case which i s not e a s i l y  definition,  individual  included  however, i s t h e t y p e o f  i s more l i t e r a l l y  AO  "naked b e f o r e .  ,  .  case the  .  world",  s u c h a s where nude p i c t u r e s o f an  individual  published  a g a i n s t h i s or her w i l l .  that  i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y c a n be these terms,  fact  other  spoken o f m e t a p h o r i c a l l y i n  suggests the c e n t r a l i t y  exactly the sort of  The  are  o f t h i n g we  o f such a c a s e as  mean when we  speak o f  being  invasion  privacy. G a v i s o n n o t e d t h a t where a s t r a n g e r g a i n s e n t r a n c e t o a  woman's home on birth,  or i n the case of a Peeping  4 9  the complaint acquired, that  f a l s e p r e t e n c e s i n o r d e r t o watch her  our  i s not t h a t  a l o n e n e s s has  However, t h e e l e m e n t  birth  there i s s t i l l  c o u l d be  k n o w l e d g e by exhibited  Ibid  filmed  an  of p h y s i c a l  been  a c c e s s c a n be  loss of privacy.  (or tape-recorded)  For  s u p r a n 3,  v Roberts  taken  instance, a  w i t h o u t t h e woman's the  to others without  at  433.  46 M i c h  but  5 0  45. May  of  b e e n drawn t o u s ,  someone a u t h o r i s e d t o be p r e s e n t and  R e f e r r i n g t o De (1881). Gavison,  us has  been d i m i n i s h e d " .  (or the r e c o r d i n g played)  at  "the essence  i n f o r m a t i o n about  n o r t h a t more a t t e n t i o n h a s spatial  away and  Tom,  giving  160,  9 NW  146  film her  consent. consent  5 1  L i k e w i s e , nude p h o t o g r a p h s  and used  f o r some u n a u t h o r i s e d p u r p o s e ,  police  officer  victim  f o r the t i t i l l a t i o n  circulated  nude p h o t o g r a p h s of other  Such c a s e s c o u l d perhaps  solitude,  officers.  Gavison's  cannot  others,  either  physical  directly  through  individual.  through  access t o a sensory  i n the neutral,  by  access or  sense, can  accessibility,  a n o n y m i t y a n d what c a n be r e f e r r e d  sensory  inaccessibility.  further  fine-tuning,  definition next  This definition  comprising  t o f o r now a s  p r o b a b l y n e e d s some  b u t d o e s seem t o h a v e c o h e r e n c e  meet t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a  The  be s e n s e d  of a  image o f t h e  descriptive  t h e r e f o r e be d e f i n e d a s l i m i t e d  working  third  5 4  Privacy,  secrecy,  5 2  c o u l d be m o d i f i e d t o c o n s i s t  i n which t h e i n d i v i d u a l  indirectly  a s where a  o f an a s s a u l t  condition 5 3  with  be d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f  a c c e s s t o images o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . component,  c o u l d be t a k e n  mentioned above, and w i l l  f o r the chapters that  and t o  a c t as a  follow.  t a s k i s t o examine p r i v a c y as a v a l u e .  m a i n t a i n s t h a t here t o o p r i v a c y has coherence,  Gavison  since:  . . . t h e r e a s o n s f o r w h i c h we c l a i m p r i v a c y i n d i f f e r e n t situations are similar. They are related t o the f u n c t i o n s p r i v a c y has i n our l i v e s : t h e promotion o f Of c o u r s e , e v e n i f t h e woman c o n s e n t e d loss of privacy.  t h e r e w o u l d be a  5  2  York v Storey 324 F 2d 450 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . See a l s o Harder v Brown (1989) 50 CCLT 85 (BC S C ) , d i s c u s s e d b e l o w a t p 78-79.  5  3  Borrowing 15.  5  4  Of c o u r s e , t h e t e r m " s o l i t u d e " w o u l d n o t a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e t h e new c o n d i t i o n .  from  the d e f i n i t i o n  g i v e n by P a r k e r ,  supra n  l i b e r t y , autonomy, s e l f h o o d , a n d human r e l a t i o n s , a n d furthering the existence of a free society. I t has been s a i d t h a t one  "the i d e a l  o f t h e fundamental values  Gavison states,  of our c u l t u r e " .  " I t appears t h a t p r i v a c y  attainment of i n d i v i d u a l goals individual  of privacy  four  basic  release  and r e l a x a t i o n from t h e p r e s s u r e  It and  and d i s t a n c e  of privacy:  autonomy; i t a l l o w s  communication,  f o r emotional  of social  since  a c t u a l l y very  allowing  inrelationships.  i s worth e n l a r g i n g  liberty,  on t h e p o i n t  roles;i t  f o r both  5 8  of personal  autonomy  some o f t h e a r g u m e n t s f o r p r i v a c y a r e  s i m i l a r t o t h e t y p e o f arguments advanced i n  promoting freedom o f s p e e c h . Westin  1 , 5 7  "time o u t " f o r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ; and i t p e r m i t s and p r o t e c t e d  intimacy  of the  imagination.  functions  fosters personal  limited  i s central t o the  man's  privacy  provides  In fact,  under every t h e o r y  t h a t has ever captured  Westin has l i s t e d  5 6  i s clearly  5 9  On t h e s u b j e c t  o f autonomy,  states:  This development of individuality i s particularly important i n democratic s o c i e t i e s , since q u a l i t i e s of independent thought, d i v e r s i t y o f views, and nonconformity are considered desirable traits for individuals. Such independence requires time f o r sheltered e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and t e s t i n g o f i d e a s , f o r preparation and p r a c t i c e i n thought and conduct, without fear of r i d i c u l e or penalty, and f o r t h e  O  D  Gavison,  s u p r a n 3, a t 423.  5  6  Schafer,  s u p r a n 2, a t 14.  Gavison,  s u p r a n 3, a t 445.  5  8  5  9  Westin,  s u p r a n 13, a t 32-39.  See c h 4.  opportunity public.  to  alter  opinions  before  making  them  6 0  B l o u s t e i n p i c t u r e s the r e s u l t has  f o r autonomy i f an  individual  no p r i v a c y : The man who i s compelled t o l i v e every minute of h i s life among others and whose every need, thought, desire, fancy or g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s subject to public s c r u t i n y , has been d e p r i v e d o f h i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y and human d i g n i t y . S u c h an i n d i v i d u a l m e r g e s w i t h t h e mass. H i s o p i n i o n s , b e i n g p u b l i c , t e n d n e v e r t o be d i f f e r e n t ; his aspirations, being known, tend always to be conventionally accepted ones; his feelings, being openly e x h i b i t e d , tend t o l o s e t h e i r q u a l i t y of unique p e r s o n a l warmth and t o become t h e f e e l i n g s o f e v e r y man. S u c h a b e i n g , a l t h o u g h s e n t i e n t , i s f u n g i b l e ; he i s n o t an i n d i v i d u a l . 1 , 6 1  Gavison permitting it  may  be  itself Gavison that  o f an u n p l e a s a n t  such  important  as  relationship.  a form  or h o s t i l e  reaction  6 2  I t c o u l d be  o f punishment or  r e g a r d l e s s o f how adds t h a t  "we  added t h a t  "unpleasant  from  others respond  to the  i s considered  "essential  t o democratic  encourages  the moral  Bloustein,  s u p r a n 6,  6  2  Gavison,  6  3  D i s c u s s e d b e l o w a t pp  6  4  Gavison,  s u p r a n 3,  s u p r a n 3,  at  at  at  See  42.  451. 104-6. 451.  6 4  privacy i s  government because i t f o s t e r s  s u p r a n 13, a t 34. and 449-50.  1  extent  desirable".  autonomy o f t h e c i t i z e n ,  6  in  publicity.  tend t o allow p r i v a c y to the  of l i b e r t y  an  publicity  reaction"  f o l l o w s from t h e above d i s c u s s i o n t h a t  Westin, a t 448  without  l e g a l punishment or t h r e a t s t o d i s s o l v e  i t s promotion It  by  " i n d i v i d u a l s t o do what t h e y w o u l d n o t do  for fear  others",  notes t h a t p r i v a c y promotes l i b e r t y  a  central  a l s o Gavison,  supra n  and  3,  6 3  requirement  o f a d e m o c r a c y " i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s must  j u d g m e n t s and  express p r e f e r e n c e s .  form  6 5  T h u s f a r t h e a r g u m e n t s f o r p r i v a c y h a v e shown t h a t amount o f p r i v a c y problem  i s desirable,  b u t n o t how  much. T h i s  i s d i m i n i s h e d when i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t  of p r i v a c y  i n society  f a c t o r s which can,  as a whole i s l a r g e l y  f o r our purposes,  multitude of f a c t o r s  privacy  in a particular  functions that privacy  of the o v e r a l l  of  "reasonable expectations of i n which  These a r e arguments of " p r i n c i p l e "  rather  he than  6 6  A f u r t h e r passage will  level  s e r v e s , t h e r e a r e good r e a s o n s f o r  on t h e s t a n d a r d s o f t h e s o c i e t y  "policy".  cultural  s o c i e t y . However, g i v e n t h e  privacy"  lives.  by  be t a k e n a s g i v e n . A  individual's  o r she  level  determined  p r o t e c t i n g the based  the  s u c h a s h o u s i n g s t a n d a r d s and  norms a r e t h e m a j o r d e t e r m i n a n t s  some  from Westin's  s e r v e t o i n t r o d u c e two  of these  discussion  of  autonomy  reasons:  E a c h p e r s o n i s aware o f t h e gap between what he w a n t s t o be and what he a c t u a l l y i s , b e t w e e n what t h e w o r l d s e e s o f h i m and what he knows t o be h i s much more complex r e a l i t y . In a d d i t i o n , there are aspects of h i m s e l f t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l does not f u l l y understand b u t i s s l o w l y e x p l o r i n g and s h a p i n g a s he develops. E v e r y i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s b e h i n d a mask i n t h i s manner.... I f t h i s mask i s t o r n o f f and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e a l s e l f b a r e d t o a w o r l d in which everyone else s t i l l wears his mask and believes in masked performances, the i n d i v i d u a l c a n be s e a r e d by t h e h o t l i g h t o f s e l e c t i v e , f o r c e d exposure.  6  5  Ibid  at  455.  6  6  See R o n a l d D w o r k i n , Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977), 22.  6  7  Westin,  s u p r a n 13,  a t 33  (emphasis  added).  Parts of  t h i s passage have been h i g h l i g h t e d  emphasise the in  invasions As  society  an  individual's  areas of h i s  the  or her  have k e p t h i d d e n . For fantasies,  private. of  of  inequality  regards inequality,  exposure of  sexual  aspects of  but  ° I f one  sexual  and  individual suffers life  attention  the  i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t be same f a n t a s i e s  o t h e r s were d o i n g by  r o u g h l y e q u a l amounts o f  imbalance of  power may  therein  "...unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of manipulation, democracy".  deception,  protected  The  disclose  disclosure  each s i d e ,  Gavison  privacy  and  may  threats  be  or  an  to  autonomy  and  exacerbate the  majority  public  norms, t h e image o f  of  an  and  gaze under c u r r e n t exposure of the  effects  individual's  an  p e r s o n and  life  3,  at  444.  is  social  h a v e an  can  effect  a different  See R o g e r Ingham, " P r i v a c y and P s y c h o l o g y " , i n J B ed, Privacy ( C h i c h e s t e r : J o h n W i l e y & Sons, 1978) supra n  of  isolated detail  s i m i l a r example i s u s e d t o i l l u s t r a t e i n G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a t 430.  Gavison,  marked  notes,  lead  to  the  i n which  tend to  As  undue  same  Relationships  likewise  Where t h e  give a distorted  A  can  from the  conditions  the  strangers  on  the  7 0  Selectivity disclosure.  or  of  details  were p u b l i s h e d ,  compounded by  friends  result.  the  have  were f o u n d and  r e l a t i v e l y unembarrassed t o  likewise.  by  things  matter would r e c e i v e .  i n a group of  involved  w h i c h most members  most p e o p l e k e e p s u c h  i n d i v i d u a l ' s m o r t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d be amount o f  selectivity  example, most p e o p l e  described  they  privacy.  individual's diary  fantasies  because  point Young, 53.  disproportionate as  to  i t s importance. Gavison puts the  matter  follows: An a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m i s t h a t j o u r n a l i s m i s c r u d e , and may n o t do j u s t i c e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n e x p o s e d . P a r t i a l truths are u n s e t t l i n g because they present a onedimensional image of the subject, often without compassion or benevolence.This may not be unlike scandal journalism's old sister, gossip. The most important d i f f e r e n c e i s that gossip u s u a l l y concerns p e o p l e who a r e a l r e a d y known i n t h e i r o t h e r f a c e t s , and thus p a r t i a l t r u t h s are l e s s misleading. In c o n t r a s t , t h e r e i s no way t h a t most r e a d e r s of newspapers can correct f o r the o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l images t h e y receive through p r i n t . 1  A third  feature of  isolated  opposed t o a lower l e v e l is  their  as  economists w i l l  being  of p r i v a c y  adjust  tell  us.  t o be  actions w i l l  a whole,  averse to  alone,  that  a b o u t them i s unknown, b u t  sure,  impaired  their and  Ontological trust  and  their  at  Ibid  at  been d e f i n e d  n a t u r a l and  identity".  as  or  cannot  choices  "confidence  s o c i a l worlds are  basic existential  is  as  they  parameters of  or appear self  7 2  In a d d i t i o n t o the society  o r anonymous,  o n t o l o g i c a l s e c u r i t y i s undermined.  i n c l u d i n g the  social  unobserved,  t o make i n f o r m e d , r a t i o n a l  s e c u r i t y has  t h a t the  t o be,  ability  are  However, i f  they t h i n k t h a t they are  be  risk,  be p u b l i c i s e d ,  behaviour accordingly.  c e r t a i n information  as  When p e o p l e know t h a t t h e y  or t h a t t h e i r their  of p r i v a c y ,  i n s o c i e t y as  u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . People tend  observed,  they can  invasions  reasons f o r promoting p r i v a c y  l a r g e , then, there  are  additional  in  justifications  466.  A n t h o n y G i d d e n s , The Constitution of Society: Outline the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1984).  of  for granting privacy,  protection against  due t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f i n e q u a l i t y , s e l e c t i v i t y , and  unpredictability.  T h e r e i s good r e a s o n t o p r o t e c t  "reasonable expectations The  right to privacy  interest  of others  satisfactory identified difficult  as  i n t e r e s t s such as t h e  i n knowing. Even h a v i n g a r r i v e d a t a  descriptive definition  of privacy  the reasons f o r p r o t e c t i n g privacy, to define  this  reason  as a l e g a l  a principle,  r u l e which w i l l has  however, a n d i t  e x a c t l y when p r i v a c y  and h a v i n g i ti s still  i s i n v a d e d a n d when  remedy, w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o  examples.  For useful  i s not absolute, conflicting  o u g h t t o be a l e g a l  specific  people's  of privacy".  must be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t  there  isolated invasions of  i t has been s u g g e s t e d t h a t  concept t o regard  having a high  order  govern s p e c i f i c  endorsed t h i s  suggestion,  " i t may be  the 'right to privacy' of g e n e r a l i t y , than a  cases".  7 3  Professor  Burns  and added:  In such a way the r i g h t to privacy will reveal directions and be elastic. The rules will be articulated by s t a t u t e s , c a s e law and c o n s t i t u t i o n , w h e r e a s t h e p r i n c i p l e w i l l be d e r i v e d f r o m m o r a l a n d psychological imperatives. 7 4  T h e r e h a s b e e n some c r i t i c i s m privacy  that  t h e development o f  l a w on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s w o u l d l e a d t o  uncertainty  i n the law.  7 5  However, t h i s  criticism  could  7 T  F r e u n d , " P r i v a c y : One C o n c e p t o r Many" (1971) 13 Nomos 182; a s q u o t e d i n B u r n s , " C a n a d i a n E x p e r i e n c e " , s u p r a n 14, a t 11. 7  4  Burns,  "Canadian Experience",  7  5  See Younger Australian  s u p r a n 14, a t 11.  Committee Report, s u p r a n 10, a t 205-6; Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 11, Unfair  equally  be  used against  which have a p l a c e absolutely. alter new  the  law  i n our  I t has  7 6  law  It  law,  be  of despair  legal  that the  what j u d g e s a l r e a d y  do.  a l l interests  none o f w h i c h a r e out  b e c a u s e i t w o u l d be  proposed  may  p r o t e c t i o n of  been p o i n t e d  i s a doctrine  a l m o s t any  the  "to decline  difficult  to define  which c o u l d  reform".  critics  that  be  to the  applied  to  7 7  h a v e an  Bloustein  protected  unrealistic  observed  view  of  that:  The w o r d s we u s e t o i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e b a s i c human values are necessarily vague and ill-defined. Compounded o f p r o f o u n d human h o p e s and l o n g i n g s on t h e one s i d e and e l u s i v e a s p e c t s o f human p s y c h o l o g y and e x p e r i e n c e on t h e o t h e r , o u r s o c i a l g o a l s a r e more f i t to be pronounced by prophets and poets than by p r o f e s s o r s . We a r e f o r t u n a t e , t h e n , t h a t some o f our j u d g e s e n j o y a t o u c h o f t h e p r o p h e t ' s v i s i o n and the poet's tongue. 7 8  In  fact,  is  at heart  simply Fish  some l e g a l  his  believe that  a n a r r a t i v e or p o e t i c  a matter of  states  exposition  scholars  applying  rules.  s e e s a j u d g e as of the  exposition  (and  7 Q  For  instance, "a  says t h a t Publication Service,  the  Stanley i n which  enterprise  as  his  with a  .  w h o l e " . ' ^ A n o t h e r w r i t e r v i e w s a j u d g e as and  story  than  i n a seamless c o n t i n u i t y  understanding) of the .  practice  endeavour r a t h e r  fashioning  case e x i s t s  judicial  excellence  of  a type of  a judicial  opinion  ( C a n b e r r a : A u s t r a l i a n Government 1978) at 122.  poet, can  be  Printing  7 6  See 7  7  78 7  9  Gavison,  Minority Report,  s u p r a n 3,  at  468.  R e p o r t of D M Ross i n the s u p r a n 10, a t 214.  Bloustein,  s u p r a n 6,  S t a n l e yy F i s h , " S t i l l 6 Law and Philosophy  at  Younger  Committee  40.  Wrong A f t e r A l l T h e s e Y e a r s " 401.  (1987)  m e a s u r e d b y "how f a r i t r e c o g n i s e s  what i s v a l i d a n d  valuable  that within  i n each s i d e and i n c l u d e s  I n any c a s e , evaded by j u d i c i a l task  t h e problem o f u n c e r t a i n t y inaction, since  itself".  u  c a n n o t be  i n default the balancing  reverts t o the intruder: ...truth i s not inviolate, a n y more t h a n a n y o t h e r value i n our s o c i e t y . When i t conflicts with the commendable i n t e r e s t o f p r i v a c y who must draw t h e l i n e ? At present i t i s t h e i n t r u d e r himself. I think that i n those cases where a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n be s e r i o u s l y damaged b y a wrong judgment o f t h e i n t r u d e r , he o u g h t to have the right t o ask s o c i e t y at large to adjudicate. The o n l y acceptable instrument we have d e v i s e d i s t h e law.  J  B W h i t e , "The J u d i c i a l O p i n i o n a n d t h e Poem: Ways o f R e a d i n g , Ways o f L i f e " (1984) 5 Missippi College L Rev 25 a t 34-35.  Minority Report, a t 468; supra n  R e p o r t o f A W L y o n i n t h e Younger Committee s u p r a n 10, a t 209. See a l s o G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 3, a n d A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Privacy, 75, a t 10.  CHAPTER  3  PRIVACY LAW I N THE COMMONWEALTH  This protected and  chapter provides  a n o v e r v i e w o f how p r i v a c y i s  w i t h r e l a t i o n t o t h e media,  i n each o f t h e c o u n t r i e s  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,  some a t t e m p t s t o c h a n g e t h e l a w i n t h i s  International The right  area.  Covenants  right t o privacy  i s included  as a fundamental  human  i n s e v e r a l major i n t e r n a t i o n a l covenants t o which  Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s The the  and o f  Universal  areparties.  Declaration  o f Human R i g h t s ,  G e n e r a l Assembly o f t h e U n i t e d  Nations  adopted by  i n 1948,  provides  i n A r t i c l e 12: No o n e s h a l l be s u b j e c t e d to arbitrary interference w i t h h i s p r i v a c y , f a m i l y , home, o r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , n o r t o a t t a c k s upon h i s h o n o u r a n d r e p u t a t i o n . E v e r y o n e h a s t h e r i g h t t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f law against- such i n t e r ference or a t t a c k s . 1  The Rights,  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Covenant on C i v i l adopted by t h e G e n e r a l Assembly  identical  As  2  terms i n A r t i c l e 1 7 .  and P o l i t i c a l i n 1966, u s e s  almost  2  q u o t e d i n A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 22, Privacy ( C a n b e r r a : A u s t r a l i a n Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1983) a t 266.  Ibid.  Article  8 of the European Convention  o f Human R i g h t s and  F u n d a m e n t a l Freedoms  f o r the (1950),  Protection t o which  t h e U n i t e d Kingdom i s a p a r t y , p r o v i d e s : 1. Everyone has t h e r i g h t t o r e s p e c t f o r h i s p r i v a t e and f a m i l y l i f e , h i s home and h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . 2. T h e r e s h a l l be no i n t e r f e r e n c e by a p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h i s r i g h t e x c e p t such as i s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e law and i s n e c e s s a r y i n a democ r a t i c s o c i e t y i n the i n t e r e s t s of n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y , p u b l i c s a f e t y o r t h e economic w e l l - b e i n g of t h e count r y , f o r the prevention of d i s o r d e r or crime, f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of h e a l t h or morals, or f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s o f o t h e r s . 3  Since every  1966,  when B r i t a i n made a d e c l a r a t i o n ,  f i v e years, that  renewable  i t would r e c o g n i s e t h e competence  of  t h e E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n o f Human R i g h t s , i n d i v i d u a l  resi-  dents  com-  o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom h a v e b e e n a b l e t o b r i n g  plaints  a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d Kingdom g o v e r n m e n t f o r v i o l a t i o n  of the Convention.  4  Already several  Kingdom r e s i d e n t s u n d e r A r t i c l e Court  cases brought  8 have r e a c h e d  o f Human R i g h t s . However, t h e c o m p l a i n t  by  the  body, s u c h  as t h e B r i t i s h  Furthermore, liged  the offending party i s a  by A r t i c l e  jurisdiction"  the r i g h t s  is  the  government  Broadcasting Corporation.  1 t o "secure t o everyone s e t out  are  the  " a b s e n c e o f a law  or that v i o l a t i o n  ob-  within their  i n the Convention,  pronounced t h a t the  pressly prohibiting this  4  by  although p a r t i e s to the Convention  European C o u r t has  3  European  procedure  n o t a v a i l a b l e t o a p e r s o n whose p r i v a c y i s i n v a d e d media, u n l e s s perhaps  United  does not  ex-  suffice  Ibid. D a v i d H O t t , Public International (Pitman P u b l i s h i n g : London,  Law in the 1 9 8 7 ) , 260.  Modern  World  to establish  a breach  represent the rights".  5  s i n c e such  a prohibition  s o l e method o f s e c u r i n g t h e  merely over  of p r i v a c y against the  i t s failure  not  enjoyment of  Hence t h e U n i t e d Kingdom c a n n o t be  European Court  does  taken  to  to legislate  Civil  and  Political  Rights,  protection  interests derive a certain  f r o m many e x i s t i n g  from t o r t  a c t i o n s such  p a s s i n g o f f , and ever, was that  Inter-  and  is  6  Kingdom  Privacy  ple,  right  media.  n o n e x i s t e n t under the U n i v e r s a l D e c l a r a t i o n .  United  the  a  E n f o r c e m e n t m a c h i n e r y i s more l i m i t e d u n d e r t h e n a t i o n a l C o v e n a n t on  the  common law  as t h o s e  f o r defamation  said  g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t . . . among j u d g e s [was]  no  Law  and  general  I b i d , 264, q u o t i n g f r o m Ireland v United S e r A, Judgment o f 18 J a n 1978. Australian 268.  and  of c o n t r a c t .  r e c e n t l y i t c o u l d be  i n t h e Commonwealth t h e r e  incidental  a c t i o n s , f o r exam-  from a c t i o n s f o r breach  at least u n t i l  "broad  amount o f  R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Privacy,  that  How-  7  there  academics legal  Kingdom, supra  right  E Ct n  1,  HR, at  For d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of such p r o t e c t i o n , see the Report of the Committee on Privacy (chairman: Kenneth Younger), Cmnd. 5012, 1972 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as t h e Younger Committee Report), 25-27 and A p p e n d i x I ; A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Privacy, s u p r a n 1, a t 377-99; P e t e r B u r n s , " P r i v a c y and t h e Common Law: A T a n g l e d S k e i n U n r a v e l l i n g ? " i n Aspects of Privacy Law:. Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed D a l e G i b s o n (Toronto: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 8 0 ) , 21. As t o t h e a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e , s e e Raymond Wacks, Personal Information: Privacy and the Law ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , 50134; D a n i e l L a s t e r , " B r e a c h e s o f C o n f i d e n c e and o f P r i v a c y by M i s u s e o f P e r s o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n " (1989) 7 Otago L Rev 31.  to privacy".  As  will  be  discussed  ments h a v e c a s t some d o u b t on the  law  courts  o f New still  privacy  Zealand  and  below, r e c e n t  develop-  t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n as  Canada. N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  regards the  seem u n w i l l i n g t o d e v e l o p a common law  at t h i s  stage,  without  some l e g i s l a t i v e  English right  of  interven-  tion. The tort  r e l u c t a n c e of the  o f p r i v a c y was  judgment, Kaye television when he  demonstrated  v Robertson.  a c t o r , had  was  brain injuries.  tem  and  A f t e r three  d a y s on  hospital staff.  plaintiff  on  apparently  p h o t o g r a p h e d . The  e x p e l l e d by Medical  I n so d o i n g ,  the  door of the  a g r e e d t o an  journalist  l e a v e when a s k e d t o do  b e e n i n no  journalist  and  so by  security  evidence  a  of  a well-known a  gale in  seri-  support  he  moved t o  was  sys-  a photographer  ignored  plaintiff's  i n t e r v i e w and  being  notices room.  to  on  The  being  and  photographer refused  the  nursing  staff,  a from  room w i t h o u t  they  new  Appeal  a life  managed t o g a i n e n t r y t o t h e  t h e ward d o o r and  be  plaintiff,  s e v e r a l days i n i n t e n s i v e c a r e ,  Sport  s e e n by  The  9  Court  a p i e c e of d e b r i s , r e s u l t i n g  p r i v a t e h o s p i t a l room. A Sunday  i n a recent  been d r i v i n g h i s c a r d u r i n g  s t r u c k by  ous  English courts to conceive  and  to  had  to  personnel.  e s t a b l i s h e d that the  f i t s t a t e t o be  interviewed  plaintiff  or to give  had  informed  B u r n s , " P r i v a c y and t h e Common Law", s u p r a n 7, a t 22. The p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n o f S c o t t i s h law i s t h e r e n o t e d , b u t t h e law i n S c o t l a n d h a s d e v e l o p e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m E n g l i s h common law, and w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n this thesis. The  Times,  21 M a r c h 1990,  p  51  (16 M a r c h 1990,  CA).  consent t o an i n t e r v i e w . the  plaintiff The  Sport, cle  F i f t e e n minutes a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t  h a d no r e c o l l e c t i o n o f i t .  defendants,  t h e e d i t o r and p u b l i s h e r s  made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e y  intended  to publish  had  clearly  implied  c o n s e n t e d t o be i n t e r v i e w e d An  the  defendants from p u b l i s h i n g  trial  The  trial  Sport  thereof,  instance  Court of Appeal received  until  or further  and s e n s a t i o n a l , s t y l e " ,  the implication that  give  the f i r s t  "exclusive"  the p l a i n t i f f interview  The c o u r t  t o Sunday  judge i n h o l d i n g  Sport  this  plaintiff  right  publication  the implication  falsehood.  was s e e n i n t h a t t h e v a l u e  to sell  for libel. that  gave informed consent t o t h e i n t e r v i e w un-  d o u b t e d l y amounted t o a m a l i c i o u s plaintiff  that  conclu-  i t would n o t  b a s e a n i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n on a r i g h t o f a c t i o n d i d , however, f i n d  would  However, i t  that  s i o n w o u l d n o t be i n e v i t a b l e , a n d t h e r e f o r e  court  felt  had consented t o  p r o b a b l y be f o u n d by a j u r y t o be l i b e l l o u s .  The  and t h e  e v i d e n c e t h a t many o f i t s a d v e r -  that  from t h e t r i a l  order.  remarked t h a t t h e  t i s e m e n t s were f o r p o r n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l .  differed  restraining  t h e i n c i d e n t , o r any  j u d g e , Mr J u s t i c e P o t t e r ,  had a " l u r i d  the p l a i n t i f f  t h e p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n o r any  summary o r r e c o r d  Sunday  that  i n j u n c t i o n was g r a n t e d a t f i r s t  during  0  arti-  and photographed.  s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e p l a i n t i f f  1  an  a n d one o r more o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s i n t h e n e w s p a p e r . T h e  wording o f t h e a r t i c l e  the  Sunday  of  Damage t o t h e  of the p l a i n t i f f ' s  h i s s t o r y w o u l d be s e r i o u s l y l e s s e n e d  of the a r t i c l e .  1 0  The c o u r t  therefore  by t h e  allowed  W i t h a l l r e s p e c t , t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be a f a u l t i n t h e r e a soning o f t h e c o u r t a t t h i s p o i n t , as i t i s r e p o r t e d i n  the appeal i n p a r t , s u b s t i t u t i n g an i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g the defendants from p u b l i s h i n g anything would c a r r y the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the p l a i n t i f f had i l y permitted The  the photographs or  voluntar-  interview.  Court of Appeal judges, w h i l e r e j e c t i n g the  t e n c e of a l e g a l r i g h t t o p r i v a c y a t common law, pointed  which  observations  exis-  made some  on the need f o r such a r i g h t . Lord  J u s t i c e Bingham s a i d : t h a t the case h i g h l i g h t e d , y e t again, the f a i l u r e of both the common law of England and of s t a t u t e t o p r o t e c t i n an e f f e c t i v e way the p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y of i n d i vidual citizens. The defendants' conduct towards the p l a i n t i f f was "a monstrous i n v a s i o n of h i s p r i v a c y " (to adopt the language of Mr J u s t i c e G r i f f i t h s i n Bernstein of Leigh (Baron)  489)  v  Skyviews  & General  Ltd  ([1978]  [sic]  QB  479,  .  I f ever a person had a r i g h t t o be l e t alone by s t r a n g e r s w i t h no p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t o pursue, i t must s u r e l y be when he l a y i n h o s p i t a l r e c o v e r i n g from b r a i n surgery and i n no more than p a r t i a l command of h i s f a c ulties . I t was t h a t i n v a s i o n of h i s p r i v a c y which u n d e r l a y the p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint. Yet i t alone, however gross, d i d not e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f i n E n g l i s h l a w . 1 1  Lord J u s t i c e Leggatt s a i d : t h a t we d i d not need a F i r s t Amendment t o p r e s e r v e the freedom of the Press, but the abuse of t h a t freedom c o u l d o n l y be ensured [ s i c ] by the enforcement of a r i g h t to privacy. That r i g h t had so long been d i s r e g a r d e d here t h a t i t c o u l d be r e c o g n i z e d now o n l y by the l e g i s l a t u r e e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h e r e was a v a i l a b l e i n the United The Times. The c o u r t shows t h a t damage would r e s u l t from p u b l i c a t i o n of the a r t i c l e , but not t h a t damage would r e s u l t from the f a l s e h o o d i t s e l f . However, t h i s p o i n t may be c l a r i f i e d by a f u l l e r r e p o r t of the case. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a r i g h t of p u b l i c i t y i s r e c o g n i s e d , but i t i s p r o t e c t e d o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y and the c o u r t does not c r e a t e a t o r t of a p p r o p r i a t i o n of personality. The  Times,  21 March 1 9 9 0 ,  p  51.  States a wealth of experience of t h a t r i g h t both a t common l a w a n d a l s o u n d e r s t a t u t e . I t was t o be h o p e d t h a t t h e m a k i n g g o o d o f t h a t s i g n a l s h o r t c o m i n g i n o u r law would n o t be l o n g d e layed. 1 2  Thus t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a c l e a r to  take action  indicate that  i n the area of privacy i f t h e r e were a l e g a l  p r e s e n t case would c e r t a i n l y should take precedence There of all  privacy  appeal t o the l e g i s l a t u r e law. The judgments  right  be one i n w h i c h t h a t  over t h e freedom  have been s e v e r a l  to privacy, the  attempts  of the press.  to legislate  i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom i n t h e l a s t  o f them u n s u c c e s s f u l t o d a t e . The f i r s t  1961,  when L o r d M a n c r o f t  presented a b i l l  Lords which granted a r i g h t who, w i t h o u t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s  of action  right  a right  thirty  years,  attempt  was i n  t o t h e House o f  a g a i n s t any p e r s o n  consent:  p u b l i s h e s o f o r c o n c e r n i n g him i n any newspaper o r by means o f a n y c i n e m a t o g r a p h i c e x h i b i t i o n o r a n y t e l e v i sion o r s o u n d b r o a d c a s t a n y words r e l a t i n g to his personal a f f a i r s o r conduct i f such p u b l i c a t i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d t o cause him d i s t r e s s o r e m b a r r a s s m e n t . 1 3  T h e r e w o u l d be no l i a b i l i t y  i f the defendant  could  prove: (a)  that or  he d i d n o t i n t e n d  to refer  to the p l a i n t i f f ;  (b) t h a t t h e w o r d s were p u b l i s h e d on an o c c a s i o n o f a b solute or qualified privilege; or (c)  t h a t a t t h e time of t h e p u b l i c a t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f was t h e s u b j e c t o f r e a s o n a b l e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by r e a s o n o f some o f f i c e o r p o s i t i o n t h e n h e l d by h i m  12 I b i d . 1  3  L o r d M a n c r o f t ' s b i l l , c l a u s e 1. T h e t e x t q u o t e d i s a s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Y o u n g e r Committee Report, s u p r a n'7, i n A p p e n d i x F.  o r b y r e a s o n o f some c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , a n d t h a t t h e words p u b l i s h e d r e l a t e d s o l e l y t o m a t t e r s which, h a v i n g r e g a r d t o such o f f i c e , p o s i t i o n o r c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , were t h e s u b j e c t o f r e a sonable public interest o r were fair comment thereon; or (d)  t h a t a t t h e time o f t h e p u b l i c a t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f was t h e s u b j e c t o f r e a s o n a b l e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by r e a s o n o f some c o n t e m p o r a r y e v e n t d i r e c t l y i n v o l v i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f p e r s o n a l l y , and ( i ) t h a t i t was r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c l o s e t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , and ( i i ) t h a t t h e words p u b l i s h e d r e l a t e d s o l e l y t o m a t t e r s which h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e e v e n t and t h e position of the p l a i n t i f f were t h e s u b j e c t o f r e a s o n a b l e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , o r were f a i r comment thereon.  However, t h e s e d e f e n c e s were n o t t o be a v a i l a b l e plaintiff  proved  " t h a t a n y m a t e r i a l on w h i c h t h e s a i d  i f the words  were b a s e d  was o b t a i n e d b y f o r c e o r t h r e a t s o r b y a n y means  calculated  t o cause  tiff  o r a n y member  tiff".  1  distress  o r embarrassment t o t h e p l a i n -  of the f a m i l y or household  of the p l a i n -  5  Although  Lord Mancroft's  bill  received strong  support  in  t h e House o f L o r d s ,  ° t h e L o r d C h a n c e l l o r was o p p o s e d t o  it  b e c a u s e o f t h e p r o b l e m s he saw i n r e c o n c i l i n g p r i v a c y  i n t e r e s t s and freedom o f t h e p r e s s . L o r d M a n c r o f t , t h a t t h e Government would n o t a l l o w t i m e •  •  >  realizing  f o r the b i l l •  i nthe  17  c u r r e n t p a r l i a m e n t a r y s e s s i o n , withdrew i t .  Clause  2.  Clause  3. .  On i t s s e c o n d r e a d i n g , 74 L o r d s v o t e d f o r t h e b i l l a n d 21 a g a i n s t . See t h e Younger Committee Report, s u p r a n 7, a t 196. Ibid  a t 196.  In  1967,  introduced  by  t h e House o f Commons c o n s i d e r e d  a privacy  Mr  went no  A l e x a n d e r Lyon, but  ther than i t s f i r s t Mr  Lyon's b i l l  was  reading. not  1 8  limited  the  Unlike  bill  Lord Mancroft's  t o i n v a s i o n s by  bill  furbill,  the media. I t  provided: Any p e r s o n who h a s b e e n s u b j e c t t o any s e r i o u s and unreasonable infringement of h i s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y s h a l l have a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t the o f f e n d e r . 1 9  The to  right  o f p r i v a c y was  preserve  property  the  defined  as  "the  s e c l u s i o n of himself,  f r o m any  other  person".  i n Lord  It  was  Mancroft's b i l l ,  was  i n f r i n g e the  A public interest infringement publication television  right  of  listed  among t h e  "the  and  the  defences.  2 1  not  2 2  to operate  written,  right  defendant d i d  where  spoken or  i n a s p e e c h , newspaper, p e r i o d i c a l , o r sound b r o a d c a s t " ,  his  substantive  privacy".  d e f e n c e was  c o n s i s t [ e d ] o f any  person  2 0  a l s o a d e f e n c e t o show t h a t  knowingly  o f any  h i s family or  Consent, r a t h e r than q u a l i f y i n g the as  right  "the visual  book  or  defendant could  show  that: the infringement was f a i r l y upon a s u b j e c t  1  8  Ibid  at  reasonably necessary of reasonable p u b l i c  t o comment interest in  196-97.  1 9  •  Mr L y o n ' s b i l l , i n t h e Younger F.  c l a u s e 2. Committee  The t e x t q u o t e d i s a s c o n t a i n e d Report, s u p r a n 7, i n A p p e n d i x  2  0  Clause  1.  2  1  C l a u s e 3 ( d ) . T h e s e two ways o f t r e a t i n g c o n s e n t a r e r e f e r r e d t o i n Wacks, Personal Information, s u p r a n 7, a t 104.  2  2  Clause  3(a).  which t h e p l a i n t i f f , h i s f a m i l y d i r e c t l y involved.. . . 2  The  next p r i v a c y b i l l  or h i s property  was i n t r o d u c e d  t o t h e House o f  Commons b y Mr B r i a n Walden i n 1969. I t was a l m o s t to 11  a draft  bill  Justice",  identical  which had been p r o d u c e d by a committee o f  the British  sion of Jurists.  were  3  S e c t i o n o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commis-  Mr W a l d e n ' s b i l l  declared  that:  Any s u b s t a n t i a l and u n r e a s o n a b l e infringement of a r i g h t o f p r i v a c y t a k i n g p l a c e a f t e r t h e coming i n t o f o r c e o f t h i s A c t s h a l l be a c t i o n a b l e a t t h e s u i t o f any p e r s o n whose r i g h t o f p r i v a c y h a s been so i n fringed.  "Right  o f p r i v a c y " was d e f i n e d a s :  t h e r i g h t o f a n y p e r s o n t o be p r o t e c t e d f r o m i n t r u s i o n upon h i m s e l f , h i s home, h i s f a m i l y , h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s , h i s p r o p e r t y a n d h i s business a f f a i r s , including i n t r u s i o n b y — (a) (b)  spying, prying, watching or b e s e t t i n g ; the unauthorised overhearing or recording of spoken words; (c) t h e u n a u t h o r i s e d m a k i n g o f v i s u a l i m a g e s ; (d) t h e u n a u t h o r i s e d reading or copying o f documents ; (e) t h e u n a u t h o r i s e d u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f c o n f i d e n tial information, or of facts (including h i s name, i d e n t i t y o r l i k e n e s s ) c a l c u l a t e d t o c a u s e him d i s t r e s s , a n n o y a n c e o r e m b a r r a s s m e n t , o r t o p l a c e him i n a f a l s e l i g h t ; (f) t h e u n a u t h o r i s e d appropriation o f h i s name, i d e n t i t y or likeness f o r another's g a i n . 2 5  One that  provision of p o t e n t i a l relevance  t o t h e m e d i a was  a p e r s o n who "knowing o f t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t ,  [ h a d ] made  2  3  Clause 3 ( b ) .  2  4  C l a u s e 1. The t e x t q u o t e d i s a s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Committee Report, s u p r a n 7, i n A p p e n d i x F.  2  5  Clause  9(1).  Younger  any u s e t h e r e o f f o r h i s own b e n e f i t the  plaintiff"  bill  c o u l d be j o i n e d  or t o the detriment of  as a d e f e n d a n t .  2 6  Mr  Lyon's  had i n c l u d e d a s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n but i n r a t h e r  terms.  narrower  2 7  The  defences included  consent,  2 8  or that  "the defen-  d a n t , h a v i n g e x e r c i s e d a l l r e a s o n a b l e c a r e , n e i t h e r knew n o r i n t e n d e d t h a t h i s conduct would c o n s t i t u t e of  the right  o f p r i v a c y o f any p e r s o n " .  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  2 9  Where " t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t was c o n s t i t u t e d tion  o f any w o r d s o r v i s u a l  any  defendant  the  belief  est".  that  i t was a d e f e n c e f o r  " t h e r e were r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r  s u c h p u b l i c a t i o n was i n t h e p u b l i c  inter-  T h i s was t h e s o l e d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e w o r d i n g  "Justice" the  show t h a t  images",  by t h e p u b l i c a -  public  bill,  which  interest".  required that x  of the  " t h e p u b l i c a t i o n was i n  F u r t h e r , t h e r e was a d e f e n c e  where:  the i n f r i n g e m e n t took p l a c e i n circumstances such t h a t , h a d t h e a c t i o n b e e n one f o r d e f a m a t i o n , t h e r e w o u l d have been a v a i l a b l e t o t h e defendant a defence of absolute or q u a l i f i e d privilege, provided that i f the i n f r i n g e m e n t was c o n s t i t u t e d by a p u b l i c a t i o n in a n e w s p a p e r , p e r i o d i c a l o r book, o r i n a s o u n d o r t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t , any d e f e n c e u n d e r t h i s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e o n l y i f t h e d e f e n d a n t a l s o shows t h a t t h e  Z  D  Clause 2(c) .  2  7  "6. Any p e r s o n who k n o w i n g l y d e r i v e s f i n a n c i a l b e n e f i t f r o m a n i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e r i g h t o f p r i v a c y s h a l l be concurrently l i a b l e with the o r i g i n a l offender."  2  8  Mr W a l d e n ' s b i l l ,  2  9  Clause 3(a).  3  0  Clause 3(c).  3  1  clause3(b).  C l a u s e 3 ( c ) o f t h e " J u s t i c e " b i l l ; q u o t e d i n t h e Younger Committee Report, s u p r a n 7, a t p 200, n 204 ( e m p h a s i s added).  m a t t e r s p u b l i s h e d were o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n a n d t h e i r l i c a t i o n was f o r t h e p u b l i c b e n e f i t . . . .  pub-  3 2  Mr  Walden withdrew h i s b i l l  posed t o appoint the  issues  media.  3 3  when t h e Government  pro-  a c o m m i t t e e t o i n v e s t i g a t e more t h o r o u g h l y  involved,  and i n p a r t i c u l a r  The m a j o r i t y  t o hear from t h e  o f t h e Committee on P r i v a c y ( t h e  " Y o u n g e r Committee") recommended a g a i n s t  a general  privacy,  f o rthe three  i n chapter 1  above.  For a time t h e matter rested,  "the  3 4  report  privacy  a n d i t seemed  [had] ended a t t e m p t s t o l e g i s l a t e  i n Great  Britain."  However, g i v e n against  reasons mentioned  that  "the balance  was  not surprising  the  attention of the legislature  a t o r t of  [had] f a l l e n their  bill the  i n h i s family  t h e i s s u e was e v e n t u a l l y once a g a i n .  and f i n a n c i a l  explanatory  Mr  memorandum, " t o c o n f e r  Walden's b i l l ,  See  t h e Younger  See  a b o v e , a t p 7.  clause  Committee  3 6  i t  brought t o  I n 1989, Mr  affairs",  t o t h e House o f Commons w h i c h s o u g h t ,  heavily  privacy",  J o h n Browne, "who h a d h a d h i s own d i f f i c u l t i e s interest  that  3 5  t h o s e who w i s h [ e d ] t o p r o t e c t that  right to  with 3 7  press  presented a  i n t h e words o f  remedies f o r t h e  3(e). Report,  s u p r a n 7, a t 199.  P h i l i p H O s b o r n e , "The P r i v a c y A c t s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M a n i t o b a a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n " , i n G i b s o n , s u p r a n 7, 73 a t 86. Mr L y o n d u r i n g t h e d e b a t e on Mr W a l d e n ' s b i l l ; q u o t e d i n t h e Younger Committee Report, s u p r a n 7, a t 198. "Slamming t h e d o o r on t h e i r M a r c h 1990, 58.  feet",  The Economist,  31  p u b l i c misuse o f p r i v a t e right  information  rather  f o r theprotection of privacy".  than a  I t provided  general that:  Any p u b l i c u s e o r p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e o f p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a t o r t o f b r e a c h o f p r i v a c y a n d ... p r o c e e d i n g s may be b r o u g h t by a n y p e r s o n t o whom s u c h information relates or, with the authority of that p e r s o n , by a n o t h e r o n h i s b e h a l f i n l i k e manner a s a n y o t h e r p r o ceedings i n respect o f a t o r t . 3 8  "Private  information"  was s a i d t o c o n s i s t o f a n y m a t t e r  which concerned an i n d i v i d u a l i n r e s p e c t communications, haviour,  health,  "Personal" an  home, p e r s o n a l or personal  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , personal be-  financial  vices  affairs.  3 9  meant "by v i r t u e o f t h e p r i v a t e c a p a c i t y o f  i n d i v i d u a l and e x c l u d e [ d ] any l e g a l  virtue  of h i s personal  of a contract or theholding  capacity  o f employment o r a c o n t r a c t o f an o f f i c e ,  c r e a t e d by f o r ser-  w h e t h e r a p p o i n t e d by t h e  Crown o r o t h e r w i s e a n d w h e t h e r r e n u m e r a t e d o r n o t . "  4 0  " P u b l i c u s e " a n d " P u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e " was d e f i n e d  as any  use  o r d i s c l o s u r e w h i c h i s made i n t h e f o r m o f p r i n t e d  ter  o r b r o a d c a s t m a t e r i a l , and:  mat-  which t h e p e r s o n making t h e u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e , o r i n t e n d i n g t o do s o , knows, o r o u g h t r e a s o n a b l y t o know, w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n b e i n g made known to persons, other than t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o whom i t relates.... 4 1  A rather  curious  3  8  Right  3  9  C l a u s e 7.  4  0  C l a u s e 7.  4  1  C l a u s e 7.  proviso  of Privacy  Bill  followed:  1989 (UK), c l a u s e 1 ( 1 )  P r o v i d e d t h a t no u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e made i n t h e course o f p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c o u r t s h a l l amount t o a b r e a c h o f p r i v a c y u n l e s s t h e c o u r t i s s i t t i n g i n camera o r i n chambers....  The e x p l a n a t o r y  memorandum commented r e g a r d i n g t h i s  proviso  that: I t m a i n t a i n s t h e p r i n c i p l e o f open j u s t i c e , s o t h a t t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l n o t be a b r e a c h o f p r i v a c y u n l e s s t h e c o u r t i n q u e s t i o n was s i t t i n g i n chambers o r i n camera. The B i l l w i l l not i n h i b i t a c o u r t ' s g e n e r a l power t o k e e p p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r s p r i vate .  C l e a r l y the  p r o v i s o was i n t e n d e d t o  court  proceedings rather  court  proceedings.  drafting  of the  It  t h a n d i s c l o s u r e in  seems  care,  t h a t the neither  conduct would c o n s t i t u t e  i n circumstances  which d i d not  p r i v a c y w i t h i n any p a r t  dant  or p u b l i c  disclosed" that  interest  s a t i s f i e d the  terest  "the  by t h e  public  Clause  3.  of  of the  knew n o r i n t e n d e d t h a t  benefit  that  private  amount t o  interest  action; informa-  a breach  is  of  abroad".  a p p l y where t h e  " t h e r e was o r  i n the  consent;  f o r a defamation  d e f e n c e was t o  court  interest  having exer-  o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom o r  and t h e p l a i n t i f f public  course  a breach of p r i v a c y ;  o r q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e as  A public  the  defendant,  and " p r i o r p u b l i c use o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e tion  disclosure  t h a t a m i s t a k e was made i n  included:  c i s e d a l l reasonable  absolute  the  proviso.  The d e f e n c e s  his  exempt  defen-  a public  in-  i n f o r m a t i o n b e i n g so u s e d  was u n a b l e t o  or p u b l i c  benefit  or p u b l i c b e n e f i t  satisfy [was]  involved  the  4 2  or  court  outweighed i n uphold-  ing  the p r i v a c y of the  process,  information".  t h e c o u r t was case,  to take  In the  4 3  i n t o account  stances  of the  i n c l u d i n g the  the use  or d i s c l o s u r e j u s t i f i e d  by  "extent  the defendant;  s i n c e the events formation. As  4  and  and  w h i c h were t h e  i n Mr  articles  of  the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t  or  i n f o r m a t i o n was  ac-  elapsed  subject of the p r i v a t e i n -  Walden's b i l l ,  4  t h e c o u r t would have had  5  an  injunction,  order  o r o r d e r t h e d e l i v e r i n g up  i n the defendant's  of  p o s s e s s i o n by  an  the  ac-  documents  reason  of  the  4 6  Mr its  circum-  4  of p r o f i t s ,  breach.  and  t h e time which had  power t o award damages, g r a n t count  a l l the  nature"  p u b l i c b e n e f i t ; t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e q u i r e d by  balancing  Browne's b i l l  "was  second r e a d i n g , but  necessary  a p p r o v e d by  thus  t o push i t through  failed  98  votes  to get the  t o t h e committee  A n o t h e r p r i v a t e member's b i l l ,  t o one 100  at  votes  stage".  4 7  which would have p r o v i d e d  a  C l a u s e 2 ( 1 ) . The c h o i c e o f words h e r e i s p u z z l i n g , a s i t w i l l g e n e r a l l y be somewhat m i s l e a d i n g t o s p e a k o f a " p u b l i c " i n t e r e s t i n u p h o l d i n g t h e p r i v a c y o f any s i n g l e i t e m o f i n f o r m a t i o n . Sometimes u p h o l d i n g p r i v a c y may b e n e f i t a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t such as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e , b u t t h e m a i n i n t e r e s t i n p r i v a c y i n any s i n g l e i n s t a n c e i s o f c o u r s e a p r i v a t e one; g e n e r a l l y i t i s o n l y when i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s i n p r i v a c y a r e a g g r e g a t e d t h a t i t i s c o r r e c t t o speak o f a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r i v a c y . However, t h e c l a u s e makes s e n s e i f one assumes t h a t i t r e f e r s to the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n c o n s i s t e n t l y upholding the p r i v a c y of information of t h a t type i n s i m i l a r circumstances. 4  4  Clause  2(2).  4  5  S u p r a n 24,  4  6  Right  clause  4(1).  of P r i v a c y B i l l  1989  "Slamming t h e d o o r on t h e i r  (UK),  clause  feet",  supra  4(1). n  37.  right  o f r e p l y where f a c t u a l  o r body o f p e r s o n s as a r e s u l t bills and  inaccuracies affecting  were p u b l i s h e d , a l s o  of the strong support  tabloid  of p u b l i c  concern  of  these  s i d e s of the  House,  over the behaviour  p r e s s , t h e government announced t h e  committee t o r e v i e w p r e s s conduct,  person  However,  4 8  shown f o r b o t h  by Members o f P a r l i a m e n t on b o t h  the degree  failed.  a  of  the  formation of  a  f o c u s i n g on p r i v a c y  matters.  C h a i r e d by D a v i d C a l c u t t ,  considered  i s s u e s on w h i c h t h e Y o u n g e r C o m m i t t e e r e p o r t e d  n e a r l y twenty years At the time published will  QC,  t h e committee r e -  ago.  of w r i t i n g ,  the C a l c u t t  Committee has  i t s recommendations. B e f o r e examining  just  these, i t  be h e l p f u l t o p r o v i d e some p e r s p e c t i v e by l o o k i n g  briefly  a t t h e p r e s e n t U n i t e d Kingdom P r e s s C o u n c i l .  majority  o f t h e Y o u n g e r Committee p l a c e d g r e a t r e l i a n c e  the p o t e n t i a l complaints  f o r a reformed  of breaches  D M Ross observed C o u n c i l was pressure, about  i n h i s M i n o r i t y Report  o n l y s e t up  and  I am  handles  4  8  Right of Reply Commons by Mr  4  9  See 22  5  0  5  1  at  214.  n o t g i v e n me  strong  any  on  handle  However,  5 0  "the  bound t o s a y t h a t what I h a v e  Press public  learnt  confidence  that  . . si objectivity."  B i l l 1989 (UK), p r e s e n t e d t o t h e House o f Tony W o r t h i n g t o n , MP.  " P r i v a c y invaded J u n e 1990, p 6.  See t h e Younger and 203.  that  by t h e p r e s s a f t e r  . complaints with  it  Council to effectively  o f p r i v a c y by t h e p r e s s .  t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l has  Ibid  The  i n b a t t l e of t a b l o i d s " ,  Committee  Report,  s u p r a n 7,  The at  Times, 54-55,  It  i s submitted that  the experience of the succeeding  y e a r s has borne out t h e view o f t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l  as a  r e l u c t a n t press c r e a t i o n designed p r i m a r i l y t o f o r e s t a l l attempts a t r e g u l a t i o n . mended r e f o r m s o n l y writer  5 2  The C o u n c i l  partially,  h a s commented  has implemented  a n d w i t h much d e l a y .  5 3  recomOne  that:  The c o u n c i l ' s d e c i s i o n s ... a r e f r e q u e n t l y t e r s e , u n reasoned and even d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d . Nor does i t seem t h a t a n y a t t e m p t i s made t o o f f e r any r e a l g u i d a n c e a s t o t h e manner i n w h i c h i t s " p o l i c y " i s a p p l i e d to the f a c t s of p a r t i c u l a r cases. In p a r t i c u l a r , there h a v e b e e n a number o f a d j u d i c a t i o n s w h i c h a r e i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h each o t h e r . 5 4  Moreover, t h e C o u n c i l  h a s no power t o impose  o t h e r t h a n t o d i r e c t t h e newspaper t o p u b l i s h judication,  5  that  5  a f a c t which i n i t s e l f  a c r i t i c a l ad-  prompts t h e  conclusion  " t h e p r o c e d u r e c a n n o t be s e r i o u s l y a d v a n c e d a s a n a l -  ternative to legal regulation". for  sanctions  the press's  feared  assertion that  and o b e y e d " .  5 7  5 6  There i s l i t t l e  the Council  Rather, the f o l l o w i n g  is  evidence  "respected,  comment  i s more  pertinent:  5  2  The e a r l y h i s t o r y o f t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l a l s o l e n d s s u p p o r t t o t h i s v i e w ; s e e t h e Younger Committee Report, ibid at 39-40.  5  3  See A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 11, Unfair Publication:Defamation and Privacy (Canberra: A u s t r a l i a n G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 8 ) , 11; Raymond Wacks, The Protection of Privacy, Modern L e g a l S t u d i e s S e r i e s (London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 0 ) , 72, n 81; Wacks, Personal Information, s u p r a n 7, a t p 165, n 41 a n d 42.  5  4  Wacks, Personal  5 5  Younger  5  Wacks, Personal  6  5 7  Younger  Committee  Committee  Information, Report, Information, Report,  s u p r a n 7, a t p 164, n 38. s u p r a n 7, a t 45. s u p r a n 7, a t 166. s u p r a n 7, a t 44.  British reliance on g e n t l e m a n l y self-regulation may h a v e w o r k e d when n e w s p a p e r owners were k e e n e r on r e s p e c t t h a n on c a s h . B u t when t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l c e n s u r e d t h e Sun f o r i t s p r e g n a n t - r o y a l p h o t o , t h e n e w s p a p e r p r i n t e d i t a g a i n u n d e r t h e h e a d l i n e " T h i s i s what t h e row's a b o u t , f o l k s " . S i n c e t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l y c l o s e c o r r e l a t i o n between a newspaper's c i r c u l a t i o n and t h e number o f c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t i t t h a t t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l upholds, t a b l o i d e d i t o r s regard i t s censures r a t h e r as a r o u e v i e w s n o t c h e s on h i s b e d p o s t . 5 8  The  C a l c u t t Committee u n a n i m o u s l y recommended two m a j o r  changes: a c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , and " t o strengthen  voluntary self-regulation  t o t h e maximum  degree  C O  possible". both  3  The government has announced i t s endorsement o f  recommendations. As  regards  the press  self-regulation,  be g i v e n  house i n o r d e r " . mediately  6 0  "one f i n a l  past". 8  Complaints  Commission t o  "must be s e e n t o be a u t h o r i t a -  independent and i m p a r t i a l " ,  "particularly  5  a Press  s h o u l d im-  C o u n c i l . The C a l c u t t C o m m i t t e e ' s r e p o r t  s t a t e d t h a t t h e Commission tive,  that  c h a n c e t o ... p u t i t s own  I t recommended t h a t t h e p r e s s  s e t up a n d f u n d  replace the Press  t h e Committee p r o p o s e d  important  ^ a n d i t was c o n s i d e r e d  t o emphasise t h e break from t h e  T h e new C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d h a v e an i n d e p e n d e n t  "Slamming t h e d o o r on t h e i r  feet",  supra  chair  n 37.  The C a l c u t t r e p o r t a s q u o t e d i n R i c h a r d E v a n s , "Support f o r h o t l i n e t o stop p u b l i c a t i o n of i n t r u s i v e r e p o r t s " , The Times, 22 J u n e 1990, p 6. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n a s t o t h e Committee's recommendations and t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s r e s p o n s e i s b a s e d on r e p o r t s i n The Times, 22 J u n e 1990, pp 1, 6, 12. fi o R i c h a r d Evans, " B r i t i s h p r e s s g e t s one-year d e a d l i n e " , The Times, 22 J u n e 1990, p 1, q u o t i n g t h e C a l c u t t report. 6  1  Ibid,  quoting  the Calcutt report.  Ibid,  quoting the Calcutt report.  and  up t o t w e l v e members, t o be a p p o i n t e d  Commission which would i t s e l f Unlike with  the Press  Council,  be i n d e p e n d e n t l y  The  report  included  Intrusions solicited ceptable  by  stricter  than previous  i n t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l  except  of health,  life  life  home, p e r s o n a l  into personal of accidents  grief  or exposing  t h e p u b l i c from b e i n g  misled  i n d i v i d u a l . An to include  mat-  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , correspondence  or business  m a t t e r s . The p r o -  posed g u i d e l i n e s a l s o s t a t e t h a t t h e press  The  and un-  conduct, p r o t e c t i n g p u b l i c  w o u l d be d e f i n e d  documents, b u t n o t t r a d e  aftermath  Appar-  guidelines".  f o r t h e purpose o f d e t e c t i n g  or safety, or preventing  intrude  monitored  a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e r e c e n t l y b e r e a v e d w o u l d be u n a c -  individual's personal  and  be p u b l i s h e d ,  some p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t o r a c t i o n o f t h a t  ters  code o f p r a c -  and i n t r u s i o n i n t o g r i e f and  crime o r s e r i o u s l y a n t i - s o c i a l health  6 3  Complaints Commission.  " t h e s e c t i o n s on p r i v a c y  shock a r e n o t i c e a b l y  ideals".  a new e i g h t e e n - p o i n t  implemented by t h e P r e s s  ently  " a n d s o w o u l d n o t be  incompatible  t i c e w h i c h t h e Committee s a i d s h o u l d and  appointed.  i t w o u l d n o t a l s o be c o n c e r n e d  promoting freedom o f t h e p r e s s ,  t u g g e d b e t w e e n two o f t e n  by an Appointments  should not  o r shock, p a r t i c u l a r l y  and t r a g e d i e s .  i n the  6 5  p r o p o s e d C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d however h a v e no c o e r c i v e  powers a t a l l . The main s a n c t i o n  a t i t s d i s p o s a l would  still  6  3  "Waddington backs independent P r e s s C o m p l a i n t s C o m m i s s i o n " , The Times, 22 J u n e 1990, p 6, a r e s p o n s e by Home S e c r e t a r y , D a v i d W a d d i n g t o n , t o t h e r e p o r t .  6  4  "Code g i v e s b e r e a v e d g r e a t e r J u n e 1990, p 6.  6  5  Ibid.  p r o t e c t i o n " , The  Times,  22  be  t o recommend t h e  publication  or  of  reply  a correction,  I t w o u l d be and  the  able  to  The  an  s p e c i f y the  a p o l o g y be  or  since  system of  journalists press". idea  of  vaded, be  is clearly  i t felt  that  Council,  legal so  cases.  publication  I t could  also  recom-  submissions that editors  and  Commission  journalists  of newspapers i n s e r i o u s registered  incompatible with Committee had  the  the  award o f  and  cases,  publications  freedom of  the  some sympathy f o r had  and  the  been i n -  c o m p e n s a t o r y damages w o u l d  f o r a n o n - s t a t u t o r y c o m m i s s i o n . However, i t  recommended t h a t to  adjudication,  such a  c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h o s e whose p r i v a c y  inappropriate  rights  given.  approved or  Although the  6 6  form of  discipline  suspend p u b l i c a t i o n  "any  adverse  given.privately.  Committee r e j e c t e d  s h o u l d have powers t o  an  apology i n appropriate  p r o m i n e n c e i t s h o u l d be  mend t h a t  fine  or  of  complainants action  as  should not  t h e y do  c o m p e n s a t i o n m i g h t be  where some o t h e r c a u s e o f  action  have t o waive  their  at p r e s e n t under the  Press  available s u c h as  from the  courts  defamation could  be  established. The  report  tempting to It the  d i d recommend t h a t  r e s t r a i n the  suggested that press.  about t o  be  which could  suspected that  published contact Of  could  editors course,  anyway, t h e r e w o u l d be  6  6  publication  a twenty-four-hour  P e o p l e who  from p u b l i c a t i o n .  t h e r e be  intrusive  " h o t l i n e " be  and  request that  i f editors  at-  reports. funded  by was  Commission,  they  chose t o  desist publish  Commission c o u l d  s u p r a n 59,  of  intrusive material  thereby n o t i f y the  nothing the  "Support f o r h o t l i n e " , report.  of  some way  quoting the  do  ex-  Calcutt  c e p t t o recommend t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f a n a d j u d i c a t i o n ,  reply  or apology. T h e r e i s some i n c e n t i v e whole that if  t o make t h e C o m m i s s i o n  work. The r e p o r t  industry  as a  recommended  i f t h e p r e s s d i d n o t s e t up t h e p r o p o s e d C o m m i s s i o n , o r  t h e r e was a s e r i o u s  statutory grant  breakdown  i n s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n , then a  t r i b u n a l s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d ,  injunctions  tensified year  f o r t h e newspaper  w i t h power t o  a n d award damages. The g o v e r n m e n t  t h i s u l t i m a t u m by a n n o u n c i n g a t i m e l i m i t  f o r t h e p r e s s t o s e t up t h e new C o m m i s s i o n ,  e i g h t e e n months o r s o f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n If  t h e government  it  "will  tion".  has i n -  i s not s a t i s f i e d  not f l i n c h  o f one  and a n o t h e r  t o "prove  itself".  after this t r i a l  from i n t r o d u c i n g  statutory  period,  regula-  6 7  However, one member o f t h e C a l c u t t plaining  committee  i n ex-  i t s f i n d i n g s noted:  Some [newspaper e d i t o r s ] may p r e f e r a s t a t u t o r y t o a v o l u n t a r y s y s t e m . The i n d u s t r y i s now f i e r c e l y i n t e r n e c i n e . C o r n e r s g e t c u t , a n d n o t j u s t by t h e t a b l o i d press. Publishers could prefer the d i s c i p l i n e of the law t o k e e p t h e i r e d i t o r s , a n d t h e e d i t o r s o f t h e i r r i v a l s , i n e t h i c a l c h e c k . T h e y m i g h t welcome C a l c u t t ' s f a l l b a c k o f a l e g a l t r i b u n a l funded by t h e s t a t e . I t w o u l d g e t them o f f t h e hook o f i n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e . 6 8  A l t h o u g h t h i s member went on t o e x p l a i n statutory  s y s t e m w o u l d be b e t t e r ,  t h e passage quoted  a t one p r o b l e m o f t h e n o n - s t a t u t o r y lous  newspapers  newspapers,  h i s view t h a t  scheme. The more  a nonhints scrupu-  e n d up i n e f f e c t s u b s i d i s i n g t h e o f f e n d i n g  since  the costs  of running the complaints  backs i n d e p e n d e n t Commission",  system  6  7  "Waddington  s u p r a n 63.  6  8  Simon J e n k i n s , "Framework f o r p r e s s f r e e d o m on o f f e r " , The Times, 22 J u n e 1990, p 12.  are  a l l o c a t e d on  reward of  some k i n d  of n o - f a u l t  "cutting corners"  basis,  whereas  i s a d i r e c t competitive  the  advan-  tage. The the  sanctions  general  occasional leviation the  a v a i l a b l e seem q u i t e  p u b l i c may  feel  of personal  f e e l i n g s of g u i l t  i n the  first  lication will  usually  whose p r i v a t e  life  has  Generally  last  thing  the  of  little  the  maybe some a l savoured  However, a f u r t h e r comfort to the  a p o l o g y means v e r y c o m p e n s a t i o n and  gaze.  want w i l l the  pub-  individual  public  such persons w i l l  i s o f f e r e d no  doubt  seeing  for having  been exposed t o t h e  Even a p r i v a t e  individual the  be  place.  at  and  f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n to themselves or  material.  that  some s a t i s f a c t i o n  apology f o r invasive m a t e r i a l ,  information  draw any  i n a d e q a t e . No  be  to  offending  little  when  knows v e r y  newspaper i s p r o b a b l y r e t a i n i n g p r o f i t s  the  well  from  the  invasion. The  Calcutt  a v a i l a b l e to the worst that try  Committee d i d r e c o g n i s e C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d be  forms of p h y s i c a l there  s h o u l d be  p r i v a t e property, recording sent for  and  of  their  f o r the  the  voices  the  placing  of  photographing of on  purpose of  injunction given.  itself or  be  an  obtaining  offence,  compensated  but  sanctions  i n damages and  proposed en-  bugging devices i n d i v i d u a l s or  personal  could  the  of p h y s i c a l  private property,  p u b l i c a t i o n . P u b l i c a t i o n of m a t e r i a l  would not  its  or  Committee  criminal offence  into p r i v a t e property,  the  inadequate f o r  i n t r u s i o n . The  a new  that  without  an  the  con-  information  unlawfully be  on  obtained  restrained account of  by prof-  T h e r e w o u l d be a d e f e n c e where t h e a c t was c o m m i t t e d under l a w f u l detecting rious  authority,  preventing,  o r e x p o s i n g t h e commission o f a crime o r other s e -  anti-social  health  o r f o r t h e purpose o f  conduct o r f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p u b l i c  or safety.  A p p a r e n t l y t h e Committee was h e a v i l y  influenced  by t h e  CO  c a s e o f Kaye  v Robertson,  " t h a t new o f f e n c e s chief  ... s h o u l d  of this k i n d " .  rather worst  discussed  7 0  This  arbitrary definition forms o f i n v a s i o n .  inition  of the offence  above,  be t a i l o r e d  and t h o u g h t t o p a r t i c u l a r mis-  i n f l u e n c e may a c c o u n t o f what a r e r e g a r d e d  Some a c t i o n s  falling  f o r the as t h e  under t h e def-  w o u l d a c t u a l l y be r e l a t i v e l y  w h e r e a s many more s e r i o u s  violations of privacy  minor,  w o u l d n o t be  c a u g h t by i t s p r o v i s i o n s . In  summary t h e n , t h e C a l c u t t Committee h a s somewhat a r -  bitrarily  s i n g l e d o u t c e r t a i n forms o f p r i v a c y  warranting criminal penalties, while without s a t i s f a c t o r y redress. perpetuate the kind virtue law  remedies.  New  Zealand  l e a v i n g most  invasions  The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w i l l  o f anomalies t h a t  of the indirect  i n v a s i o n as  already  protection of privacy  e x i s t by by o t h e r  •  The is  recent  notable See  c a s e o f Tucker  f o rhaving e l i c i t e d  v News Media  only  common  •  Ownership  some o f t h e s t r o n g e s t  71  Ltd judi-  a b o v e , p 33-3 6.  "Waddington backs independent Commission",  s u p r a n 63.  [1986] 2 NZLR 716 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s  Tucker).  cial a  statements t o date w i t h i n  legal  r i g h t of privacy,  length.  Prior to this  so i t w i l l  plaintiff,  criminal  offences,  years before serious  Mr T u c k e r , h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d including offences  condition, transplant  icy  transplants  directly  operation.  of certain  o f indecency, He s u f f e r e d  and h i s d o c t o r  needed a h e a r t that heart  a t some  courts.  t h e events i n question.  heart  be c o n s i d e r e d  case, t h e i s s u e had n o t been  a d d r e s s e d b y t h e New Z e a l a n d The  t h e Commonwealth i n f a v o u r o f  several  from a  had decided  t h a t he  I t was g o v e r n m e n t  pol-  w o u l d n o t be c a r r i e d o u t i n New  Z e a l a n d . E v e n t h o u g h t h e New Z e a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t o f f e r e d h i m t w i c e t h e normal grant,  Mr T u c k e r s t i l l  had i n s u f f i c i e n t  f u n d s t o t r a v e l t o A u s t r a l i a where h e m i g h t o b t a i n plant  operation. So  Tucker  a p u b l i c fund r a i s i n g "found himself  light".  propelled  He was i n t e r v i e w e d  J  d r i v e was u n d e r t a k e n ,  yielded  government g r a n t Meanwhile,  tum". Truth  ^  3  4  7 4  and r a d i o , and  i n newspapers. The campaign  some p r i v a t e d o n a t i o n s a s w e l l  $30,000 f r o m t h e B e l i n d a  Trainor  Trust,  a s a p l e d g e o f up t o which together  visited  had information  with  more t h a n c o v e r e d t h e amount n e e d e d .  " a w h i s p e r i n g c a m p a i g n was g a t h e r i n g  A reporter  a n d Mr  r e l u c t a n t l y into the lime-  on t e l e v i s i o n  a d v e r t i s e m e n t s were p u b l i s h e d  the  a trans-  Mr T u c k e r a n d a d v i s e d  momen-  him t h a t  t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t he h a d been c o n -  S e e R G G l o v e r , "The R i g h t t o P r i v a c y " (1983) 2 Cant L Rev 51. F o r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e Tucker d e c i s i o n s , see a l s o L a s t e r , s u p r a n 7. Tucker,  s u p r a n 71, a t 72 6.  I b i d a t 726.  victed  of  criminal offences.  how d i s t r a u g h t  his patient  scious  that  person  i n Mr T u c k e r ' s  Truth left  stress  was a f t e r  the  condition, editorial  restraint.  i m p r e s s i o n t h a t Truth  was g r a n t e d  by J e f f r i e s  J  publication  concerning  the  i n the  and d i s m i s s e d an u r g e n t  tion.  W i t h i n the  n e x t few d a y s ,  a g a i n s t the  to  to  convictions.  against the  radio  station, alleged  Most o f t h e  on t h e  any  injunc-  injunctions  were  Broadcasting information  to  before  a transplant.  not  a party  to  to  be d e t a i l s  private  radio  How-  its $20,000 the  pro-  o f Mr  stations  and an A u s t r a l i a n n e w s p a p e r  three defendants  discharge  funds,  in  ran  a  matter.  interim injunctions.  apply for  hearing  restraining  l e a v i n g Mr T u c k e r  Mr T u c k e r h a d i s s u e d p r o c e e d i n g s  i n the  Truth  T r a i n o r T r u s t withdrew  b r o a d c a s t what t h e y  page l e a d e r  tions  was  publish.  against this  be a s s e s s e d f o r  New Z e a l a n d f o l l o w e d s u i t , front  of  a  The C o u r t o f A p p e a l  parte  g i v i n g any r e a s o n ,  Then a p r i v a t e  Tucker's  editor  b e l i e v i n g t h a t he h a d s u f f i c i e n t  A u s t r a l i a to  funding without  ceedings,  for  p u b l i s h e r of  who h a d r e c e i v e d  w h i l e he was t h e r e t h e  short.  lethal  effect.  Mr T u c k e r ,  ever,  ex  con-  The d o c t o r  A u c k l a n d S t a r L t d and t h e  C o r p o r a t i o n o f New Z e a l a n d ,  travelled  the  High Court,  appeal  observing and  intended to  convictions.  heard  a similar  visit,  approached  An i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e  granted  doctor,  c o u l d be h a r m f u l and p e r h a p s  and p l e a d e d f o r with the  Mr T u c k e r ' s  McGechan J ,  permanent  w i t h i n the  However,  of the  for  the  time  w h i c h was t o  specified  defendants  interim injunction. have  injunc-  decided  Hence  been the  the  sub-  stantive hearing, interim  was  instead dealing  hearing,  A u s t r a l i a n h o s p i t a l had  the  court  decided  was  the  the  the  proposed  trans-  operation.  p u b l i c a t i o n s on breaking  point  dictable".  7 5  He  Mr  Tucker's health,  On  be the  tried,  terribly  be  unpre-  T u c k e r had  are  cruel to c h i l d r e n . "  i s s u e of whether t h e r e  was  the  "the  a  nine  commented: " T h e r e must a l s o be  i f his convictions  McGechan J  e f f e c t of  noted t h a t  can  a l s o m e n t i o n e d t h a t Mr  concern f o r her  d r e n can  likely  and  for a cardiac patient  y e a r o l d d a u g h t e r , and  be  informed that  against  McGechan J h e a r d e v i d e n c e o f t h e  nity  with  injunction.  During the  plant  once a g a i n  disclosed.  commuChil-  7 6  a serious  question  to  stated:  T h i s f a c t o r c a u s e s a b s o l u t e l y no d i f f i c u l t i e s . J e f f r i e s J accepted the p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the t o r t of i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of emotional d i s t r e s s or p h y s i c a l damage. F u r t h e r , t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e d i d n o t w i t h d r a w f r o m f i n d i n g f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n New Zealand the exi s t e n c e o f a t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y . He r e g a r d e d t h e l a t t e r as a n a t u r a l p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m t h e f o r m e r . 7 7  I b i d a t 728. McGechan J a l s o n o t e d ( a t 728 and a g a i n a t 734) t h e e v i d e n c e o f Mr T u c k e r ' s d o c t o r t h a t s e e i n g o r h e a r i n g an a d v e r s e news i t e m had n e v e r i n h i s l o n g e x p e r i e n c e c a u s e d immediate d e a t h . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e r e was r e c e n t l y an i t e m on t h e f r o n t page o f t h e Sunday Star ( A u c k l a n d , 20 May 1990) r e p o r t i n g t h a t a woman who had a h e a r t c o n d i t i o n d i e d s u d d e n l y a f t e r a t e l e v i s i o n crew a r r i v e d u n a n n o u n c e d a t h e r home. Her h u s b a n d , a Y u g o s l a v i m m i g r a n t , had b e e n l i n k e d w i t h N a z i war c r i m e s a f t e r h i s b i r t h d a t e was one o f e i g h t r e l e a s e d t o t h e New Z e a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t and t h e m e d i a by t h e W i e s e n t h a l C e n t r e t h e week b e f o r e . Tucker, Ibid  at  s u p r a n 71, 731.  at  728.  In  h i s j u d g m e n t , McGechan J q u o t e d  sages  from t h e judgments o f J e f f r i e s  peal,  and  said:  "Nothing has  which would persuade  me  that  f o l l o w i n g , i s an e x t r a c t  the relevant  J and  pas-  the Court of  changed s i n c e t h o s e  Ap-  rulings  I can or s h o u l d d i f f e r . "  f r o m t h e judgment o f J e f f r i e s  7 8  The  J:  I t seemed t o t h e C o u r t t h a t i t was a b l e i n t h e c i r c u m stances t o take j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of the f a c t that the p l a i n t i f f had been p r o p e l l e d i n t o t h e g l a r e o f p u b l i c i t y by e v e n t s o f a h i g h l y p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n o f h e a l t h s e r v i c e s i n t h i s c o u n t r y , and o v e r w h i c h he p e r s o n a l l y h a d no c o n t r o l . I am aware o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f t h e t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y and t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e seem t o r a i s e s u c h an i s s u e i n a d r a m a t i c f o r m . A p e r s o n who l i v e s an o r d i n a r y p r i v a t e l i f e h a s a r i g h t t o be l e f t a l o n e and t o l i v e t h e p r i v a t e a s p e c t s of h i s l i f e w i t h o u t b e i n g s u b j e c t e d t o unwarranted, or undesired, p u b l i c i t y or p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . Obviously s u c h a r i g h t must be s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s , b u t on t h e s t a t e o f t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e C o u r t the p l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t seem t o come w i t h i n one o f them.... his involvement appears a t t h i s p o i n t t o have been u n i n t e n t i o n a l on h i s p a r t . . . . The g i s t o f t h e a c t i o n , u n l i k e d e f a m a t i o n , i s n o t i n j u r y t o c h a r a c t e r o r r e p u t a t i o n , but t o one^s f e e l i n g s and p e a c e o f m i n d . . . . The gravamen o f t h e a c t i o n i s unwarranted p u b l i c a t i o n of i n t i m a t e d e t a i l s of the p l a i n t i f f ' s p r i v a t e l i f e which are o u t s i d e the realm of l e g i t i m a t e p u b l i c concern, or c u r i o s i t y . I t f o l l o w s i n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s as a m a t t e r o f l o g i c , t h a t i f a p e r s o n ' s r i g h t o f p r i v a c y h a s b e e n , o r i s t o be v i o l a t e d , i t i s no d e f e n c e t h a t what was, o r i s t o be p u b l i s h e d , i s c o r r e c t or published without malice. In my v i e w t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t may p r o v i d e t h e p l a i n t i f f w i t h a v a l i d c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n t h i s c o u n t r y . I t seems a n a t u r a l progression of the t o r t o f . i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r e n o w n e d a b i l i t y o f t h e common law t o p r o v i d e a remedy for a wrong. 7 9  The  Court of Appeal  j u n c t i o n was  expressed  °  Ibid  at  733.  9  Ibid  a t 731-32.  judgment u p h o l d i n g t h e i n t e r i m i n -  somewhat more g u a r d e d l y t h a n  either  of the an  High Court  j u d g m e n t s as  action for invasion  seem q u i t e privacy  open t o t h e  i n New  Zealand  Commonwealth t h e r e  vacy", was  8 0  even the  a serious  p o r t e n t o u s . The  court  of  However, t h e  court  possibility  of a t o r t  invasion  law.  light  In the  [was]  no  general  t o be  of  of the  academics" a t t h a t  f i n d i n g of the  question  availability  of p r i v a c y .  a g r e e m e n t among j u d g e s and the  regards the  legal  in this  time that r i g h t to  area  of  "broad  Court of Appeal t h a t  tried  did  was  "in pri-  there  quite  stated:  We a g r e e w i t h t h e J u d g e t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r a i s e serious a r g u a b l e and indeed i m p o r t a n t and difficult i s s u e s . I t i s enough t o r e a d two p a s s a g e s f r o m Salmond and Heuston on Torts ( 1 8 t h ed, 1981) . A t p 3 3 t h e r e i s the f o l l o w i n g : " . . . t h e r e a r e c a s e s i n w h i c h c o m p l a i n t i s made a b o u t the p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e of embarrassing p r i v a t e f a c t s a b o u t t h e p l a i n t i f f - f o r example, t h a t he d o e s n o t pay h i s d e b t s . In t h e l e a d i n g A m e r i c a n c a s e t h e defendant published t o t h e w o r l d an a c c o u n t o f the p l a i n t i f f ' s e a r l y c a r e e r as a p r o s t i t u t e and t h e a c c u s e d i n a s e n s a t i o n a l murder t r i a l . The plaintiff, who had q u i t e l e f t a s i d e h e r e a r l i e r l i f e o f shame and now moved i n r e s p e c t a b l e s o c i e t y , r e c o v e r e d damages. U n t i l the R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of O f f e n d e r s Act 1974 t h e d e f e n d a n t s w o u l d h a v e had t h e d e f e n c e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n i f sued f o r l i b e l i n such a c a s e i n England. " 8 1  The  second passage r e l a t e d t o the  fliction ued  as  of  tort  e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . The  of  intentional in-  Court of Appeal  contin-  follows:  The relevant law of New Zealand is far from c l e a r l y s e t t l e d i n e i t h e r a r e a . We add only that we a g r e e w i t h M i s s Moran t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f any d e f e n c e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . We h a v e i n m i n d i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e argument t h a t a p l a i n t i f f who Burns,  "Privacy  and  the  Common Law",  s u p r a n 7,  at  22.  Tucker, s u p r a n 71, a t 732. The c a s e r e f e r r e d t o i s Melvin v Reid ( a l s o known as t h e Red Kimono c a s e ) , 297 91 ( 1 9 3 1 ) .  P  makes an a p p e a l t o t h e p u b l i c f o r f u n d s may i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a v e t o a c c e p t a c e r t a i n amount o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f h i s h i s t o r y . No v i e w w o u l d now be a p p r o p r i a t e on t h a t o r any o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h e u l t i m a t e legal issues i n the case.  A l t h o u g h McGechan J r e a c h e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n s should  be  the  p u b l i c a t i o n of  alleged offences  not  party  to the  junctions  futile,  certainly  should  stupid."  8 3  contained  In the  discharged,  i n j u n c t i o n s had and  conclusion  t h i s was by  news media^ w h i c h were  clearly  rendered the  i n the  famous  appear b l i n d , but  should  not  of  strongest  invasion  of privacy.  a b o v e , he  declared:  a l l three  statements i n favour the  in-  statue,  appear  j u d g m e n t s , McGechan  A f t e r quoting  the  l a r g e l y because  " J u s t i c e , as  fact,  that  of  J's  a tort  passages set  of  out  I n d e e d , a l b e i t w i t h c a u t i o n and h e s i t a t i o n i n t h e abs e n c e o f c o n s i d e r e d argument on t h e p o i n t and t h e w a r n i n g s a s t o d i f f i c u l t y s o u n d e d by t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l , I go f u r t h e r . I support the i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o the New Z e a l a n d common law o f a t o r t c o v e r i n g i n v a s i o n o f p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y a t l e a s t by p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e o f p r i v a t e f a c t s . . . . While the American a u t h o r i t i e s have a degree o f f o u n d a t i o n upon c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n New Z e a l a n d , t h e g o o d s e n s e and s o c i a l d e s i r ability of the protective p r i n c i p l e s enunciated are compelling. I do n o t t h i n k i t b e y o n d t h e common law t o a d a p t t h e Wilkinson v Downtori p r i n c i p l e s t o signific a n t l y d e v e l o p t h e same f i e l d and t o meet t h e same needs. Beyond t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s o f s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o n c e p t I w i l l n o t p r e s e n t l y go, a l t h o u g h I o b s e r v e t h a t t h e n e e d f o r p r o t e c t i o n w h e t h e r t h r o u g h t h e law o f t o r t o r by s t a t u t e i n a day o f i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n presTucker, s u p r a n 71, a t 732. I t seems t h a t t h e c o u r t must have been u s i n g " j u s t i f i c a t i o n " i n the w i d e r sense of t h e word, t o mean n o t m e r e l y t r u t h b u t some o t h e r e l e m e n t s u c h as p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . T h i s f i t s w i t h t h e c o n t e x t , and t h e c o u r t c o u l d s u r e l y n o t h a v e meant t h a t i t was a r g u a b l e t h a t t r u t h a l o n e m i g h t be a d e f e n c e i n a privacy action. I f t h a t were s o , t h e r e w o u l d be nothing l e f t of the t o r t save " f a l s e l i g h t " i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y . 3  Ibid at  736.  )  s u r e s and c o m p u t e r i s e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m s i s b e c o m i n g more and more p r e s s i n g . I f t h e t o r t i s a c c e p t e d a s e s t a b l i s h e d , i t s b o u n d a r i e s and e x c e p t i o n s w i l l n e e d much w o r k i n g o u t on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s s o as t o s u i t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h i s c o u n t r y . I f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e r v e n e s d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s , s o much t h e better. 8 4  McGechan J e n d e d h i s judgment w i t h a more u r g e n t for  legislative  reform,  and  an  i n d i c a t i o n t h a t he  call  viewed  the  development o f p r i v a c y  law a s n o t o n l y p o s s i b l e b u t  impera-  tive.  "something  urgency"  He  affirmed that  must be done w i t h  with regard to: L e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n on some c o m p r e h e n s i v e basis determ i n i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h a t r i g h t t o f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h . As this c a s e shows, t h e C o u r t s a r e b e i n g f o r c e d i n t o a p o s i t i o n where t h e y must s o o n c r e a t e new law a s t h e y s e e a p p r o p r i a t e . T h i s p r o c e s s w h i c h w i l l be p a i n f u l and e x p e n s i v e t o t h e l i t i g a n t s i n v o l v e d , m i g h t n o t be thought the i d e a l approach. I t w i l l however be n e c e s s a r y i f n o t h i n g i s done.  The  j u d g m e n t a l s o d i s c u s s e d some m a t t e r s  the a p p l i c a t i o n of a privacy t o r t affirmed that  relevant  to  t o t h e m e d i a . McGechan J  " g r e a t c a r e must be t a k e n t o p r e s e r v e  freedom  I b i d a t 733. One a s p e c t o f New Z e a l a n d s o c i e t y t h a t m i g h t l e a d t o p r i v a c y law d e v e l o p i n g d i f f e r e n t l y t h e r e f r o m e l s e w h e r e i n t h e Commonwealth i s t h e s m a l l p o p u l a t i o n . McGechan J r e m a r k e d , " I n New Z e a l a n d o n c e t h e p r o v e r b i a l c a t i s o u t o f t h e bag h e r p r o g e n y s p r e a d l i k e l i g h t n i n g " ( 7 3 6 ) . T h i s f a c t o r was r e c o g n i s e d r e c e n t l y when t h e Simon W i e s e n t h a l C e n t r e a p o l o g i s e d f o r r e l e a s i n g a l i s t o f s u s p e c t e d war c r i m i n a l s t o t h e New Z e a l a n d news m e d i a b e f o r e t h e g o v e r n m e n t r e d u c e d i t . The C e n t r e s a i d t h e y h a d n o t u n d e r s t o o d what a s m a l l community i t was i n New Z e a l a n d , o r what s m a l l e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s were i n v o l v e d . See T i m Murphy, " N a z i h u n t e r s s e n d a p o l o g y t o P a l m e r " , New Zealand Herald, 22 May 1990, s e c 1, p 1. The n e e d t o c o n s i d e r New Z e a l a n d c o n d i t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y f o l low o v e r s e a s d e v e l o p m e n t s was e m p h a s i s e d by G e o f f r e y P a l m e r i n " P r i v a c y and t h e Law" [1975] NZLJ 747. Tucker,  s u p r a n 71,  at  737.  of  s p e e c h and  ever,  he  i t s associated  went on  which c o u r t s  are  r e l u c t a n t to grant  i f justification will  tion,  i n which j u s t i f i c a t i o n  concluded,  "I regard  the  present  case, but  the  news m e d i a s e e k s t o In the  context  determination relevance  of  of the  information".  to d i s t i n g u i s h a defamation a c t i o n ,  tions  He  freedom of  by  be  pleaded,  ac-  area".  important  d e c i s i v e element  8 7  in which  demand."  of weighing p r i v a c y  overall justice, plaintiff  seemed t o a p p r o a c h i t as  injunc-  defence  s p e e c h as  means t h e  in  from a p r i v a c y  i s a "doubtful  freedom of no  interlocutory  How-  8 6  as  a factor in  McGechan J d i s c u s s e d  having sought p u b l i c i t y .  a question  of  the the  He  consent rather  than  QQ  of p u b l i c  interest,  stating:  I t may w e l l be t h a t a p e r s o n l o s e s a r i g h t t o p r i v a c y by p r e s e n t i n g h i m s e l f t o t h e p u b l i c eye f o r e v a l u a t i o n . This concept i s w e l l recognised i n American privacy law, and i t i s n o t unknown t o o u r own law i n t h e somewhat c o g n a t e f i e l d o f b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e . I r e f e r f o r example t o Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760 (CA) . I n t h a t c a s e a w e l l - k n o w n g r o u p o f s i n g e r s who h a d act i v e l y sought p u b l i c i t y encountered the gravest of d i f f i c u l t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g an i n j u n c t i o n f a v o u r i n g their privacy against a f o r m e r manager on t h e b a s i s o f a b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e a c t i o n . No d o u b t t h e C o u r t o f App e a l h a d t h i s i n mind when i t r e f e r r e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f who makes an a p p e a l t o t h e p u b l i c f o r f u n d s . I n t h i s c a s e Mr Tucker undoubtedly d i d put himself and his character forward to the p u b l i c when a p p e a l i n g for f u n d s t h r o u g h t h e m e d i a . By d o i n g t h a t he i n v i t e d some degree of examination of h i s personal background and "worth" i n the eyes of persons c o n s i d e r i n g r e q u e s t s f o r a s s i s t a n c e . However, on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e I do n o t p l a c e undue w e i g h t on t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n t o p r i v a c y . Mr T u c k e r was a r e l u c t a n t d e b u t a n t e so f a r as p u b l i c e x p o -  6  Ibid at  734.  7  Ibid See 8  a t 735, r e f e r r i n g t o t h e a b o v e , n o t e 82.  Court of Appeal  judgment.  T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n and i t s i m p o r t a n c e when d i s c u s s i n g t h e n o t i o n o f a p u b l i c f i g u r e w i l l be a d d r e s s e d i n c h a p t e r 5.  s u r e was c o n c e r n e d . I t g a v e h i m no p l e a s u r e , a n d was f o r c e d upon h i m b y a d e s p e r a t e n e e d f o r f u n d s f o r what t h e n was p e r c e i v e d t o be a l i f e s a v i n g o p e r a t i o n . T h e r e is some e l e m e n t of unfairness i n holding that i n evitable situation against him. 8 9  In so f i n d i n g , sympathetic  McGechan J a d o p t e d  to the p l a i n t i f f  some A m e r i c a n  cases.  an a t t i t u d e r a t h e r  than t h e a t t i t u d e  more  adopted i n  9 0  As t o t h e way i n w h i c h t h e i n j u n c t i o n s were a b l e t o be " s u b v e r t e d b y t h e a c t s o f n o n p a r t i e s who [were] n o t t e c h n i cally  b o u n d " b y them, McGechan J s u g g e s t e d  c r e a t e d nominal  defendant  a statutorily  f o r media i n j u n c t i o n  purposes,  j u d g e m e n t s a g a i n s t w h i c h w o u l d b i n d a l l components o f t h e media. could  T h i s seems a s e n s i b l e a n d p r a c t i c a l a l s o h e l p w i t h t h e problem  w i t h r e s p e c t t o each intended.  and e v e r y defendant  to establish  that publication i s  9 2  I n t h e Tucker expressed a degree develop  o f needing  s o l u t i o n , and  some f o r m  c a s e , t h e n , t h e New Z e a l a n d c o u r t s h a v e o f w i l l i n g n e s s and even urgency t o of legal protection  without t h e intervention  8  9  Tucker,  9  0  F o r e x a m p l e i n Sidis  of privacy with or  of the l e g i s l a t u r e .  9 3  Notably, a l l  s u p r a n 71, a t 735, v F-R Publishing  Co,  113 F 2d 806  (1940). 9  1  9  2  9  3  Tucker,  s u p r a n 71, a t 737.  Mr T u c k e r  had t r o u b l e s a t i s f y i n g  this  requirement; see  Tucker, s u p r a n 71, a t 733. D a n i e l L a s t e r , s u p r a n 7, a t 59, s t a t e s : "Read t o g e t h e r , t h e t h r e e Tucker judgments s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t a t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y . I n f a c t , J e f f r i e s a n d McGechan J J e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i s e t h e t o r t . I n view o f t h e s e d e c i s i o n s , c o n t i n u e d a d h e r e n c e i n New Z e a l a n d t o t h e  three the  h e a r i n g s were h e l d  i n camera,  a s was e s s e n t i a l i f  4  p r o c e e d i n g s were n o t t o be r e n d e r e d  a l s o demonstrates t h e a b i l i t y  futile.  of the j u d i c i a l  system t o han-  d l e p r i v a c y matters with remarkable expedition sary. it  However, g i v e n  9 5  could  the small  be some t i m e b e f o r e  population  The c a s e  where  neces-  of the country,  the issue again  reaches the  courts. Meanwhile, t h e r e protect the  privacy  Tucker  t o w h i c h New  should  9 6  Such p r o v i s i o n s  but also, together Zealand  Zealand courts  which  i n t e r e s t s , a few o f w h i c h were m e n t i o n e d i n  case.  application  a r e many s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s  with  i s a party,  not only  have d i r e c t  i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreements  give  some i n d i c a t i o n t o New  o f t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e common l a w  b e d e v e l o p e d . A s Cooke P h a s s t a t e d :  ...[W]e i n New Z e a l a n d a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y g i v i n g w e i g h t [ t o t h e p r i n c i p l e ] t h a t t h e e v o l u t i o n o f Judge-made l a w may be i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e i d e a s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a s r e f l e c t e d i n c o n t e m p o r a r y s t a t u t e s a n d by o t h e r c u r r e n t trends. 9 7  One  w r i t e r has concluded that,  legislative  i n New Z e a l a n d ,  "Recent  a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s make t h e c a s e f o r  a d a g e t h a t no r i g h t o f p r i v a c y misplaced."  e x i s t s w o u l d a p p e a r t o be  The h e a r i n g b e f o r e McGechan J was a m o d i f i e d f o r m o f i n c a m e r a h e a r i n g ; r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e news m e d i a were permitted t o attend, but not t o publish d e t a i l s of the p r o c e e d i n g s . See Tucker, s u p r a n 71, a t 72 0. See McGechan J ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , 21. Ibid  a t 73 3.  See a l s o L a s t e r ,  ibid  a t 719-  s u p r a n 7, a t 60.  Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443 a t 451 ( C A ) ; L a s t e r , s u p r a n 7, a t 59.  as quoted i n  judicial  evolution  o f a common  law r i g h t o f p r i v a c y  overwhelming." Section  67 o f t h e Human R i g h t s  forth the functions tion  to privacy.  powers i n t h i s gathering  C o m m i s s i o n A c t 1977 s e t s  o f t h e Human R i g h t s  area,  but has a very  broad  information-  a n d r e p o r t i n g mandate. I t s f u n c t i o n s  are: t o  into matters a f f e c t i n g privacy  governmental o r not;  to report  of taking  privacy,  matter r e l a t i n g  o r on a n y o t h e r  whether  t o t h e Prime M i n i s t e r  need f o r o r d e s i r a b i l i t y  s u g g e s t i o n s t o any p e r s o n r e g a r d i n g  on t h e  any a c t i o n t o p r o t e c t to privacy;  t o make  t h e need f o r o r d e s i r -  o f a c t i o n by t h a t p e r s o n i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f p r i -  vacy; t o gather  information  to take representations  to assist  vacy.  The Commission complaints,  matters that  private,  any m a t t e r a f f e c t i n g p r i -  i s n o t empowered t o i n v e s t i g a t e  b u t may c h o o s e t o i n q u i r e g e n e r a l l y  come t o i t s a t t e n t i o n  Broadcasting  i ti n i t s functions;  f r o m members o f t h e p u b l i c ; a n d t o  make p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g  vidual  i n rela-  The Commission does n o t have any c o e r c i v e  inquire generally  ability  Commission  bodies  have a s p e c i f i c  i n this  way.  indiinto  1 0 0  i n New Z e a l a n d , b o t h p u b l i c a n d obligation t o respect  vacy under t h e Broadcasting  Act 1989.  1 0 1  personal  pri-  The A c t s t a t e s :  9  8  Laster,  s u p r a n 7, a t 59.  9  9  Section  67(1).  1  0  0  See s e c t i o n  1  0  1  I t s p r e d e c e s s o r , t h e B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1976, w h i c h a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r complaints about p r i v a c y i n v a s i o n s , i s d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y i n G l o v e r , s u p r a n 72, a t 60-61.  67(3).  Every broadcaster i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r maintaining i n i t s programmes and t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n , s t a n d a r d s w h i c h a r e consistent with-  It  (a) The  observance  (c) The  p r i v a c y of the  is explicitly  liability  o f g o o d t a s t e and  individual....  stated that there shall  i n r e s p e c t o f any  decency;  failure  be  and  1 0 2  no  civil  t o comply w i t h  these  p r o v i•s i•o n s . 103 However, f o r m a l c o m p l a i n t s n o t comply w i t h t h e r e q u i s i t e t h e b r o a d c a s t e r . The the c o m p l a i n t justified,  be  lodged  broadcaster i s obliged  to  investigate  i f the complaint  i n whole or i n p a r t , I f the complainant  1 0 5  decision  or with the a c t i o n taken,  of the d e c i s i o n  working days,  is dissatisfied o r has  or of the a c t i o n  the complainant  i s found  to  with  be  t o "take a p p r o p r i a t e  action".  notice  do  s t a n d a r d s may  and,  1 0 4  a b o u t programmes w h i c h  may  refer  with  the  not been g i v e n  taken w i t h i n  sixty  the complaint  to  the  1 O 6  Broadcasting Standards however, may The  be  Authority.  referred  directly  Authority consists  Governor-General  Privacy complaints, to the A u t h o r i t y .  1 0 7  o f f o u r members a p p o i n t e d by  on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e M i n i s t e r  the  of  S e c t i o n 4 ( 1 ) . A l s o , r e c i p i e n t s o f government f u n d i n g f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f programmes must u n d e r t a k e t h a t t h e programmes w i l l be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e s t a n d a r d s ; s e e s 40. 1  0  3  Section 4(3).  1  0  4  Section 6(1).  1  0  5  Section 7(1).  1  0  6  Section  1  0  7  Section 8(c).  8.  Broadcasting. dtermining advisory ethical  o  I t s f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d e , as w e l l as  complaints,  issuing  opinions relating conduct  The it  u  " t o any o r a l l b r o a d c a s t e r s ,  to broadcasting  i n broadcasting".  and  3  A u t h o r i t y may d e c l i n e t o d e t e r m i n e a c o m p l a i n t i f  considers t h a t the complaint  trivial"  i s "frivolous,  or "that, i n a l l the circumstances  complaint, If  U  standards  i t s h o u l d n o t be d e t e r m i n e d  the Authority decides  vexatious, or  of the  by t h e A u t h o r i t y " .  that a complaint  1 1 0  i s justified,  i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , i t may make any one o r more o f t h e following publish, period,  orders:  (a) a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g  the broadcaster to  i n a s p e c i f i e d manner a n d w i t h i n a a statement  which r e l a t e s t o t h e complaint  a p p r o v e d by t h e A u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p u r p o s e ; directing  the broadcaster  to refrain  from b r o a d c a s t i n g advertisements, hours,  at a specified  (c) a n o r d e r for  (d)  referring  time,  order  twenty-four  f o r e a c h o f f e n d i n g programme;  the complaint  back t o t h e b r o a d c a s t e r i n accordance  with  o r g u i d e l i n e s as t h e A u t h o r i t y t h i n k s f i t ;  an o r d e r  exceeding  (b) a n  and i s  from b r o a d c a s t i n g , o r  f o r up t o  c o n s i d e r a t i o n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n  directions  specified  directing  the broadcaster  111  1  0  8  Section  26(1).  1  0  9  Section  21(1)(d).  1  1  0  S e c t i o n 11.  1  1  1  Section  13(1).  infringed.  and  t o p a y a sum n o t  $5,000 by way o f c o m p e n s a t i o n t o a n  whose p r i v a c y h a s b e e n  such  individual  The  b r o a d c a s t e r must c o m p l y w i t h any  must n o t i f y  t h e A u t h o r i t y and  i n which t h e o r d e r has comply w i t h not  such  exceeding  the complainant  been c o m p l i e d  an o r d e r  $100,000.  such  i s an  with.  order  and  of the  manner  Failure  1 1 2  offence punishable  by  the High It  t o determine  Court.  a complaint,  go  complaints  directly  distinction fact  from  other types  of the Act independent complaints independent be  part  complaints  to  complaints  privacy complaints  suggests  i n the  must be  but  The  1  2  Section  13(3).  1  1  3  Section  14.  1  1  4  Section  18(1).  1  1  5  See  1  1  6  Section 5(g).  5(b)  of  the  an  available,  s h o u l d be proper  special  that the  1 1 5  "most  an  capable response  treatment  legislature  u n l i k e other kinds of complaints,  1  light  s h o u l d not. be r e q u i r e d t o  c o n s i d e r a t i o n and D  in  Authority. This  i s that, although  procedure  X  out  broadcaster  o f b e i n g r e s o l v e d by  t h a t procedure  by p r o p e r  singles  on w h i c h t h e r e l e v a n t P a r t  procedure  that are capable  section  a  appealed  of complaints,  significant  i s e x p r e s s l y based  of the broadcaster".  that,  be  t o bypass the  independent  of the p r i n c i p l e s  r e s o l v e d by  resolved  to the  i s especially  t h a t one  fine  1 1 4  a l l o w i n g the p r i v a c y complainant and  may  i s noteworthy t h a t the Broadcasting Act  privacy  a  1 1 3  A d e c i s i o n or order of the A u t h o r i t y , i n c l u d i n g d e c i s i o n not  to  of on  given  being the to  suspected  they would  not  generally  be c a p a b l e  broadcaster The  itself.  complaints  of satisfactory 1  1  by t h e  7  procedure  the major shortcomings The  resolution  e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e A c t a v o i d s  o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom P r e s s C o u n c i l .  A u t h o r i t y i s independent,  and compliance  with  i t s orders  is  m a n d a t o r y . I t h a s t h e power t o p e n a l i s e a b r o a d c a s t e r b y  an  order t o r e f r a i n  hours,  from  b r o a d c a s t i n g f o r up t o t w e n t y - f o u r  a n d t h e power t o g r a n t c o m p e n s a t i o n t o a n  whose p r i v a c y i s i n v a d e d . Auckland  radio station  The A u t h o r i t y r e c e n t l y  t o pay f i v e  . . l i compensation t o a complainant. Press  x  f  o  o r d e r e d an  hundred d o l l a r s  b y way o f  t . . As w i t h t h e U n i t e d  C o u n c i l , a n y o n e may c o m p l a i n  whose p r i v a c y was  individual  . Kingdom  and n o t o n l y t h e p e r s o n  infringed.  However, t h e A c t a p p l i e s o n l y t o b r o a d c a s t e r s a n d n o t to  the print  that  media. A l s o , w h i l e t h e p r e v i o u s A c t p r o v i d e d  p r i v a c y complaints  new A c t c o n t a i n s no s u c h  were t o be h e a r d provision,  in private,  and s t i p u l a t e s  1 1 9  the  that the  A u t h o r i t y must g i v e p u b l i c n o t i c e o f i t s d e c i s i o n s .  1 2 0  The  117  I n f a c t , u n d e r t h e p r e v i o u s A c t , t h e r e was n o t e v e n t h e option o f lodging a p r i v a c y complaint with t h e broadc a s t e r f i r s t ; s e e B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1976, s 9 5 ( 3 ) ( c ) . 11R  xxo  •  nj3i t f d i s c j o c k e y s " , New Zealand Herald, 22 J u n e 1990. Two d i s c j o c k e y s f r o m t h e s t a t i o n h a d e n c o u r a g e d l i s t e n e r s t o telephone t h e complainant, a Maori a c t i v i s t , f o l l o w i n g p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t s by t h e c o m p l a i n a n t w h i c h t h e d i s c j o c k e y s r e g a r d e d as b e i n g r a c i s t . The c o m p l a i n a n t had r e c e i v e d a b u s i v e and obscene c a l l s a t a l l h o u r s o f t h e n i g h t f o r t h r e e weeks. "The a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n s a i d t h a t , e v e n i f Dr W a l k e r ' s p r i v a c y h a d n o t been i n f r i n g e d , t h e b r o a d c a s t would s t i l l have breached t h e a c t . " c f Robbins v Canadian Broadcasting Corp (Que) [1958] CS 152, 12 DLR (2d) 35 (Quebec S u p e r i o r C t ) . a s  o  r  1  1  9  B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1976, s  95V(2).  1  2  0  B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1989, s  15(1).  further publicity  is likely  to inhibit  some p r i v a c y  complaints. The "No  Fair  person  Trading Act  shall,  t o an  f o r breach  and  is likely  1  2  and  1  t h e b r o a d c a s t i n g o f any  material. such  as •  1 2 2  as r e g a r d s  •  ,  instances of  i p i  or d e c e p t i v e . " "false  Further, exempted,  light"  been o b t a i n e d  section 9 will  tiff  by  liability  promotional  o t h e r media  components  liability  T h u s t h e A c t may  cover  leading to publication  a p p l y where " m i s l e a d i n g  such  deception.  t o p r o v e t h a t he  from  by  i f i t some  i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y .  since a c t i v i t i e s  for publication,  exempted  attract  d e c e p t i v e " methods h a v e b e e n u s e d by material  t h e newspaper pub-  a d v e r t i s i n g and  some m a g a z i n e s c o u l d s t i l l  any  information or matter  However, p u b l i c a t i o n by  is misleading  not  except  An  injunctive  p u b l i c a t i o n of  a b r o a d c a s t i n g body a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y under the A c t ,  or deceive."  the remedies i n c l u d e  c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. The  and  t h a t i s mis-  p r o v i s i o n i s analogous  i n f o r m a t i o n o r m a t t e r i n a n e w s p a p e r by lisher,  i n section 9 that:  to mislead  of t h i s very broad  action in t o r t ,  relief  provides  i n t r a d e , engage i n c o n d u c t  l e a d i n g or deceptive or action  1986  a s where an  I t may  o r she  the media t o  has  be  suffered "loss  or  obtain  interview  difficult  are  for a  has plain-  o r damage"  See Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 63 ALR 600 (HC A u s ) , i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e v e r y s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s of the A u s t r a l i a n Trade P r a c t i c e s Act 1974, on w h i c h t h e New Z e a l a n d A c t was b a s e d . C i t e d i n E l i z a b e t h K P a t o n , "A C o m p a r i s o n Between S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e F a i r T r a d i n g A c t 1986 and t h e Common Law" (1988) 6 AULR 14, a t 22.  1  2  1  1  2  2  Fair  1  2  3  See  Trading Act Paton,  supra  1986, n 121,  s  15. at  36-37.  in  such  ered,  a case,  e v e n t h o u g h damage t o r e p u t a t i o n i s c o v -  since the publication  1 2 4  ity.  A l s o , by t h e n a t u r e  will  s e l d o m be o f a n y u s e .  itself  o f t h e breach,  I n summary, t h e New Z e a l a n d  concerns  Commission,  injunctive  parliament  r e c o g n i t i o n t o p r i v a c y a s an important privacy  i s exempt f r o m  by i n c l u d i n g  w i t h i n t h e v i g i l a n c e o f t h e Human  and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y  As y e t , t h e r e  Tucker  has g i v e n  value,  of penal  remedies i n r e s p e c t o f p r i v a c y complaints  invasions,  relief  Rights  and making s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n f o r independent  adjudication  ers.  liabil-  against  broadcast-  i s no e q u i v a l e n t p r o t e c t i o n f r o m  although  case  and compensatory  t h e New Z e a l a n d  expressed  press  c o u r t s have i n t h e  readiness t o develop  t h e law i n t h i s  area.  Australia Any  potential  t h e common  f o rdeveloping  law i n A u s t r a l i a  will  a right  be i n h i b i t e d  s i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e High Court toria  Park  Details being  simulataneously  erected  2  4  125  broadcast  t h e races through on n e i g h b o u r i n g  t h e defendant's  nuisance,  1  and Recreation  Grounds  Co Ltd  in  Vic-  Taylor.  v  125  l a n d were  by t h e d e f e n d a n t ,  who was  b i n o c u l a r s from a p l a t f o r m  l a n d . The m a j o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t h e l d  actions d i d not constitute a p r i v a t e  a n d t h a t t h e r e was no remedy f o r i n v a s i o n o f p r i -  Ibid  a t 37.  (  )  1 9 3 7  through  by t h e d e c i -  of Australia  o f r a c e s b e i n g h e l d on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s  watching  that  Racing  of privacy  5  8  CLR 479.  vacy.  A s s t a t e d by Latham C J :  "However d e s i r a b l e  some  limi-  t a t i o n upon i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y m i g h t b e , no a u t h o r i t y was c i t e d w h i c h shows t h a t exists."  any g e n e r a l r i g h t  1 2 6  However, i n Bathurst Victoria lower rule  to privacy  Park  City  Council  or person,  1 2 7  the  c a s e was g i v e n a n a r r o w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b y a  c o u r t . Young J a s s e r t e d t h a t , i sthat  v Saban  although t h e general  anyone i s f r e e t o p h o t o g r a p h  another's  property  t h e r e i s a n e x c e p t i o n where " t h e p h o t o g r a p h s i n I TO  question are offensive".  He e l a b o r a t e d a s f o l l o w s :  T h i s l a s t e x c e p t i o n r e q u i r e s some e x p l a n a t i o n . A l t h o u g h i n t h i s a r e a o f t h e l a w i t i s d a n g e r o u s t o r e l y on American a u t h o r i t i e s because t h e law i n t h a t c o u n t r y h a s d e v e l o p e d i n a d i f f e r e n t way t o o u r own, i t w o u l d seem t o me t h a t i t w o u l d be a s much open t o t h i s C o u r t a s i t w o u l d be t o a n A m e r i c a n C o u r t , t o g i v e r e l i e f t o a p l a i n t i f f who c o m p l a i n e d t h a t someone h a d t a k e n a photograph o f h i m i n a s h o c k i n g l y wounded condition a f t e r a r o a d a c c i d e n t ( c f Leverton v Curtis Pub Co 97 F Supp 181 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) , o r t h a t s h e h a d b e e n s t a n d i n g i n n o c e n t l y o v e r t h e a i r v e n t i n a f u n h o u s e a n d someone h a d photographed h e r w i t h h e r s k i r t s blown up: c f Daily Times Democrat v Graham 162 So (2d) 474 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . I t may be, however, t h a t t h i s f i n a l e x c e p t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o photographs o f a p e r s o n i n an embarrassing pose which a r e s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y t a k e n a n d p u b l i s h e d : American Restatement of the Law of Torts, v o l 4, s 8 6 7 . 1 2 9  The in  photographs  i n t h e Bathurst  c a s e were n o t o f f e n s i v e  t h i s way, s o i t was h e l d t h a t t h e r e was no r e a s o n why  they  s h o u l d n o t be t e n d e r e d  i n evidence.  106  I b i d a t 496; q u o t e d i n B u r n s , Law", s u p r a n 7, a t 22.  " P r i v a c y a n d t h e Common  (1985) 2 NSWLR 704 (NSW Sup C t ) .  1  2  7  1  2  8  Ibid  a t 708.  1  2  9  Ibid  a t 708.  The c a s e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t the  Australian courts  privacy,  but i t w i l l  t o grant  there  may y e t be room f o r  some d e g r e e o f p r o t e c t i o n t o  p r o b a b l y be o n l y  a narrow,  protection unless  the High Court reconsiders  Victoria  the l e g i s l a t u r e  Park,  or  qualified  i t s decision i n  intervenes.  1 3 0  The A u s t r a l i a n l e g i s l a t u r e h a s n o t y e t t a k e n a n y a c t i o n on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s R e p o r t o n Unfair  o f t h e 1979 Law R e f o r m  Publication:  Defamation  and  Commission Privacy.  The  R e p o r t recommended a l i m i t e d r i g h t o f a c t i o n f o r i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y where " s e n s i t i v e p r i v a t e f a c t s " h a d b e e n concerning  a p e r s o n . The d r a f t B i l l  1  3  provided  1  published that:  ...a p e r s o n p u b l i s h e s s e n s i t i v e p r i v a t e f a c t s c o n c e r n ing a n i n d i v i d u a l where t h e p e r s o n p u b l i s h e s matter r e l a t i n g t o or purporting to r e l a t e to the health, p r i v a t e b e h a v i o u r , home l i f e o r p e r s o n a l o r f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n circumstances i n which the p u b l i c a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o cause d i s t r e s s , annoyance o r e m b a r r a s s m e n t t o an i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f the first-mentioned i n d i v i d u a l . 1 3 2  This  d e f i n i t i o n was f u r t h e r q u a l i f i e d  "matter r e l a t i n g contemporaneous  to health report  i n which a person  i -JI  3  2  3  ,  was  ITT  o r o f t h e sudden i l l n e s s  i o n  that  a reasonably  •  involved  1  does n o t i n c l u d e  o f an a c c i d e n t  •  by a p r o v i s i o n  ,  of a person".  Thus t h e  ,  ,  See a l s o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c a s e i n A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair Publication, s u p r a n 53, a t 112-3. ,  ,  ,  ,  A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair Publication, s u p r a n 53, A p p e n d i x C. T h e d r a f t B i l l a l s o g a v e a remedy f o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f name, i d e n t i t y , r e p u t a t i o n o r l i k e n e s s i n c l a u s e 23. Clause  19(1).  Clause  19(2).  draft  Bill  Robertson, The  might not  e v e n c o v e r a c a s e s u c h a s Kaye  discussed  above.  public  i n g where " t h e interest". that  the  public tails not  be  An sent to  m i g h t be  an  relevant  itself  be  way  be  be  of p u b l i c  s e e n as of  a t o p i c of being  of  relevant  illustration.  (legitimate)  interesting feature publication  an  of  could  b e e n e n a c t e d . As C o m m i s s i o n on out  of  the be  and  disclosure  the  even t h o s e  regards the  Privacy,  of  However, t h e a l s o meant t h a t  See  135  Clause  136  Privacy  a topic  of  public  requiring  interest.  If  the  collected  33-36.  1988  any  of  example, t h e  public  de-  would  interest,  a case study,  to  but the  society.  for privacy  Bill  was  (Cth).  and  would not  that a  con-  reason-  only  Report of legislation  such a  the  have Law  t o have  far relates s o l e l y to  data.  wide  h a v e b e e n much  limited provisions  i n a c t i o n of the  21(h). Act  For  some t o p i c  draft B i l l  not  Reform arisen the  use  1 3 6  Australian  a somewhat a b e r r a n t  above, p  to  withdrawn w i t h i n  1983  i t s recommendations so  134  apply-  publication.  i n t e r e s t exception, advance, but  as  i n modern  With such narrow p r o t e c t i o n  of  as  religious activities  "relevant",  religion  time before the  public  to  stated  somewhat b r o a d e r t h a n  individual's private  s e e n as  the  simply  were g i v e n a w i d e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e n a l m o s t  general topic  able  This  i n t e r e s t by  usually  could  p u b l i c a t i o n was  matter could  of  1 3 4  i n t e r e s t d e f e n c e was  information  "relevant" private  1 3 5  v  feature  legislature of  the  has  defama-  tion  law o f New  Australian  South Wales, Queensland,  Capital Territory, affording protection  privacy  i n some i n s t a n c e s ,  States,  t r u t h alone i s not a f u l l  tion  action;  has  been l e f t  " f o r the public  of p u b l i c  Originally,  interest".  benefit"  was  actions,  defamatory or " r e l a t e s to a  t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t was  s u g g e s t e d by a 1 3 9  Select  Though t h e  d e f e a t e d i n t h e House o f Commons a s r e g a r d s i t was  ment i n 1847,  fully  perhaps  adopted due  by t h e New  to a desire  with reputations  Later  mentioned  the other States  added r e q u i r e m e n t has  South Wales  to protect  numbers o f e x - c o n v i c t s  The  1 3 7  defama-  1 3 8  Committee o f t h e House o f L o r d s i n 1 8 4 3 . posal  those  defence t o a c i v i l the  the  to  i n t a c t . In  i t must a l s o be p r o v e d t h a t  p u b l i c a t i o n was matter  T a s m a n i a and  to live  above f o l l o w e d  been i n t e r p r e t e d  procivil  Govern-  "the  large  down".  1 4 0  suit. as  follows:  Public benefit requires a weighing of the r i g h t to privacy against the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t of free d i s c u s s i o n of matters of p u b l i c concern. This weighing i n the s c a l e s c a n o n l y be done i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r circumstances of the case p a r t i c u l a r l y the circumstance w h e t h e r t h e m a t t e r was p r i v a t e i n t h e f i r s t place. 1 4 1  7  C r i m i n a l Code 1899 ( Q l d ) , s 376; D e f a m a t i o n A c t 1957 ( T a s ) , s 15; and D e f a m a t i o n A c t 1901 ( A C T ) , s 6.  8  Defamation  A c t 1974  (NSW), s  15.  S e l e c t Committee o f t h e House o f L o r d s , Report on the Law of Defamation and Libel, 1843; r e f e r r e d t o i n A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair Publication, supra n 53, a t 64. 0  Wacks, Protection 22.  of  Privacy,  s u p r a n 53,  a t p 112,  Cohen v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 623 p e r J a c o b s and M a n n i n g J J A ( C A ) .  at  n 628,  It  i s c l e a r , though, t h a t  "exhumation" of published record, It  criminal  convictions  being a prime  i s not  only  was held  "publication"  i n the  was  public  made.  to  not  f o r the  body o f  a national  readers of  had  no  other e f f e c t than to  the  detriment of  publication not  lisher  The  4  2  protection  1 4 3  1 4 4  Ibid at  of  the  press.  to the  a public  justification  statements are  1  to  since  [the  be  publica-  local  concern  publication "to  the  information] and  could  have  something  i n the The  1 4 5  public  to  benefit  not  interest,  motive of  q u e s t i o n of p u b l i c  since  public  must  actual  nothing  the  law all  defamatory. Furthermore,  pub-  benefit.  requirement to  i n defamation  to privacy,  Tisdall  v Button at  2)  o f f e r s only  par-  privacy-invading  i t confuses  (1905) 2 CLR  [1944] T a s  1  4  5  Supra n  143  756,  1  4  6  Ibid at  763-64, p e r  per  SR  1 at  Griffith  O'Connor J .  CJ.  11  1 4 6  the  defama-  628.  Crowley v Glisson (No O'Connor J (HC Aus).  was  A n o t h e r e x a m p l e i s where  1 4 4  p o l i c e m i g h t be  the  that  a c q u a i n t them o f  plaintiff".  relevant  addition  defence of tial  the  publication i s not  benefit,  background, e x p l a i n e d  to  the  t h o s e newspapers  i n t o no  the  example.  newspaper, t h e  public  fitted  the  i s on  abstract  i n t e r e s t , but  published t o be  i n the  or  1 4 2  T h u s where a m a t t e r o f  1 4 3  for  defamatory m a t t e r even i f i t current,  that  but  liability  t i m e i t was  tion  vast  a forgotten  be  at the  shown t o be  was  t h e r e may  744  at  (SC).  764,  per  tion  and i n v a s i o n  matters,  of privacy,  two c o n c e p t u a l l y  and has a t t r a c t e d c r i t i c i s m  I n New  South Wales, a P r i v a c y  t w e l v e a n d f i f t e e n members was Committee  Committee  listed  sion,  w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n c e t h a t t h e New  receive  like  t h e New  has p e r s u a s i v e  only.  Committee The  1 4 8  which r e l a t e  over the years.  Z e a l a n d Commission,  powers  Commis-  South Wales  by t h e Committee  seem t o h a v e i n c r e a s e d  Privacy  are s i m i l a r to  and i n v e s t i g a t e i n d i v i d u a l c o m p l a i n t s .  t o t h e media  1 4 7  between  Z e a l a n d ' s Human R i g h t s  number o f c o m p l a i n t s r e c e i v e d  ever,  of  functions  those  may  basis.  e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e  A c t 1975. The C o m m i t t e e ' s a b o v e f o r New  on t h a t  distinct  How-  the Privacy  Committee  1 5 0  Canada Canadian courts making  any d e c i s i o n on w h e t h e r t h e r e  of p r i v a c y , part  have, a l m o s t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , i s a tort  o r e v e n o f f e r i n g any o p i n i o n  more s o t h a n t h e E n g l i s h  i n t e r e s t s , i n a piecemeal  i n order  fashion.  1  4  7  I b i d a t 81; a l s o A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m Unfair Publication, s u p r a n 53, a t 66.  1  4  8  Privacy  Committee  A c t 1975,  5  0  1  5  1  to protect  1 5 1  Commission,  sl5(l)(d).  S a l l y W a l k e r , The Law of Journalism in ( S y d n e y : Law Book Co L t d , 1 9 8 9 ) , 315. 1  of the Canadian  j u d i c i a r y , t o extend the  p u r v i e w o f e x i s t i n g common law a c t i o n s privacy  invasion  on t h e m a t t e r . I n  t h i s h a s b e e n due t o t h e w i l l i n g n e s s  judiciary,  of  avoided  See A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , tion, s u p r a n 53, a t 115.  Australia Unfair  Publica-  See G H L F r i d m a n , The Law of Torts in Canada (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1 9 9 0 ) , v o l 2, a t 192-94; J o h n I r v i n e ' s commen-  One vacy  area  law,  rejected Ltd,  w h i c h may  a r g u a b l y come u n d e r t h e  namely " f a l s e by  invasion  J u d g e i n Parasiuk  the  i n the  light"  following  head of  of p r i v a c y ,  v Canadian  pri-  was  Newspapers  Co  words:  T h e r e i s no f o u n d a t i o n w h a t e v e r f o r c l a i m i n g t h a t f r o m t h e p r i m e v a l mud o f t h e common law i n f o r c e i n M a n i t o b a t h e r e has e v o l v e d t h e t o r t o f " f a l s e l i g h t i n v a s i o n o f privacy": that concept has been fabricated in the markedly different social, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and legal framework o f t h e U n i t e d States. 1 5 2  The  tort  cussed a b o v e , of privacy,  appropriation  1 5 3  is closely allied  i s now  Ontario reject  of  the  courts  h a v e on of  c a s e w h i c h went a l i t t l e was  about the the  tape,  a legal  defendant denied that Saccone  t a r y on Ct) . 152  [  1 9 8 8  p  ]  2  WWR  737  i n Canadian  Saccone  a good f r i e n d o f t h e  asked the  v Orr at  738  the  of  as  law.  declined  plaintiff  v Orr.  plaintiff,  with the  defendant not  recorded without out i t , but  t a p e e x i s t e d . However,  (1981) 19 (Man  CCLT 37  at  39  to  The  1 5 6  found  t o use  1 5 4  One  1 5 5  plaintiff  later  dis-  invasion  r i g h t to p r i v a c y .  f u r t h e r was  c o n s e n t . The and  tort  several occasions  a p r i v a t e telephone conversation h i s knowledge or  to the  firmly established  possibility  d e f e n d a n t , who  of p e r s o n a l i t y which,  the  (Ont  Co  QB).  1  5  3  See  18-19.  1  5  4  See F r i d m a n , s u p r a n 151, a t 194-97, and t h e c a s e s d i s c u s s e d t h e r e i n ; a l s o Joseph v Daniels (1986) 4 BCLR (2d) 239 ( S C ) ; Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA v Casa de Habana Inc (1987) 17 CIPR (2d) 185, 19 CPR (3d) 114 (Ont HC) .  1  5  5  1  5  6  Krouse v Chrysler Canada Ltd (1970) 12 DLR (3d) 463 (Ont C A ) ; Burnett v R (1979) 94 DLR (3d) 281 (Ont HC); Capan v Capan (1980) 14 CCLT 191 (Ont HC). Supra n  151.  defendant played the tape a t a c o u n c i l meeting vindicate lor,  himself  o f an a c c u s a t i o n  and t h e t a p e and an e d i t o r i a l  published The  by a l o c a l plaintiff  privacy,  i n order t o  made by a n o t h e r  council-  a b o u t t h e m e e t i n g were  newspaper.  based h i s c a s e s o l e l y on i n v a s i o n o f  a n d t h e r e was no s p e c i a l damage p r o v e d ,  just  " e m b a r r a s s m e n t " . T h e J u d g e , J a c o b Co C t J , a w a r d e d damages in  t h e amount o f f i v e h u n d r e d d o l l a r s , t o g e t h e r w i t h  in  t h e same amount. He b e g a n b y s a y i n g ,  as  cohesive as I p o s s i b l y  orally,  can i n g i v i n g t h i s  because I r e a l i z e t h a t  we may be t r e s p a s s i n g discussion  "...I w i l l  t r y t o be  judgment  as a r e s u l t of t h i s  on some new l a w " .  costs  After  action,  a brief  o f t h e c a s e s and s t a t i n g t h e f a c t s , he r u l e d a s  follows: . . . i t ' s my o p i n i o n t h a t c e r t a i n l y a p e r s o n must h a v e t h e r i g h t t o make s u c h a c l a i m a s a r e s u l t o f a t a p i n g of a p r i v a t e conversation w i t h o u t h i s k n o w l e d g e , and a l s o as against the publication of the conversation against h i s w i l l or without h i s consent. C e r t a i n l y , f o r want o f a b e t t e r d e s c r i p t i o n a s t o what h a p p e n e d , t h i s i s a n i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , a n d d e s p i t e the very able argument o f d e f e n d a n t ' s counsel t h a t no s u c h a c t i o n e x i s t s , I h a v e come t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f must be g i v e n some r i g h t o f recovery f o r what the defendant has i n t h i s case  The finally  commentary on t h e c a s e d e c l a r e d  "one J u d g e h a s  g r a s p e d t h e n e t t l e a n d p r o c l a i m e d t h e new  However, t h e ( o r a l ) terms,  that  judgment was e x p r e s s e d  and has n o t , as y e t ,  1  5  7  I b i d a t 41.  1  5  8  I b i d a t 46.  1  5  9  Ibid,  in fairly  b e e n a c c o r d e d much  commentary o f I r v i n e  a t 41.  tort".  1 5 9  narrow  significance  by  academic w r i t e r s .  later  case dealing  young o f f e n d e r later  with the  claim"  declined  s t r i k e out  "little,  Saccone  not  clear,  his  decision  the  Saccone  v Orr,  the  on 1 6 3  v Orr  suggested,  the  v Brown,  The  The  basis  of  discussion  been seen, the  invasion of the  as See  had  legal basis  sexually  not  0  1  6  1  1  6  2  Ibid at  234.  1  6  3  Ibid at  234.  1  6  5  (  1 9 8 9  report  is  reserved trial  decision  in  v Ontario  ) 50  RSBC 1979, in 1968.  (1989) 47  CCLT 85 c  336,  supra n  (BC  was  granted  Columbia's  Privacy  the  plaintiff  plaintiff  during  151,  CCLT 231  was  remedy,  prosecuted these offences.  f o r example F r i d m a n ,  6  164  In  f o r the  a w a r d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l damages, h e l d  (P)  1 6 2  the  and  assaulted  taken photographs of her  1  F  was  statement  of p r i v a c y ,  or under B r i t i s h  d e f e n d a n t had  p o l i c e had  well  but  action".  Honour J u d g e J a c o b  has  the  there  "While the  many t i m e s o v e r a number o f y e a r s w h i l e t h e m i n o r , and  in  a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n  164  w h e t h e r a t common law Act.  plaintiff's  as  a  the  of p r i v a c y ,  d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n and  However, as  a  a c t u a l damages were awarded.  I n Harder  w i t h o u t any  merit  c l e a r l y went f u r t h e r t h a n t h i s  as  c l a i m e d on  the  In  1 6 1  claim,  judge s t a t e d ,  in  a photograph of  i f any,  statement of  i t appears t h a t His  proceeded."  considered  f o r damages f o r i n v a s i o n  l e a s t some f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e  citing  was  p u b l i c a t i o n of  judge found  plaintiff's  "at  v Orr  in a correctional i n s t i t u t i o n .  case, the  to  Saccone  1 6 0  the  at p  (Ont  a  assaults.  Wood J ,  that  was  the 192,  as  plainn  18.  DC).  SC).  replacing  the  original  statute  passed  tiff  was  "clearly  ordering  the  remaining  entitled"  t o a mandatory  defendant to r e t u r n  i n his possession  taken of the  plaintiff  or  during  injunction  a l l negatives  c o n t r o l of the  any  and  prints  photographs  continuance of the  sexual  assaults. Harder privacy very  v Brown  being  unjust  called  illustration  upon i n o r d e r  assaults,  and  r e a s o n a b l y be  stretched  to cover t h i s  of the  was  otherwise  no  other  common law  of p r i v a c y  of  one  reported  has  been s a i d not  no  taken action  could  case.  been, p e r h a p s s u r p r i s i n g l y g i v e n  action, only  invasion  a right  uncommon f o r p h o t o g r a p h s t o be  sexual  T h e r e has  of  t o remedy a p o t e n t i a l l y  s i t u a t i o n f o r which there  remedy. I t i s n o t during  is a striking  the  c a s e i n w h i c h an to e x i s t .  1  novelty  action 6  6  for  Turton  In  1 67  v Buttler,™' i n the  even though the  judgment, t h e  disclosed  ton  Sun  the  plaintiff published  case i n those was the  obscene telephone c a l l s . a s k e d them n o t  and  that  She  have  had  such  i t i s clear that  Mas-  she  profession. had  contacted  to p r i n t anything  of p r i v a c y  used  terms.  a m a s s e u s e by fact  never  c l a i m would c l e a r l y  a c t i o n been r e c o g n i s e d ,  Funduk saw The  statement of  a cause of a c t i o n f o r i n v a s i o n  a cause of ter  word " p r i v a c y " was  The  Edmon-  been r e c e i v i n g the  newspaper  f u r t h e r about her,  and as  she  A l t h o u g h s e e t h e d i s s e n t i n g judgment o f W e a t h e r s t o n JA i n Re Zaduk and The Queen (1979) 46 CCC (2d) 327 a t 337 Ont C A ) . F r i d m a n , s u p r a n 151, a t 203, s t a t e s t h a t i t was h e l d i n Parasiuk, s u p r a n 152, t h a t t h e r e was no common law t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y . However, t h e J u d g e ' s r e m a r k s were d i r e c t e d s o l e l y a t " f a l s e l i g h t " i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y ; s e e p 76 a b o v e . 1  6  7  (1987) 42  CCLT 74  (Alta  QB).  was f r i g h t e n e d by t h e caller  to  obscene  be e n c o u r a g e d .  p u b l i c i t y would a f f e c t  She a l s o  have  feared that the However,  on t h e m a t t e r .  was d i s m i s s e d f r o m h e r  s u f f e r e d from d e p r e s s i o n ,  and  and d i d n o t w i s h  her business.  p u b l i s h e d a second a r t i c l e plaintiff  calls  the  the  adverse newspaper  As a r e s u l t  the  employment a n d c l a i m e d  loss  of  sleep,  to  nervousness  embarrassment. The s t a t e m e n t o f c l a i m was s t r u c k  a cause of "nervous  action.  shock",  Counsel f o r the  as  not d i s c l o s i n g  p l a i n t i f f r e l i e d on  b u t M a s t e r Funduk p o i n t e d o u t t h a t  c a n be no c l a i m f o r action.  out  shock u n l e s s  The M a s t e r t o o k t h e  view  it  is  there  c a u s e d by a w r o n g f u l  that:  I t c a n e a s i l y be s a i d t h a t t h e p u b l i c d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f t r u e f a c t s a b o u t a p e r s o n may i n p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s m e n t a l l y e x a c e r b a t e t h a t p e r s o n . However, i t can h a r d l y be s a i d t h a t p e r s o n s h o u l d h a v e a c a u s e of action for that. F o r e x a m p l e , a newspaper p u b l i s h e s t h e t r u e f a c t t h a t a w e l l - k n o w n p u b l i c f i g u r e was b o r n i l l e g i t i m a t e . The b a s t a r d may be m e n t a l l y a g g r i e v e d by t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . H o w e v e r , he h a s no c a u s e o f action. 1 6 8  type  It  is  s u b m i t t e d t h a t Turton  of  case which demonstrates  invasion of p r i v a c y . nothing to  further  needlessly  added t o  v Buttler the  is  need f o r  precisely an a c t i o n  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e  free the  speech  or the  distress  b e i n g v i c t i m i z e d . These i s s u e s  of  will  public  the for  plaintiff did  interest,  and  someone who was  already  be d i s c u s s e d  chapter  in  4. A l t h o u g h none o f t h e icant  taken alone,  I b i d at  77.  the  C a n a d i a n c a s e s may be v e r y  overall picture  that  signif-  emerges f r o m  the  last  Turton  twenty years,  recognition  of a right  common l a w . I t w i l l protection unfolds  v Buttler  aside,  i s one o f g r a d u a l  to privacy meriting  p r o t e c t i o n by t h e  be i n t e r e s t i n g t o o b s e r v e how i n the provinces  where t h e r e  s t a t u t o r y guidance i n t h e matter, notably I n Canada a s i n t h e U n i t e d must be d i s c u s s e d also  not only  States,  i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l context.  Rights  and F r e e d o m s  1 6 9  development o f p r i v a c y certain privacy rights;  i s a s y e t no  i n Ontario.  privacy  i n the context  this  protection  of tort  law b u t  The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f  may p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t t h e law i n t h r e e by i m p e d i n g  ways: b y  guaranteeing  legislative  attempts t o  protect privacy;  and by impeding j u d i c i a l  protect privacy.  Each o f these p o t e n t i a l impacts w i l l  considered  i n p a r t i c u l a r w h i c h may  guarantee c e r t a i n privacy r i g h t s . "Everyone has t h e r i g h t  expectation  d e t e r m i n e d by b a l a n c i n g societal  0  t o be s e c u r e  8  against  provides, unreasonable  purpose of t h i s  i s t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p r i v a c y where t h e r e  "reasonable  y  Section  o r s e i z u r e . " A major u n d e r l y i n g  section  be  i n turn.  T h e r e a r e two s e c t i o n s  search  attempts t o  interests.  1 7 0  of privacy", privacy  reasonableness  interests against  Intrusions  isa being  other  such as i n t e r c e p t i o n o f  P a r t I o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t 1982, b e i n g S c h e d u l e B o f t h e C a n a d a A c t 1982 (UK), c 11 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s the Charter). Hunter v Southam Inc (1984) 11 DLR (4th) 641 a t 652-53 ( S C C ) ; R v Dyment (1988) 55 DLR (4th) 503 a t 512-13 (SCC).  •  •  private  •  i 1 7 1  communications  •  17?  and v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e  b e e n h e l d t o be w i t h i n t h e a m b i t o f t h e p r o v i s i o n .  have I t has  b e e n s a i d t h a t t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y u n d e r s e c t i o n 8: ... l i k e o t h e r C h a r t e r r i g h t s , must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a b r o a d a n d l i b e r a l manner s o a s t o s e c u r e t h e c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t t o a reasonable expectation of p r i v a c y against governmental encroachments. Its spirit must n o t be c o n s t r a i n e d by narrow l e g a l i s t i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s based oh n o t i o n s o f p r o p e r t y a n d t h e l i k e w h i c h s e r v e d t o protect this fundamental human value in earlier times. 1 7 3  However, t h e C h a r t e r a p p l i e s o n l y t o g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n s and  not d i r e c t l y Privacy  and  life,  1 7 5  o f t h e person,  guaranteed  and s e c u r i t y  1  1  7  2  1  7  3  1  7  4  1  7  5  7 of the  and t h e r i g h t n o t  i n accordance  o f fundamental j u s t i c e . " Again,  a p p l i e s o n l y t o governmental  7  by s e c t i o n  o f the person  t o be d e p r i v e d t h e r e o f e x c e p t  1  of the liberty  The s e c t i o n d e c l a r e s , "Everyone has t h e r i g h t t o  liberty  principles  media.  i n t e r e s t s may a l s o be a n a s p e c t  security  Charter.  t o the privately-owned  1 7 4  with the the section  action.  See f o r example R v Finlay & Grellette (1985) 23 DLR ( 4 t h ) 532 (Ont C A ) , l e a v e t o a p p e a l r e f u s e d [1986] 1 SCR ix. See f o r example R v Wong (1987) 34 CCC (3d) 51 (Ont CA) ; R v LeBeau (1988) 41 CCC (3d) 163 (Ont C A ) . R v Dyment, s u p r a n 170, a t 512, s u m m a r i s i n g s t a t e m e n t s i n Hunter v Southam Inc, s u p r a n 170, a t 649-53. S e e s e c t i o n 3 2 ( 1 ) o f t h e C h a r t e r , s u p r a n 169, a n d Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986) 33 DLR (4th) 174 ( S C C ) . See R v Beare (1988) 55 DLR (4th) 481 a t 500-501 ( S C C ) ; Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Att-Gen) (1989) 64 DLR ( 4 t h ) 577 a t 600 p e r L a F o r e s t J ( S C C ) ; R v Smith (1988) 44 CCC (3d) 385 a t 468-71 (Ont H C J ) . To t h e c o n t r a r y s e e Charboneau v College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario (1985) 22 DLR (4th) 303 (Ont H C J ) .  On t h e o t h e r legislative  hand, t h e C h a r t e r  may impede some  a t t e m p t s t o p r o t e c t p r i v a c y by  r i g h t s which c o n f l i c t  with  freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n .  privacy interests,  press  o p i n i o n and e x p r e s s i o n ,  and o t h e r  "freedom o f thought,  i n c l u d i n g freedom o f t h e  media o f communication".  One c a s e i n w h i c h t h e Supreme C o u r t considered and  notably  Under s e c t i o n 2(b) o f t h e C h a r t e r ,  everyone h a s , as a fundamental freedom, belief,  guaranteeing  a conflict  o f Canada  between l e g i s l a t i o n p r o t e c t i n g p r i v a c y  t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantee o f freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n 17 6  was Edmonton Section  Journal  (Attorney-General)  v AZJberta  30(1) o f t h e J u d i c a t u r e A c t o f A l b e r t a  the p u b l i c a t i o n o f information proceedings  judgement o f t h e c o u r t .  to  concise majority section  Section  restricted  matrimonial statement  o f a j u r y and t h e  3 0(2)  t h a t c o u l d be p u b l i s h e d  such i n f o r m a t i o n  '°  s u b m i s s i o n s on p o i n t s o f l a w ,  j u d g e ' s summations, t h e f i n d i n g  information  out of  1 7 7  t o t h e names o f t h e p a r t i e s , a c o n c i s e  o f t h e c h a r g e s and d e f e n c e s , the  arising  .  restricted the  prior  to a c i v i l  trial  a s t h e names o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d a  statement o f the nature of the court decided 2(b) o f t h e C h a r t e r ,  o f t h e c l a i m o r d e f e n c e . The  that both subsections v i o l a t e d a n d a d e c l a r a t i o n was  granted  accordingly. The the  c o u r t was a g r e e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n  freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n  Charter.  guaranteed  I n t h e words o f C o r y J :  6  S u p r a n 175.  7  RSA 1980, c J - l .  d i d infringe  i n s e c t i o n 2(b) o f t h e  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i m a g i n e a g u a r a n t e e d r i g h t more i m p o r t a n t t o a d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y than freedom o f e x p r e s sion. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that f r e e d o m t o e x p r e s s new i d e a s a n d t o p u t f o r w a r d o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . The c o n c e p t o f f r e e and u n i n h i b i t e d speech permeates a l l t r u l y d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . The v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e c o n c e p t c a n n o t be o v e r e m p h a s i z e d . 7  I t was a l s o n o t e d t h a t listeners  freedom  of expression  as w e l l as s p e a k e r s ,  p u b l i c have a r i g h t  1 1 1 7 9  since  8  "protects  "members o f t h e  t o information pertaining t o public 1ftn  institutions The  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  o  u  n e x t q u e s t i o n was w h e t h e r t h e impugned  was j u s t i f i e d  on t h e b a s i s o f s e c t i o n  Charter r i g h t s reasonable justified  the courts".  a r e guaranteed  limits prescribed  1, w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t  " s u b j e c t only t o such by l a w a s c a n be  i n a f r e e and d e m o c r a t i c  society".  r e q u i r e m e n t s must be met f o r l e g i s l a t i o n • ifti s e c t i o n 1. Firstly,  importance  t o warrant  constitutionally protected right  demonstrably Two  t o be s a v e d by  t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e impugned  be o f s u f f i c i e n t  legislation  legislation  overriding a  o r f r e e d o m . I t must be o f a  p r e s s i n g a n d s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . T h e c o u r t was a g r e e d this  was s a t i s f i e d ,  that  a t least with regard t o  Edmonton Journal, s u p r a n 175, a t 607. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t C o r y J h e r e seems t o be r e f e r r i n g p r i m a r i l y t o p o l i t i c a l speech and speech r e l a t i n g t o p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s such as t h e c o u r t s .  1  1  7  9  •  Loyj  1  requirement  must  8  1  I b i d a t 610, q u o t i n g f r o m Ford 54 DLR ( 4 t h ) 577 ( S C C ) . Edmonton  Journal,  ibid  v Quebec  (Att-Gen)  (1988)  a t 610.  T h i s t e s t was o r i g i n a l l y s e t o u t i n R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR ( 4 t h ) 200 (SCC) a n d was r e s t a t e d i n Edwards Books and Art Ltd v The Queen (1986) 35 DLR ( 4 t h ) 1 ( S C C ) .  section  30(1).  I n t h e words o f C o r y J , t h e a i m  l e g i s l a t i o n t o p r o t e c t the p r i v a c y of  of  the  individuals:  ... d o e s i n d e e d r e l a t e t o a p r e s s i n g and substantial c o n c e r n i n a f r e e and d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y . Our society h a s c h e r i s h e d and g i v e n p r o t e c t i o n t o p r i v a c y . T h i s C o u r t has on a number o f o c c a s i o n s u n d e r l i n e d t h e importance of the privacy interest in Canadian law 1  8  2  Secondly,  " t h e means c h o s e n  to a t t a i n those  objectives -1 Q O  must be p r o p o r t i o n a l o r a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e e n d s " . a r e t h r e e components t o t h i s  O  There  J  test:  . . . t h e m e a s u r e s must be c a r e f u l l y d e s i g n e d t o a c h i e v e the objective of the legislation, with a rational c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e o b j e c t i v e . The s e c o n d component i s t h a t t h e measure s h o u l d i m p a i r t h e r i g h t o r freedom as little as possible. Finally, there must be p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y between t h e e f f e c t s of the impugned m e a s u r e s on t h e p r o t e c t e d r i g h t and t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f the o b j e c t i v e . 1 8 4  The  m a j o r i t y of the court f e l t  were more r e s t r i c t i v e of the  individuals  "the l i m i t a t i o n n o t be  least  Edmonton  involved i n the proceedings,  i m p o s e d by t h e  Ibid 41.  intrusive  Journal,  a t 612,  subsections  than necessary t o p r o t e c t the p r i v a c y  e i t h e r the best possible  t o be t h e  that both  legislation limitation  legislation  s u p r a n 175,  at  q u o t i n g f r o m Edwards  even  though  under a t t a c k need nor does i t have  imaginable".  1 8 5  614. Books,  I b i d a t 615, q u o t i n g f r o m R v Whyte 481 a t 495 (SCC).  s u p r a n 181,  (1988) 51 DLR  at  (4th)  I b i d a t 618, p e r C o r y J , D i c k s o n CJC and Lamer J c o n c u r r i n g . L a F o r e s t J , w i t h whom L'Heureux-Dube and Sopinka J J concurred, d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t , b e l i e v e d t h a t s e c t i o n 30(1) was a r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t , b u t g a v e i t a narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W i l s o n J agreed w i t h Cory J but a d v o c a t e d a c o n t e x t u a l r a t h e r t h a n an a b s t r a c t a p p r o a c h t o t h e b a l a n c i n g of t h e i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d (see c h a p t e r 4 below).  i n Canadian  In c o n t r a s t , (Attorney-General)  a provision that 1 87  complainant•  Co v  Canada  t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada h e l d  186  •  Newspapers  a court  shall,  that  on a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e  •  i n a sexual  L O  assault  case,  i s s u e an  order  p r o h i b i t i n g p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e name o r i d e n t i f y i n g d e t a i l s o f t h e c o m p l a i n a n t , was j u s t i f i e d Charter. was  While  i t was a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t  "an i m p o r t a n t v a l u e  lightly",  the limits  "minimal". "since  0  respect  It  i m p o s e d on t h e m e d i a ' s r i g h t s were  the reporting of sexual  plays  a vital  at  of  Canada h a s h e l d ,  Charter,  on t h e b a s i s  "...the Charter  ) 52 DLR (4th)  of  that  c e r t a i n t y with  deciding  decision".  whether 1 8 9  privacy.  T h e Supreme  impact Court  o f s e c t i o n 32(1) o f t h e  a p p l i e s t o t h e common l a w b u t 1 9 0  t o t h e common l a w ... o n l y  1 9 8 8  time  as  may h a v e a l e s s d i r e c t  attempts t o p r o t e c t  that  assault,  role i n that  between p r i v a t e p a r t i e s " .  (  the  seems t h a t t h e C h a r t e r  judicial  PPly  n o t be hampered  A d i s c r e t i o n a r y ban would n o t s u f f i c e ,  0  on  186  ... w h i c h s h o u l d  t o non-publication  to report  a  freedom o f t h e p r e s s  f e a r o f p u b l i c a t i o n i s one o f t h e f a c t o r s  influences  not  under s e c t i o n 1 o f t h e  In other  words,  " i t will  i n s o f a r a s t h e common l a w  690 ( S C C ) .  1 87  •• The p r o v i s i o n a l s o a p p l i e d where t h e p r o s e c u t o r alone r e q u e s t e d t h e o r d e r , and t h e c o u r t , w h i l e n o t r e q u i r e d t o d e c i d e t h e m a t t e r , e x p r e s s e d d o u b t t h a t t h i s was a l s o justified.  1  S u p r a n 186, a t 696.  8  8  Ibid 1  9  0  a t 697 ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) .  Dolphin  Delivery  Ltd,  s u p r a n 174, a t 195.  is  t h e b a s i s o f some g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n " .  reasoned  The c o u r t  1 9 1  as f o l l o w s :  The c o u r t s a r e , o f c o u r s e , bound b y t h e C h a r t e r a s t h e y a r e bound b y a l l l a w . I t i s t h e i r d u t y t o a p p l y t h e law, b u t i n d o i n g s o t h e y a c t a s n e u t r a l a r b i t e r s , n o t as c o n t e n d i n g p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n a d i s p u t e . To r e g a r d a c o u r t o r d e r as an element o f governmental i n t e r v e n t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o i n v o k e t h e C h a r t e r w o u l d , i t seems t o me, w i d e n t h e s c o p e o f C h a r t e r a p p l i c a t i o n t o v i r t u a l l y a l l private l i t i g a t i o n . 1 9 2  However, t h e c o u r t d i d a g r e e to  a p p l y and develop  that "the j u d i c i a r y  the principles  ought  o f common l a w i n a  manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f u n d a m e n t a l v a l u e s e n s h r i n e d i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n " , effect  on p r i v a t e  1 9 3  so t h e Charter w i l l  n o t be w i t h o u t  litigation.  T u r n i n g t o t h e s t a t u t e law, s e v e r a l o f t h e C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e s have enacted of  violation  legislation  creating  o f p r i v a c y . The d r a f t i n g  enacted  following toba,  1 9 7  was B r i t i s h  1  9  1  Ibid  a t 195.  1  9  2  Ibid  a t 196.  1  9  3  Ibid  a t 198.  1 Q4.  1  9  4  The f i r s t  Columbia's P r i v a c y A c t i n 1 9 6 8 ,  a commission o f i n q u i r y Saskatchewan  tort  of the statutes  reveals the influence of the English b i l l s . be  a general  into the m a t t e r .  and N e w f o u n d l a n d  1 9 8  1 9 9  1 9 6  t o.  1 9 5  Mani-  have f o l l o w e d .  •  See O s b o r n e , "The P r i v a c y A c t s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M a n i t o b a a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n " i n G i b s o n , s u p r a n 7, 73 a t 74. 1  9  5  SBC 1968, c 39.  1  9  6  See S a r g e n t , the Invasion  1  9  7  RSM 1987, c P125, o r i g i n a l l y  passed  i n 1970.  1  9  8  RSS 1979, c P-24, o r i g i n a l l y  passed  i n 1974.  Report of the Commission of Privacy, 1967 ( B C ) .  of  Inquiry  into  Three  of the provincial  Osborne,  "The P r i v a c y A c t s o f B r i t i s h  Saskatchewan", here.  statutes are analysed thoroughly i n  and t h a t  2 0 0  However, a b r i e f  Columbia,  analysis w i l l  Manitoba  and  n o t be r e p e a t e d  outline of the relevant provisions  follows. The is  British  a tort,  wilfully vacy in  Columbia  a c t i o n a b l e without  and w i t h o u t  of another."  Saskatchewan  Act c l a r i f i e s a natural  provides that " I t  p r o o f o f damage, f o r a p e r s o n ,  a claim of right,  to violate  the p r i -  S u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same w o r d i n g  2 0 1  and N e w f o u n d l a n d ,  2 0 2  2 0 3  i s used  b u t t h e Newfoundland  t h a t t h e one whose p r i v a c y i s v i o l a t e d must be  person.  In Manitoba, "unreasonable" that  Act, as r e v i s e d ,  2 0 5  2 0 4  t h e v i o l a t i o n must be " s u b s t a n t i a l " a n d r a t h e r than  "the defendant,  having  "wilful",  but i t i s a  acted reasonably  i n that  defence regard,  n e i t h e r knew o r [ s i c ] s h o u l d r e a s o n a b l y h a v e known t h a t t h e act,  conduct  o r p u b l i c a t i o n . . . w o u l d have v i o l a t e d  the p r i -  o n  vacy  o f any p e r s o n " .  ableness  A l s o , other p r o v i n c e s import  i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n a t u r e and degree  1  9  9  S Nfld  1981, c 6.  2  0  0  Supra  2  0  1  2  0  2  S a s k , s 2.  2  0  3  Nfld,  s 3(1).  2  0  4  Nfld,  s 2.  2  0  5  Man, s 2 ( 1 ) .  2  0  6  Man, s 5 ( b ) .  n 194.  RSBC 1979, C 336, s 1 ( 1 ) .  reason-  of privacy to  which a person being  given  to the  Three of tions,  the  without  However, t h e not  is entitled  fact  Co  a notion, ing  Ltd  since  of the  Acts  that  the  as  general  British  A number o f  toba, •  the  Columbia  has  of the  as  conduct  domestic or other,  effect  health,  the  p o s i t i o n of the s 1(2);  The  i n the  8  such mean-  tort  list  of  of  separate t r e a t -  being  relevant  the  m  "nature, . 9 1 9  question;  the  parties;  social,  plaintiff  or  family members;  business or 2 1 4  2 1 3  the  7  BC,  2  0  8  Man,  2  0  9  Supra n  2  1  0  Man,  s 3 ( c ) ; Sask, s 3 ( c ) ; N f l d ,  2  1  1  BC,  s3.  2  1  2  BC, s 1 ( 3 ) ; 3(2) .  Man,  s 4(2)(a);  Sask, s 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) ;  Nfld,  s  2  1  3  BC, s 1 ( 3 ) ; 3(2) .  Man,  s 4(2)(c);  Sask, s 6 ( 2 ) ( c ) ; N f l d ,  s  2  1  4  Man,  152,  at  s 4(2)(b);  Nfld,  s  3(2).  4.  739.  Sask, s  6(2)(b).  s  the  finan-  0  S a s k , s 3;  the  i n Mani-  or  s  to  2  s 3;  was  2 1 1  between t h e  Nfld,  0  ordinary  welfare,  Sask, s 6 ( 1 ) ;  2  Canadian  •  occasion"  viola-  of p r i v a c y "  been v i o l a t e d o r ,  relationship, on  2 0 9  i s given  statute. listed  tort.  v  the  award o f damages. T h e s e i n c l u d e and  2 0 7  ,  •  incidence  cial  ,  and  f a c t o r s are  •  regard  l e g i s l a t u r e of  i s included  cases,  of whether p r i v a c y  the  provision.  J i n  ment i n t h e  invasion  come w i t h i n  of p e r s o n a l i t y  examples i n a l l t h r e e  question  light  s e e n i n Parasiuk  i t would not  •  others".  g e n e r a l i t y of the  a r e j e c t i o n by  words o f t h e  appropriation  was  "due  some e x a m p l e s o f p r i v a c y  "false  listed  circumstances,  i n t e r e s t s of  list  limiting  specifically  Newspapers  lawful  i n the  4(c).  conduct of t h e p a r t i e s before tion,  and a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d  viola-  i n c l u d i n g a n y a p o l o g y o r o f f e r o f amends made by t h e  defendant; suffered  2 1 5  and t h e " d i s t r e s s , annoyance o r embarrassment"  by t h e p l a i n t i f f  In B r i t i s h action  or family  members.  2 1 6  Columbia and Newfoundland, t h e r i g h t o f  i s extinguished  by t h e d e a t h o f t h e p e r s o n whose p r i -  v a c y was a l l e g e d l y v i o l a t e d .  N o t a b l y t h e two  provinces  which s p e c i f i e d t h e e f f e c t of the a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n family  of the p l a i n t i f f  as being  relevant  on t h e  to l i a b i l i t y or  damages, n a m e l y M a n i t o b a a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n , d i d h o t i n c l u d e such a p r o v i s i o n . Consent, express o r i m p l i e d , provinces.  must be o b t a i n e d  PIP  .  ,  whereas i n t h e o t h e r  Acts,  i t i s a defence that the  of defence of person or p r o p e r t y ,  Sask, s  consent  t o consent".  v i o l a t i o n was i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e e x e r c i s e  s 4(2)(e);  from t h e  provinces  f r o m "some p e r s o n e n t i t l e d  In a l l t h e Privacy  right  i n a l l four  I n M a n i t o b a c o n s e n t must be o b t a i n e d  person affected,  alleged  i s a defence  of a  and t h e r e  2 2 0  lawful i s no  2  1  5  Man,  6(2)(d).  2  1  6  Man, s  2  1  7  BC, s 5; N f l d ,  2  1  8  Man,  2  1  9  BC, s 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ;  2  2  0  BC, s 2 ( 1 ) ( b ) ; Sask, s 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) ; N f l d , s 5 ( 1 ) ( b ) . I n Mani t o b a i t must a l s o be r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f such a r i g h t , and r i g h t s t o p r o t e c t o t h e r interests are included; s 5(c).  4(2)(d). s 11.  s 5(a) . Sask, s 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) ;  Nfld,  s  5(1)(a).  liability  f o r a p u b l i c a t i o n which i s p r i v i l e g e d under t h e  laws o f d e f a m a t i o n . The all  four  public  2 2 1  interest exception  statutes,  t h i s exception.  there  In B r i t i s h  i s no l i a b i l i t y  public  p u b l i c a t i o n was in to fair  a m a t t e r of The  was o b t a i n e d .  the  be a " r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f "  the public  with  comment on  interest.  Saskatchewan s t a t u t e  goes f u r t h e r .  Not o n l y  will i t  t h e r e were r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e f  ment on a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c  interest or f a i r  i n t e r e s t , but there  is a  that com-  further  e x c e p t i o n f o r t h e news m e d i a . A p e r s o n e n g a g e d  news g a t h e r i n g caster  on t h e that  i n t e r e s t , although  p u b l i c a t i o n was e i t h e r o f p u b l i c  special  was o f  In Manitoba,  comment, i t must i n f a c t be f a i r  public  suffice that  Columbia and Newfoundland  comment on a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c  o t h e r hand, t h e r e n e e d o n l y  respect  i n t h e wording  T h e d e f e n c e d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o t h e means b y  2 2 2  which t h e matter p u b l i s h e d  the  differences  t o the courts.  where " t h e m a t t e r p u b l i s h e d  i n t e r e s t o r was f a i r  interest".  expressed i n  and i t s d e f i n i t i o n i s l e f t  However, t h e r e a r e some m a t e r i a l of  i s simply  will  t i o n which  [ s i c ] f o r a newspaper o r a l i c e n s e d  n o t be l i a b l e  f o r any a c t ,  "was r e a s o n a b l e  in a  broad-  conduct or p u b l i c a -  i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d ...  2  2  1  BC, s 2 ( 2 ) ( b ) ; s5(2)(b).  Man, s 5 ( f ) ( 2 ) ; Sask, s 4 ( 2 ) ( b ) ;  2  2  2  BC, s 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) ;  Nfld,  2  2  3  Man, s 5 ( f ) . The words " i n " a n d " o f " h a v e b e e n h i g h l i g h t e d b e c a u s e t h e f a c t t h a t two d i f f e r e n t w o r d s were u s e d s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e M a n i t o b a l e g i s l a t u r e meant o r e x p e c t e d them t o be i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y .  s  Nfld,  5(2)(a).  necessary  f o r or i n c i d e n t a l  activities".  2 2 4  This defence Act,  to allay  was  a d d e d on t h e s e c o n d  t h e f e a r s o f t h e m e d i a and  t h e p r e s s w o u l d n o t be suggested  fully protected.  t h a t the requirement  i n the circumstances", gathering a c t i v i t i e s , General's On  and  2 2 5  I t has  and  " l e n d s some s u p p o r t t o t h e  immune f r o m  the Act of very  legitimate  interest  i n d e e d t o be  There provincial  Attorney-  to  S u c h an use  by  interpret effect.  the  i n the r e s u l t i n g defence  reason  be  that  a c t i o n s be  their  interpretation  "news" i t e m .  prino  It is  receive a  narrow  2 2 7  p r i v a c y s t a t u t e s as y e t . I t has  t h i s may  of  in protecting  will  Some  media  h a v e n o t b e e n many c a s e s r e p o r t e d u n d e r  that  2 2 6  e v e n where t h e p u b l i c h a d  "hoped t h a t t h i s  interpretation".  liability  little  news-  superfluous".  o f p r i v a c y by  "ordinariness".  from media i n t r u s i o n s ,  been  "reasonable  s o a s t o g i v e i t some i n d e p e n d e n t  frequency  would r e n d e r vacy  the o p p o s i t i o n that  t h e o t h e r hand, t h e c o u r t s a r e l i k e l y  c o u l d be h e l d t o be  the  t h e r e f e r e n c e t o ordinary  t h e most f r e q u e n t v i o l a t i o n s  very  reading of  t h a t t h e a c t be  c l a i m t h a t t h e d e f e n c e was  the p r o v i s i o n of  t o o r d i n a r y news g a t h e r i n g  due  t o the requirement  brought  2  2  4  Sask, s  2  2  5  See  2  2  6  Ibid  at  107-8.  2  2  7  Ibid  at  107.  been  i n each  i n t h e Supreme C o u r t o f  4(1)(e)  O s b o r n e , s u p r a n 194,  at  107  the  surmised of the the  Acts  province, Saccone  thus  i n v o l v i n g expense and p u b l i c i t y .  v Orr,  2 2 9  z  ° In  w h i c h was d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e C o u n t y  C o u r t J u d g e n o t e d t h a t t h e damages awarded t o t h e p l a i n t i f f were on t h e S m a l l C l a i m s C o u r t s c a l e , what l o w e r  s o h e s e t c o s t s some-  than t h e County Court s c a l e .  Even i n t h a t  case,  t h e n , w h i c h was d e c i d e d a t common l a w s i n c e O n t a r i o h a s no privacy court,  statute,  a n d c o u l d t h e r e f o r e be h e a r d  One  case  BC Broadcasting  System  defendant  television  dispute. A journalist plaintiff,  Columbian  Ltd  s t o r e w h i c h was i n v o l v e d  i n a bitter  owned a  station decided t o run a story  declined  The j o u r n a l i s t  filming  across the street.  said  t h a t he d i d including the  and a photographer  started  T h e n t h e y moved t o t h e  and c o n t i n u e d f i l m i n g . A s c u f f l e  followed i n  h i s son and a s e c u r i t y guard  t h e microphone and f i l m  tried to  from t h e j o u r n a l i s t and  The p h o t o g r a p h e r  filmed part  of this skirmish,  P e t e r B u r n s , "The Law a n d P r i v a c y : The C a n a d i a n e n c e " (1976) 54 Can Bar Rev 1 a t 38. See  on t h e  t o be i n t e r v i e w e d  team on h i s p r e m i s e s ,  parking-lot.  photographer.  retail  f r o m t h e s t a t i o n met w i t h t h e  n o t want t h e t e l e v i s i o n  which t h e p l a i n t i f f ,  v  l a b o u r d i s p u t e . The  a f t e r t h e s t r i k e was o v e r . He a l s o  parking-lot  against the  P r i v a c y A c t , was Silber  The p l a i n t i f f  230  but the p l a i n t i f f  from  covered  of bringing the action.  i n w h i c h a n a c t i o n was b r o u g h t  media, under t h e B r i t i s h  wrest  lower  t h e damages a n d c o s t s t o g e t h e r w o u l d n o t h a v e  the cost t o t h e p l a i n t i f f  until  by a  s u p r a n 152.  (1986) 25 DLR ( 4 t h ) 345  (SC).  Experi-  and  an  edited version  broadcasts that night The  first  violation was  no  lot  was  full  film  the  was  The  matter of p u b l i c illustrated  the  was  judge h e l d  interest since v o l a t i l i t y and  T h e r e was  television or t h a t  c r e w had  no  t h a t the  high  Privacy  Act  which i s d o u b t f u l , "  ^ -  Ibid at  352.  2  I b i d at  354.  JJ  3  2  the  in  f e e l i n g s which  the  p l a i n t i f f behaved  light  i t d i d not  apply  a  appeared  invasion  broadcast that  film  to the  the  might g i v e  in a violent  'false  of  parking  judge r u l e d t h a t  room f o r t h e  was  dispute".  mention i n the  so  film  the  else, i t  b e e n warned t o k e e p o f f t h e  leaves  the  broadcast of  that  "false  i n t e m p e r a t e manner. However, t h e the  there  even though  " i f nothing  labour  t h e y were t r e s p a s s i n g ,  impression  that  events took place  whether the  p l a i n t i f f also alleged  privacy".  a  x  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s The  f i l m i n g was  of privacy"  since the  The  news  day.  whether the  a busy s t r e e t .  violated privacy.  shown on  judge, Lysyk J , h e l d  p r i v a t e property,  second question  was  next  "reasonable expectation  The  t o be  and  question  of p r i v a c y .  view of  film  of the  light'  lot the  and "even i f doctrine,  circumstances  of  the  present  broadcast; The dismissed  c a s e . 233 i t was  T h e r e was  merely misleading  by  false  in  the  i t s incompleteness.  j u d g e awarded n o m i n a l damages f o r t r e s p a s s the  counterclaim  Other cases under the generally  nothing  been  for  assault.  2 3 4  provincial Privacy  u n s u c c e s s f u l . 235  The  and  Acts  have  Canadian c o u r t s ,  also  despite  I b i d a t 354-55. I n F r i d m a n , s u p r a n 151, a t 203, the j u d g m e n t i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a c c e p t i n g t h a t f a l s e l i g h t "was one f o r m o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t o u t i n t h e A c t , b u t n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t " . For t h i s reason P r o f e s s o r Fridman sees a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e judgment i n Silber and t h a t i n Parasiuk, s u p r a n 152, w h i c h r e j e c t e d t h e " f a l s e l i g h t " d o c t r i n e . However, t h e j u d g e i n Silber only noted that " f a l s e l i g h t " was one f o r m o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y i n American law. As n o t e d a b o v e , he s a i d t h a t he d o u b t e d t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P r i v a c y A c t l e f t room f o r i t . An a p p r o a c h w h i c h m i g h t h a v e y i e l d e d a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t w o u l d be t o c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e s o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and " f a l s e l i g h t " t o g e t h e r . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e f i l m " i l l u s t r a t e d ... v o l a t i l i t y and h i g h f e e l i n g s " , i t d i d s o i n a q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g way, by t h e o m i s s i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was known t o t h e j o u r n a l i s t s and was v i t a l t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g the whole i n c i d e n t . A r g u a b l y , t h e b r o a d c a s t o f t h e f i l m w i t h o u t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was not o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , even though (or perhaps f o r the v e r y reason that) i t s p u b l i c a t i o n together with the e x p l a n a t o r y m a t e r i a l would have been of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The a r g u m e n t m i g h t be e v e n s t r o n g e r where t h e s t a t u t o r y defence i s t h a t the p u b l i c a t i o n i s " i n " the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , t h o u g h , t h a t i t w o u l d s t i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n had v i o l a t e d p r i v a c y f o r t h e r e t o be l i a b i l i t y . Davis v McArthur (1971) 17 DLR (3d) 760 (BCCA), r e v ' g (1969) 10 DLR (3d) 250 (BCSC); Belzberg v BC Television Broadcasting Ltd (1981) V a n c o u v e r C803082 (BCSC), s u m m a r i s e d i n Silber, s u p r a n 230, a t 350; Wooding v Little (1982) 24 CCLT 37 (BCSC); Bingo Enterprises Ltd v Plaxton (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 604 (Man CA), a f f ' g (1985) 36 Man R (2d) 249 (QB); Parasiuk, s u p r a n 152. One s p e c u l a t i v e reason f o r t h i s record of f a i l u r e i s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s may p r e f e r t o s e t t l e o u t o f c o u r t t o a v o i d p u b l i c i t y r e g a r d l e s s of the s t r e n g t h of t h e i r case, whereas d e f e n d a n t s have l e s s i n c e n t i v e t o s e t t l e i f t h e y b e l i e v e t h e y may s u c c e e d i n c o u r t . One c a s e i n w h i c h n o m i n a l damages were r e c o v e r e d was ICBC v Somosh (1983) 51 DCLR ( S C ) .  the  p r o m i s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s a t common law, seem t o be  adopting a rather provincial  conservative  Privacy  Acts.  approach i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e  One w r i t e r h a s commented a s  follows: I t seems c l e a r t h a t , despite t h e views o f textbook w r i t e r s and o t h e r commentators o v e r t h e p a s t hundred years, Canadian judges a r e not convinced t h a t there i s any g r e a t o v e r w h e l m i n g n e e d f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t remedy f o r ... v i o l a t i o n s o f p r i v a c y . 2 3 6  Conclusion To  summarise t h e p r e c e d i n g  survey of recent  ments i n t h e l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n o f p r i v a c y the  media i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e  towards such p r o t e c t i o n , firmly the  against  f r o m i n c u r s i o n s by  has been s i g n i f i c a n t  but t h e balance remains,  progress  as y e t ,  t h e i n d i v i d u a l . The Canadian c o u r t s ,  E n g l i s h and A u s t r a l i a n c o u r t s ,  tort  develop-  of invasion  of privacy  seem w i l l i n g  unlike  t o develop a  a t common law, a n d t h e r e  have  a l s o b e e n e n c o u r a g i n g s t a t e m e n t s f r o m t h e New Z e a l a n d  courts  in  inter-  favour  esting  o f s u c h a d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e r e h a v e b e e n some  statutory  provinces,  initiatives  i n s e v e r a l o f t h e Canadian  b u t t h e r e s u l t s have so f a r been r a t h e r  disap-  pointing. Various  approaches t o t h e exception  for publication i n  the  p u b l i c i n t e r e s t have been noted,  and  t h e C a n a d i a n s t a t u t e s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d w i l l  c u s s e d more f u l l y  i n the English  i n the chapters that  bills  be d i s -  follow.  F r i d m a n , s u p r a n 151, a t 204, a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g t h e c a s e s l i s t e d a b o v e a t n 235.  some o f  97 i  CHAPTER 4 THE  The  MEDIA AND  FREEDOM OF  i s s u e which o c c a s i o n s  s i o n s of p r i v a c y law privacy values  and  EXPRESSION  the most concern i n d i s c u s -  i s undoubtedly the c o n f l i c t between  the v a l u e of freedom of e x p r e s s i o n .  i s s u e i s a l l the more c r i t i c a l  The  i n a discussion focusing  on  the media, s i n c e the media have a c r u c i a l r o l e i n a system of f r e e  expression.  Freedom of e x p r e s s i o n tant value  i s indeed an e x c e e d i n g l y  impor-  i n a democratic s o c i e t y . However, i t w i l l  argued i n t h i s chapter t h a t t h e r e between p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t s and  i s less real  be  conflict  freedom of speech than i s  o f t e n supposed. Various  reasons f o r v a l u i n g f r e e speech w i l l  i d e n t i f i e d , and  i t w i l l be seen t h a t the some of  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r safeguarding s i m i l a r t o those d i s c u s s e d  be the  freedom of speech are  very  i n chapter 2 f o r r e s p e c t i n g  i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . I t w i l l be argued t h a t , s i n c e i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h speech from a c t i o n ,  expressive  a c t i v i t y warrants p r o t e c t i o n o n l y i n as much as the f o r v a l u i n g freedom of e x p r e s s i o n context.  Freedom of e x p r e s s i o n  apply  reasons  i n the p a r t i c u l a r  cannot be balanced  against  p r i v a c y i n the a b s t r a c t , but r a t h e r both i n t e r e s t s must a s s e s s e d i n context.  The  media should  not be the  ultimate  judge of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , s i n c e powerful p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s are a t work i n the media.  be  The  position will  be t a k e n t h a t  of genuine p u b l i c concern unless to  inform  a p r i v a t e matter  i t s publication  test  whether t h e r e  f r e e speech value  i s a significant  weighed a g a i n s t  i s proposed t o determine  c a n be r e s o l v e d  simply  p e r s o n t o whom p r i v a t e m a t e r i a l  significant First  is  by n o t i d e n t i f y i n g  r e l a t e s , w i t h o u t any  harm t o e i t h e r , f r e e s p e e c h o r p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t s .  This  i s nearly  a s complex a t a s k  p r i v a c y ; t h e l i n e between e x p r e s s i o n  The  t o be  i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e f i n e what i s meant b y  expression.  difficult  that the  t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t i n p r i v a c y . Many  supposed c o n f l i c t s the  functions  t h e p u b l i c i n t h e wide range o f c h o i c e s  p u b l i c must make. A t h r e e - p a r t  i s not  as d e f i n i n g  and a c t i o n i s a  one t o draw. C a n a d i a n Supreme C o u r t h a s s t a t e d s i m p l y ,  expressive  i f i t . attempts t o convey meaning."  many f o r m s o f e x p r e s s i o n  do n o t c o n s c i o u s l y  1  "Activity However,  attempt t o  c o n v e y a n y m e a n i n g . F o r example, a p a i n t i n g o r a p i e c e o f m u s i c may d i r e c t l y  express c e r t a i n f e e l i n g s o r impulses o r  something q u i t e u n d e f i n a b l e  i n i t s creator, without  being  m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h p r o p o s i t i o n a l t h o u g h t . To r e q u i r e a c o m p o s e r t o be a b l e  "to identify  veyed"*" may be q u i t e a yawn i s a r g u a b l y natural  A  2  inappropriate.  "expression"  impulse which  deliberate  t h e meaning b e i n g c o n To t a k e a n o t h e r  whether i t i s s i m p l y  i s not s t i f l e d  a t t e m p t t o communicate  example, a  o r whether i t i s a  boredom.  Irwin Toy Ltd c Quebec (Procureur General) (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 577 a t 606, p e r D i c k s o n C J C , Lamer a n d W i l s o n , J J . I b i d a t 613 a n d 614.  Such problems i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g have c o n f r o n t e d cases  speech from  t h e c o u r t s on many o c c a s i o n s ,  such  conduct as i n  on p i c k e t i n g o r t h e d i s p l a y o r d e s e c r a t i o n o f f l a g s .  3  One w r i t e r , i n commenting on t h e a r b i t r a r y  and i n c o n s i s t e n t  way i n w h i c h s u c h  has  cases  are often decided,  concluded:  It i s ... n o t s u r p r i s i n g that the [United States] Supreme C o u r t h a s n e v e r a r t i c u l a t e d a b a s i s f o r i t s d i s t i n c t i o n [between s p e e c h a n d c o n d u c t ] ; i t c o u l d n o t do s o , w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t a n y p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t c a n be hung a l m o s t r a n d o m l y on t h e " s p e e c h " p e g o r t h e " c o n d u c t " p e g a s one s e e s f i t . 4  T h i s may be a n o v e r s t a t e m e n t core area  o f the matter,  o f e x p r e s s i o n on w h i c h t h e r e  as w e l l a s a c o n s i d e r a b l e g r e y may i n c l u d e n e a r l y e v e r y The conduct  difficulty  area.  5  as t h e r e  i s general  isa  agreement,  However, t h e g r e y  c o n c e i v a b l e form o f  o f drawing t h e l i n e  conduct.  area  6  between s p e e c h and  s h o u l d prompt c a u t i o n i n a p p l y i n g f r e e  speech  prin-  ciples t o defeat privacy claims. Privacy-invasive publications  l a c k one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t  features of expression,  F o r examples and d i s c u s s i o n s e e L a u r e n c e H T r i b e , American Constitutional Law, 2nd e d ( M i n e o l a , New Y o r k : F o u n d a t i o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 8 ) , 825-32. See a l s o Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986) 33 DLR ( 4 t h ) 174 a t 186-87. 4  Ibid  5  T h e same t e r m s a r e d e l i b e r a t e l y u s e d h e r e a s were u s e d b y t h e " J u s t i c e " Committee on P r i v a c y i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e a r e a o f a p e r s o n ' s l i f e w h i c h i s " p r i v a t e " . See " P r i v a c y and t h e Law" p 5, p a r a 18, q u o t e d i n Report of the Committee on Privacy ( c h a i r m a n : K e n n e t h Y o u n g e r ) , Cmnd. 5012, 1972 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Younger Committee Report), a t 17. I t i s i n t e n d e d t o e m p h a s i s e t h e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e p r o b l e m s i n d e f i n i n g what s h o u l d be p r o t e c t e d a s " p r i v a t e " a n d what s h o u l d be p r o t e c t e d as " e x p r e s s i o n " . Cf  a t 827.  " t h e g r e a t e s t p a r t o f human a c t i v i t y h a s a n e x p r e s s i v e e l e m e n t " Irwin Toy, s u p r a n 1, a t 609-10.  n a m e l y r e m e d i a b i l i t y . I n t h i s way t h e y than  r e s e m b l e a c t i o n more  s p e e c h . One o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n a n a l y s e s  expression  o f freedom o f  states:  T h i s j u d g m e n t [ o f w h e t h e r c o n d u c t i s t o be c l a s s i f i e d a s s p e e c h o r a c t i o n ] must be g u i d e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f whether t h e conduct p a r t a k e s o f t h e e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s o f e x p r e s s i o n o r a c t i o n . I n t h e main t h i s i s a q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e harm a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e c o n d u c t i s immediate and i n s t a n t a n e o u s , and whether i t i s i r r e m e d i a b l e e x c e p t by p u n i s h i n g and t h e r e b y p r e v e n t i n g t h e conduct.  The indeed  harm r e s u l t i n g  from an i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y i s  immediate and i r r e m e d i a b l e , as P r o f e s s o r T r i b e h a s  pointed out: One h e l p f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a t l e a s t , i s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e harm done by a s t a t e m e n t i s t r u l y o f a s o r t t h a t "more s p e e c h " c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y c u r e . T o be s u r e , t h e t r u t h may n e v e r q u i t e c a t c h up w i t h a l i e , b u t a t l e a s t i n cases o f i n j u r e d r e p u t a t i o n a chance t o c l e a r o n e ' s name a f t e r t h e f a c t may s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e d u c e , i f i t c a n n o t w h o l l y e r a s e , t h e harm. I n c a s e s involving c l e a r b r e a c h e s o f p r i v a c y , however, t h e v e r y i d e a t h a t more t a l k c o u l d do a n y t h i n g b u t a d d i n s u l t t o i n j u r y betrays a misunderstanding of the character of the harm. Once t h e c a t i s o u t o f t h e b a g , i t c a n n o t be p u t back. To t h i s degree, a r e t u r n t o t h e c o n c e p t a t t h e h e a r t o f Chaplinsky - t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h o s e communic a t i o n s "which by t h e i r v e r y u t t e r a n c e i n f l i c t i n j u r y " - may p r o v i d e one o f t h e few s t e a d y g u i d e s i n a p o o r l y charted sea.  Since lies  "the essence  i n the distinction  privacy-invasive protected the  o f a system o f freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n between e x p r e s s i o n a n d a c t i o n " ,  statements  s h o u l d n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y be  i n t h e name o f " f r e e s p e e c h " . A t t h e v e r y  irremediability  9  o f an i n v a s i v e p u b l i c a t i o n  least,  suggests  that  7  Thomas I Emerson, "Toward a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f t h e F i r s t Amendment" (1963) 72 Yale LJ 877 a t 917. 8  T r i b e , supra  n 3, 890.  Emerson, s u p r a  n 7, a t 955.  injunctive relief p r i v a c y cases  o u g h t t o be g r a n t e d  than  more r e a d i l y i n  i n defamation a c t i o n s .  1 0  A s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g speech action  i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e reasons  accorded  t o "expression",  doubtful c a s e s .  A  than  and t o u s e t h o s e  albeit  some f o r m s o f e x p r e s s i o n others  f o r the special protection  i n an u n c l e a r  The  t o decide  t o the rationale for  to below.  fashion.  bear a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p protection, there  stronger p r o t e c t i o n i n these cases, returned  reasons  T h i s i s t h e approach which t h e c o u r t s  appear t o use i n p r a c t i c e , Since  from  should  a p o i n t which w i l l  be  be  1 2  well-known a n a l y s i s o f P r o f e s s o r Emerson p r o v i d e s  g o o d summary o f t h e commonly r e c o g n i s e d  a  functions of free  speech: The values sought by s o c i e t y i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g h t t o f r e e d o m o f e x p r e s s i o n may be g r o u p e d i n t o f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s . Maintenance o f a system of free expression i s necessary (1) a s a s s u r i n g individual self-fulfillment, (2) a s a means o f a t t a i n i n g t h e t r u t h , (3) a s a method o f s e c u r i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e members of society i n social, including political, decision-making, a n d (4) a s m a i n t a i n i n g the balance between s t a b i l i t y and change i n s o c i e t y . C f Tucker v News Media Ownership Ltd [1986] 2 NZLR 716 a t 734-35. Of c o u r s e , i t a l s o s u g g e s t s t h e f o l l y o f m a k i n g f u r t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n t h e m a i n remedy a v a i l a b l e ; s e e t h e . comments i n c h a p t e r 3 a b o v e on t h e U n i t e d Kingdom P r e s s Council. T h i s seems t o be what P r o f e s s o r T r i b e means when he s a y s " M e a n i n g m i g h t be p o u r e d i n t o t h e s p e e c h - c o n d u c t d i c h o t o m y by r e f e r e n c e t o a system o f f r e e e x p r e s s i o n t h a t p e r m i t s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a c t s t h a t s h o u l d be p r o t e c t e d b y t h e f i r s t amendment." T r i b e , s u p r a n 3, 8^27. See  p  107ff.  Emerson, s u p r a n 7, a t 878-79. Emerson's f o u r t h c a t e g o r y w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d , s i n c e i t seems t o i d e n t i f y a r e s u l t of the f u l f i l m e n t of the other three functions  Especially  i n regard t o the f i r s t  the assuring of i n d i v i d u a l for  freedom  privacy, purpose  of these  self-fulfilment,  of expression are very similar  functions,  t h e c l a i m s made t o t h o s e made f o r  d i s c u s s e d i n c h a p t e r 2. I t h a s b e e n s a i d t h a t t h e o f g u a r a n t e e i n g freedom  of expression i s :  ...to ensure t h a t everyone can m a n i f e s t t h e i r thoughts, opinions, b e l i e f s , indeed a l l expressions of t h e heart and m i n d , however u n p o p u l a r , d i s t a s t e f u l o r c o n t r a r y t o t h e mainstream. S u c h p r o t e c t i o n i s ... " f u n d a m e n t a l " because i n a f r e e , p l u r a l i s t i c and d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y we p r i z e a d i v e r s i t y o f i d e a s a n d o p i n i o n s f o r t h e i r inherent value both t o t h e community and t o t h e individual.  T h i s statement  i s reminiscent of P r o f e s s o r Westin's  ments c o n n e c t i n g p r i v a c y w i t h t h e " d e v e l o p m e n t ality", and  and w i t h "independent  non-conformity". Likewise,  integral part  thought,  argu-  of individu-  diversity  o f views,  1 5  Emerson's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e development  o f e x p r e s s i o n a s "an  of ideas,  o f mental i 6  exploration  and o f t h e a f f i r m a t i o n  of self",  parallels  r a t h e r t h a n a s e p a r a t e f u n c t i o n . F o r E m e r s o n ' s v i e w s on t h e i s s u e o f b a l a n c i n g p r i v a c y and f r e e speech i n t e r e s t s , s e e "The R i g h t o f P r i v a c y a n d Freedom o f t h e P r e s s " (1979) 14 Harv CR-CLL Rev 329. 14 Irwin  Toy, s u p r a n 1, a t 606.  15 A l a n F W e s t i n , Privacy and Freedom (New Y o r k : Atheneum, 1 9 6 7 ) , 34, q u o t e d more f u l l y i n c h a p t e r 2 a b o v e . 16  Emerson, s u p r a n 7, a t 879. A n o t h e r s t a t e m e n t i n a s i m i l a r v e i n i s : " E x p r e s s i o n i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l p r e l u d e o f a c t i o n : i t i s t h e e x p l o r a t i v e mid-world between t h o u g h t a n d t h e commitment o f d e e d ; i t i s a g r o w t h f u n c t i o n f o r a l l mental c r e a t i o n . " W i l l i a m E r n e s t H o c k i n g , Freedom of the Press: A Framework of P r i n c i p l e , A R e p o r t f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n on Freedom o f t h e P r e s s ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1947; r e p r . New Y o r k : Da Capo P r e s s , 1972), 72-73.  Westin's d e s c r i p t i o n process  o f forming  Again,  just  of the v i t a l  and t e s t i n g  role  of privacy i n the  independent  opinions.  a s B l o u s t e i n saw i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y a s " a  b l o w t o human d i g n i t y ,  an a s s a u l t  on human  personality",  Emerson a s s e r t s t h a t " s u p p r e s s i o n o f b e l i e f , expression of  i s an a f f r o n t  man's e s s e n t i a l Clearly,  categories, the  to the dignity  nature".  then,  C o n f l i c t may a r i s e  regards  i n respect of the f i r s t  toward  individual  o f Emerson's  decision-making  self-fulfilment.  forself-realization,  Emerson's t h i r d  out that p a r t i c i p a t i o n  first  o f man, a n e g a t i o n  1 3  e x p r e s s i o n and t h e o t h e r through  the  o p i n i o n and  i n a s i t u a t i o n where two i n d i v i d u a l s o r  groups a r e s t r i v i n g  pointed  1 8  p r i v a c y and freedom o f e x p r e s s i o n a r e h e a d i n g i n  same d i r e c t i o n ,  As  1 7  privacy. category,  i n social  must i n t u r n be j u s t i f i e d  category  one t h r o u g h  2 0  i t h a s been  and p o l i t i c a l by r e f e r e n c e t o  of values:  ...once one a s k s why s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t a n d p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e t o be v a l u e d , one i s a p t t o come t o a n answer t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y s u g g e s t s a b r o a d e r ground f o r v a l u i n g freedom o f speech.... T h e o r i s t s d e f e n d i n g f r e e speech as c r u c i a l t o t h e p o l i t y i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s y s t e m a r e i n c l i n e d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e "why" b y a r g u i n g  1  7  is  Westin,  supra  n 15, 34, q u o t e d  i n chapter  2 above,  Edward J B l o u s t e i n , " P r i v a c y a s a n A s p e c t o f Human D i g n i t y : An Answer t o Dean P r o s s e r " , i n Individual and Group Privacy (New B r u n s w i c k , New J e r s e y : T r a n s a c t i o n B o o k s , 1 9 7 8 ) , 9 a t 13.  1  9  Emerson, s u p r a  n 18, a t 879.  2  0  Some t h e o r i s t s v i e w t h e p r o m o t i o n o f d e m o c r a t i c s e l f government as t h e main o r o n l y r e a s o n f o r t h e s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n o f s p e e c h ; one o f t h e f o r e m o s t e x p o n e n t s i s A l e x a n d e r M e i k l e j o h n , s e e Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965).  that political p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s valuable i n part because i t enhances personal growth and selfrealization. 2 1  It  can therefore  expression, direction  of self-realization.  third  and  not only  I t could  i nthe  be a d d e d t h a t  good b o t h d i r e c t l y  self-government  f o r the  (Emerson's  I n t h e same way, i t h a s b e e n a r g u e d fosters self-realization  free  f o r the  c a t e g o r y ) and i n d i r e c t l y  through f a c i l i t a t i n g  category).  privacy is  this ultimate  (Emerson's f i r s t  listener  freedom o f  and s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t a r e a l l h e a d i n g  speech serves speaker  be s a i d t h a t p r i v a c y ,  directly,  that but also  " e s s e n t i a l t o d e m o c r a t i c government because i t f o s t e r s e n c o u r a g e s t h e m o r a l autonomy o f t h e c i t i z e n " .  2 2  F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p r i v a c y may h a v e a more direct  e f f e c t i n e n c o u r a g i n g p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t . Some p e o p l e  w o u l d be more w i l l i n g affairs  t o s p e a k o u t and p a r t i c i p a t e i n p u b l i c  i f t h e y knew t h a t  t h i s would n o t g i v e  carte blanche t o p u b l i s h a l l kinds  o f i r r e l e v a n t and  embarrassing d e t a i l s about t h e i r p r i v a t e Tribe,  s u p r a n 3, a t 787  Ruth Gavison, " P r i v a c y Yale LJ 421 a t 455.  t h e media  lives.  2 3  (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) .  a n d t h e L i m i t s o f Law"  (198 0)  89  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o know j u s t how much t a l e n t may h a v e b e e n l o s t t o s o c i e t y due t o t h e d e s i r e t o a v o i d u n w a n t e d p u b l i c i t y . P r o f e s s o r Wacks m e n t i o n s t h a t a n e a r l y r e s e a r c h e r i n t h e f i e l d o f ovum f e r t i l i s a t i o n who was " s i c k e n e d " by p r e s s harassment withdrew from h i s r e s e a r c h a l t o g e t h e r ; s e e Raymond Wacks, Protection of Privacy, Modern L e g a l S t u d i e s S e r i e s ( L o n d o n : Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 0 ) , p 116, n 82. L i k e t h e s u p p o s e d o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n p r i v a c y a n d f r e e s p e e c h , t h e way i n w h i c h some w r i t e r s h a v e s e t p r i v a c y i n o p p o s i t i o n t o "community" may be m i s g u i d e d , i n t h a t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c i v i l a c t i o n s f o r i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y may e n c o u r a g e community i n v o l v e m e n t by d e c r e a s i n g i t s r i s k s . F o r a n example o f a d i s c u s s i o n o f p r i v a c y a s a g a i n s t community,  In the selves in  to  the  order to  volved" are their  United  States,  p e r s o n s who  "have t h r u s t  f o r e f r o n t of p a r t i c u l a r p u b l i c  influence  the  r e s o l u t i o n of  labelled "public  l e g a l r i g h t to privacy.  the  f i g u r e s " and Professor  them-  controversies issues  l o s e much  Gavison  inof  comments:  [ I ] t c a n be a r g u e d t h a t r e s p e c t f o r p r i v a c y w i l l h e l p a society attract talented individuals to public life. P e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n g o v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e must consider t h e l o s s o f v i r t u a l l y a l l c l a i m s and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f p r i v a c y i n c a l c u l a t i n g the costs of running f o r p u b l i c o f f i c e . Respect f o r p r i v a c y might reduce those c o s t s . 2 6  In the  same way,  encourage f r e e reason to tive  and  protection  e x p r e s s i o n and  believe deterrent  that  of p r i v a c y  may  more open d e b a t e . T h e r e  i r r e l e v a n t p u b l i c i t y can  e f f e c t on  actually  t h o s e who  is  have a  would speak out  punion  s e e R i c h a r d F H i x s o n , Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights in Conflict (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 7 ) ; however n o t e t h a t H i x s o n i s a d d r e s s i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c o n c e p t o f p r i v a c y which encompasses noni n t e r f e r e n c e by g o v e r n m e n t i n p r i v a t e c h o i c e s a s w e l l as limited accessibility. Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc, q u o t e d i n Wacks, i b i d a t  418 US 102.  323  at  325  (1974);  as  T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l s e t o u t an a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and i d e n t i t y . P r o b l e m s i n t h e c o n c e p t o f a p u b l i c f i g u r e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n c h a p t e r 5. G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 22, a t 456. Of c o u r s e , p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l s some l o s s o f p r i v a c y , and p r i v a c y must n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o be u s e d as a c l o a k f o r m a t t e r s i n w h i c h t h e p u b l i c has a g e n u i n e c o n c e r n . However, p u b l i c i t y i s o f t e n q u i t e u n w a r r a n t e d , e s p e c i a l l y where i t c o n c e r n s t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h o s e i n t h e p u b l i c e y e . A m e r i c a n e x - P r e s i d e n t R i c h a r d N i x o n has expressed h i s view t h a t , "Highly q u a l i f i e d people are b e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y r e l u c t a n t t o t a k e Government p o s i t i o n s i n W a s h i n g t o n b e c a u s e t h e y d o n ' t want t o expose t h e i r f a m i l i e s t o t h i s m e r c i l e s s scrutiny"; q u o t e d i n " I C o u l d See No R e a s o n t o L i v e " , Time (New Y o r k ) , A p r i l 2 1990, 43, f r o m a f o r t h c o m i n g book.  106 public  issues or question  sociologist privacy  has  observed  i s surrendered  by  m a i n s t r e a m t h o u g h t and "a w i d e s p r e a d a s s u m p t i o n a l m o s t any  or d i s r e s p e c t f o r , conventional John S t u a r t M i l l freedom of he  this  standards of  to  against  A  2 7  that  form of d e v i a n c e  from,  behaviour  i s o f t e n quoted f o r h i s f e r v e n t  expression  a l s o had  values.  1 1  .  support  governmental i n c u r s i o n s ,  2 8  of but  say:  P r o t e c t i o n . . . a g a i n s t the tyranny of the magistrate is n o t enough: t h e r e needs p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e t y r a n n y of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the t e n d e n c y o f s o c i e t y t o i m p o s e . . . i t s own i d e a s and p r a c t i c e s a s r u l e s o f c o n d u c t on t h o s e who d i s s e n t from them. 2 9  While the goals may  of  p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y w i l l  freedom of e x p r e s s i o n ,  have o n l y  been p o i n t e d freedom of  the out  some i n s t a n c e s  remotest connection that  often  further of  the  expression  to these goals.  f u n d a m e n t a l human r i g h t s s u c h  It  has  as  expression:  . . . c a n be r e g a r d e d as u n c o n d i t i o n a l o n l y i f we refrain f r o m g i v i n g r e a s o n s f o r them (as by c a l l i n g them s e l f e v i d e n t o r a x i o m a t i c ) . I f we g i v e r e a s o n s f o r them and t h e r e a r e r e a s o n s f o r o u r b e l i e f i n them - t h o s e reasons s t a t e the c o n d i t i o n on which the right is c l a i m e d . F o r if the facts proposed in the given reason are not present in any case, the ground for the claim F o r example, a member o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom p a r l i a m e n t was h a r a s s e d by j o u r n a l i s t s when h e r m a r r i a g e b r o k e up. The P r e s s C o u n c i l h e l d t h a t t h e p u b l i c i t y was w a r r a n t e d s i n c e she had b e e n o u t s p o k e n on women's i s s u e s . See G e r a l d D w o r k i n , " A p p e n d i x : The R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on t h e P r e s s " , i n Privacy, ed. J o h n B Young ( C h i c h e s t e r : J o h n W i l e y & Sons, 1 9 7 8 ) , 330. Denis McQuail, i b i d a t 188.  "The  Mass M e d i a and  Privacy",  i n Young,  J o h n S t u a r t M i l l as q u o t e d by G S t u a r t Adam, "Why Should t h e P r e s s Be F r e e ? A J o u r n a l i s t ' s R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e C h a r t e r " i n R o b e r t M a r t i n and G S t u a r t Adam, A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law ( O t t a w a : C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , 113 a t 117.  in that case vanishes. T h i s p o i n t i s so o b v i o u s has g e n e r a l l y e s c a p e d a t t e n t i o n .  Clearly there expression than an  i s cause t o grant  significantly  where t h e r e  S u c h an approach",  text".  3 1  Wilson  a p p r o a c h has  c o n d u c t and  I n Edmonton  a contextual  f r e e speech  a l s o been c a l l e d  have a d i f f e r e n t  J of the  Journal  a  value  C a n a d i a n Supreme C o u r t  between  "contextual  d e p e n d i n g on  v Alberta  speech  values.  that a particular  right  the  or  con-  (Attorney-General), advocated t h e use  approach t o r e s o l v e a c o n f l i c t  ing the p r i v a c y of p a r t i e s i n matrimonial  32  of  between p r o t e c t -  disputes  a l l o w i n g media r e p o r t s , of such p r o c e e d i n g s . as  of f r e e  i s o n l y a very tenuous connection  since " i t recognizes  f r e e d o m may  s t r o n g e r p r o t e c t i o n where  f u r t h e r s the goals  instance of expressive  that i t  She  and  elaborated  follows: The c o n t e x t u a l a p p r o a c h a t t e m p t s t o b r i n g i n t o sharp r e l i e f the a s p e c t of the r i g h t or freedom which i s t r u l y a t s t a k e i n t h e c a s e as w e l l as t h e r e l e v a n t a s p e c t s o f any v a l u e s i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h i t . I t seems t o me t o be more s e n s i t i v e t o t h e reality of the dilemma p o s e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and therefore more c o n d u c i v e t o f i n d i n g a f a i r and j u s t c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n t h e two c o m p e t i n g v a l u e s . . . . I t i s my v i e w t h a t a r i g h t o r f r e e d o m may have d i f f e r e n t meanings i n d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . ...It seems e n t i r e l y p r o b a b l e that the value to be attached t o i t i n d i f f e r e n t contexts f o r the purpose of t h e b a l a n c i n g u n d e r s. 1 m i g h t a l s o be d i f f e r e n t . 3 3  Hocking,  supra  n  16,  72-73  (emphasis  added).  Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Attorney-General) DLR ( 4 t h ) 577 a t 583-84, p e r W i l s o n J ( S C C ) . Ibid, 3  3  Ibid  d i s c u s s e d above a t p at  584.  83-85.  (1989)  64  In t h e case i n question, anced t h e p u b l i c parties  the contextual  approach b a l -  i n t e r e s t i n guaranteeing the privacy of  i n matrimonial disputes  against  the public interest  i n knowing t h e d e t a i l s o f such p r o c e e d i n g s . The a l t e r n a t i v e would be t o p i t a r i g h t t o p r i v a c y  i n the abstract  the  whole p r i n c i p l e o f freedom o f t h e p r e s s ,  and  ultimately futile  rather  than  approach,  lending  a frustrating  itself  to rhetoric  abstract  approach i s  reason.  Perhaps even worse t h a n a p u r e l y t o attempt t o weigh a s p e c i f i c abstract  against  privacy  interest against the  i n t e r e s t i n freedom o f speech. As W i l s o n J p u t t h e  matter: One t h i n g seems c l e a r a n d t h a t i s t h a t one s h o u l d n o t b a l a n c e one v a l u e a t l a r g e a n d t h e c o n f l i c t i n g v a l u e i n i t s c o n t e x t . To do s o c o u l d w e l l be t o p r e - j u d g e t h e i s s u e b y p l a c i n g more w e i g h t on t h e v a l u e d e v e l o p e d a t large than i s appropriate i n the context of t h e case. 3  Nevertheless, discussions press  this kind  of privacy  i s particularly  o f t h i n k i n g p l a g u e s many  law d e s p i t e prone t o c a s t  i t s obvious flaws.  i t s arguments i n such  weighted terms, as t h e f o l l o w i n g quote from t h e Committee  Report  The  Younger  illustrates:  P e r h a p s t h e p r e s s e v i d e n c e t o u s c a n . b e b e s t summed up in t h e words o f one l e a d i n g spokesman, who asked w h e t h e r t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f some n e w s p a p e r s a n d some r e p o r t e r s f r o m t i m e t o t i m e were, i n sum, s o o u t r a g e o u s t h a t t h e v e r y p r i n c i p l e o f freedom o f speech needed t o be s u b o r d i n a t e d t o a g e n e r a l r i g h t o f p r i v a c y . 3 5  The  retort offered  i n the minority  evidences h i s support f o r a contextual  3  4  3  5  report  approach:  I b i d a t 582. Y o u n g e r Committee  Report,  o f D M Ross  s u p r a n 5, a t 39.  I t h i n k t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s h o u l d be p u t more f a i r l y thus - whether freedom o f speech i s so important t h a t i t s h o u l d p r e v a i l o v e r an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y [ i t s h o u l d be a d d e d , i n e v e r y c a s e ] , a n d i n my o p i n i o n , i t s h o u l d o n l y s o p r e v a i l where it can be shown to be in the public interest. 36  It  i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o adopt  approach, accorded  dividing  i n t o broad  c a t e g o r i e s which a r e  v a r y i n g amounts o f p r o t e c t i o n .  distinction and  speech  a semi-contextual  F o r example, a  i s drawn i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s b e t w e e n  non-commercial  speech,  w i t h t h e former  more l i m i t e d p r o t e c t i o n t h a n t h e l a t t e r . c o u r t s have r e j e c t e d  such c a t e g o r i s a t i o n ,  nature of the s p e c i f i c as a f a c t o r is  submitted  both  that  raise  instead taking the  expression i n question into  a fully  c o n t e x t u a l approach,  account 3 8  It  assessing the  f o r m s o f e x p r e s s i o n on a  case-by-case  f u r t h e r problems o f d e f i n i t i o n .  avoid u n f a i r l y weighting the scales,  interests  Ibid  Canadian  i s preferable t o the adoption of r i g i d categories,  which merely To  The  granted  i n t h e b a l a n c i n g p r o c e s s under t h e C h a r t e r .  functions of different basis,  3 7  being  commercial  3 9  n o t o n l y must  s h o u l d be w e i g h e d i n c o n t e x t , b u t a l s o  a t 215 ( e m p h a s i s  "both  added).  See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc, 425 US 748 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v New York Public Service Commission, 447 US 557 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; T r i b e , s u p r a n 3, 890904. See Ford v Quebec 609-619 ( S C C ) .  (Att-Gen)  (1988) 54 DLR  ( 4 t h ) 577 a t  One example o f s u c h a p r o b l e m i s w h e t h e r p o l i t i c a l advertising i s primarily " p o l i t i c a l " or "advertising"; s e e M a r t i n a n d Adam, s u p r a n 29, a t 87. NB: t h e s e c t i o n h e a d e d "A N o t e on A d v e r t i s i n g a n d F r e e E x p r e s s i o n " was w r i t t e n b e f o r e Ford v Quebec, s u p r a n 38, was d e c i d e d . See a l s o T r i b e , s u p r a n 3, 894-99.  i n t e r e s t s must b e s e e n a s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s " . interest  The p r i v a c y  4 0  t o be weighed i s t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p u b l i c i n  protecting the privacy  of individuals i nlike  cases  generally. Freedom o f t h e p r e s s of  expression,  oneself  i n other  c a n be seen a s a p a r t  words a s t h e freedom t o e x p r e s s  through the organised  m e d i a . However, c l e a r l y n o t  everyone h a s a c c e s s t o media f a c i l i t i e s ; p e o p l e do. I t h a s been s a i d t h a t and  exclusive  power."  4 1  o f freedom  i nfact,  "Communication  access t o i t i s a dangerous,  In a similar vein  i s t h e view,  v e r y few  i s power,  unchecked  "An o v e r p o w e r i n g ,  o m n i s c i e n t , m i n o r i t y - c o n t r o l l e d media i s always a danger t o both t h e i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y . . . . " t h a t t h e media, is  T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n  4 2  i n t h e Commonwealth a s i n t h e U n i t e d  c o n t r o l l e d by a s m a l l  minority.  In fact  the  o f m e d i a o w n e r s h i p i n t h e h a n d s o f a few l a r g e has  been t h e s u b j e c t  inquiries Edmonton  of public consternation  i n the different countries. Journal,  States,  concentration corporations  and o f f i c i a l  4 3  s u p r a n 31, a t 582 p e r W i l s o n J .  S e n a t o r J W F u l l b r i g h t , 4 A u g u s t 1970, q u o t e d i n H e r b e r t B r u c k e r , Communication is Power: Unchanging Values in a Changing Journalism (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973) . J o h n D a v i d V i e r a , "Images a s P r o p e r t y " i n Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film, and Television, ed. L a r r y Gross, John S t u a r t Katz, and J a y Ruby (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1988) 135 a t 138. See f o r example Royal Commission on the Press 1947-9 Report, Cmnd 1811 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ; Royal Commission on the Press 1961-2 Report, Cmnd 1811 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ; a n d Royal Commission on the Press 1974-7 Final Report, Cmnd 6810 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S e e a l s o A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 11, Unfair Publication:Defamation and Privacy (Canberra: A u s t r a l i a n Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 8 ) , 23.  The one  n e e d t o k e e p a c h e c k on  reason  s h o u l d be concern.  for rejecting the  final  t h e power o f t h e m e d i a i s  t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e media  j u d g e o f what m a t t e r s  are of p u b l i c  C o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f what t h e p u b l i c i s i n t e r e s t e d i n ,  much l e s s what i s o f g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n , the  only factors determining  publish.  itself  The  traditional  r e p r e s e n t i n g the p u b l i c ,  a r e by  no  what t h e m e d i a c h o o s e s  to  liberal and  as  view of the p r e s s "a w a t c h d o g  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f power, w h e t h e r p o l i t i c a l  means  as  against or economic", i s  inadequate: T h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a f r e e p r e s s may h a v e seemed p l a u s i b l e i n m i d - V i c t o r i a n B r i t a i n when i t was still p o s s i b l e f o r groups of working people t o launch g r e a t n a t i o n a l n e w s p a p e r s , and when t h e p r e s s a s a w h o l e r e f l e c t e d an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y w i d e s p e c t r u m o f p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . But t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l i b e r a l t h e o r y o f p r e s s f r e e d o m h a s become s t e a d i l y l e s s c o n v i n c i n g a s t h e gap b e t w e e n r h e t o r i c and r e a l i t y h a s w i d e n e d . 4 4  The  very nature  early nineteenth media has  Jean  century,  and  b e e n r e p l a c e d by  whose p r i m a r y and  o f t h e media has  income s o u r c e  the  a diverse, circulation-based  a few  very  large corporations  i s advertising.  Seaton have a n a l y s e d  contrary t o the  changed s i n c e  this  c h a n g e and  orthodox i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  James  Curran  argued  that:  The p e r i o d a r o u n d t h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . . . d i d n o t i n a u g u r a t e a new e r a o f p r e s s f r e e d o m and l i b e r t y : i t i n t r o d u c e d a new s y s t e m o f p r e s s c e n s o r s h i p more e f f e c t i v e than anything t h a t had gone before.  James C u r r a n and J e a n S e a t o n , Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in 2nd ed (London and New Y o r k : Methuen, 1985),  Britain, 285.  I b i d , c h a p s 1-7 and 16; s e e a l s o Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New Y o r k : P a n t h e o n Books, 1 9 8 8 ) , 1-18.  Market failed  forces s u c c e e d e d where i n c o n s c r i p t i n g the press  C u r r a n and press  organised  eighteenth to  stifle  and  and  and  working c l a s s e s  read  by  the  early nineteenth  century.  t h i s movement t h r o u g h t h e  were f i n a n c e d  and  highest  laws o f  During the press  c i r c u l a t i o n s of the by  I t was  more e f f e c t i v e l y k e e p t h e  of the  president  Repeal of the  r e p e a l would c r e a t e  the  large  of the  libel  radical  contemporary  increase  i n check.  Association  f o r the  i n the  the  costs i n the  Promotion  h a n d s o f men  s u c c e s s f u l , and The  so was  the of  capital".  4 7  objective  main e f f e c t o f t h e  o f newspaper a d v e r t i s i n g , amount o f  would  For  Knowledge m a i n t a i n e d t h a t  of  press.  have  a f r e e market  o f r e s p e c t a b i l i t y , and  radical  t o reduce the  argued t h a t  "a c h e a p p r e s s  c a m p a i g n was  curbing  attempts  seditious The  late  readership.  r a d i c a l press  T a x e s on  good m o r a l c h a r a c t e r , The  i n the  1850s, however, a c a m p a i g n mounted t o  taxes repealed.  example, t h e  their  radical  Government  t h r o u g h o n e r o u s t a x a t i o n were u n s u c c e s s f u l .  press,  a  4 6  r a p i d growth of a  the  was  repression had social order.  Seaton note the  p a p e r s had  of  legal to the  repeals  leading  to  advertising:  [A]11 c o m p e t i t i v e l y p r i c e d n e w s p a p e r s - i n c l u d i n g t h o s e with very l a r g e c i r c u l a t i o n s - became d e p e n d e n t on advertising. Advertisers thus acquired a de facto l i c e n s i n g a u t h o r i t y s i n c e , w i t h o u t t h e i r s u p p o r t , newsp a p e r s c e a s e d t o be e c o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e . 4 8  C u r r a n and Ibid  at  31.  Ibid  at  41.  Seaton,  s u p r a n 44,  at  9.  Advertisers advertisements,  preferred  an " u p m a r k e t " a u d i e n c e f o r t h e i r  as t h e f o l l o w i n g  a d v e r t i s i n g manual  quote  from a  contemporary  illustrates:  C h a r a c t e r i s o f more i m p o r t a n c e t h a n number. A j o u r n a l t h a t c i r c u l a t e s a t h o u s a n d among t h e n i p p e r o r m i d d l e c l a s s e s i s a b e t t e r medium t h a n w o u l d b e one c i r c u l a t i n g a h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d among t h e l o w e r c l a s s e s .  The  new d e p e n d e n c e on a d v e r t i s i n g  radical  papers, despite  The  to the closure  double that  the  o f t h e Daily  o f The  ran at a l o s s .  One w r i t e r as  Times,  Herald  i n 1964, a w o r k i n g  had a c i r c u l a t i o n almost  t h e Guardian  t o g e t h e r . As a d v e r t i s i n g  paper  support has  i n t o t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . C u r r a n and Seaton  c l a s s p a p e r w h i c h when i t c l o s e d  added  f o r the  t h e i r large c i r c u l a t i o n s .  c r u c i a l importance o f a d v e r t i s i n g  continued point  was d i s a s t r o u s  revenue  a n d Financial declined,  Times  however,  5 0  has e x p l a i n e d  t h e importance  of advertising  follows: To make s e n s e o f A u s t r a l i a ' s m e d i a m o n o p o l i e s , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o g e t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e media and a d v e r t i s i n g t h e r i g h t way r o u n d : c o m m e r c i a l mass m e d i a a r e n o t news a n d f e a t u r e s b a c k e d up by a d v e r t i s i n g ; on the contrary, the commercial mass media are advertisements which carry news, features and entertainment in order to capture audiences for the advertisers.... It is a complete mistake t o analyse the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m e d i a and a d v e r t i s i n g by s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e media's prime f u n c t i o n i s t o s e l l a d v e r t i s e d products t o a u d i e n c e s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e media's j o b i s t o s e l l audiences t o advertisers.  Ibid  a t 43.  Ibid  a t 107-8.  McQueen, Humphrey, Australia's Media Monopolies (Camberwell, V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a , 1977); a s q u o t e d i n D a l l a s W Smythe, Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness and Canada (Norwood, New  Sometimes i n f l u e n c e f r o m a d v e r t i s e r s more o f t e n and  i t simply  thus a higher  which w i l l  takes the  form of  i s overt,  a higher  demand f o r ,  revenue from, c e r t a i n t y p e s of  a t t r a c t c e r t a i n types of  but  programmes  audiences:  Advertisers will want ... to avoid programs with s e r i o u s c o m p l e x i t i e s and d i s t u r b i n g c o n t r o v e r s i e s t h a t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e " b u y i n g mood." T h e y s e e k p r o g r a m s that w i l l l i g h t l y e n t e r t a i n . . . . 5 3  Not  only  i n f l u e n c e on  a d v e r t i s i n g but what m a t e r i a l  ownership can  is published.  5 4  exert  some  In B r i t a i n  for  example:  Jersey: Ablex Publishing (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) .  Corporation,  1981),  14  See Herman and Chomsky, s u p r a n 45, a t 16-17, f o r e x a m p l e s . B a r r y Z w i c k e r , i n "Where commerce, j o u r n a l i s m meet", The Globe and Mail, 15 September 1990, Dl, d i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e o f a d v e r t i s i n g b o y c o t t s , commenting: "[A] b o y c o t t i s one k i n d o f e v e n t i n a s p e c t r u m t h a t i s t h e norm. The s i z e and v e r y e x i s t e n c e o f so many r e v e n u e - r e l a t e d s e c t i o n s s u c h as t r a v e l , a u t o m o b i l e s and r e a l e s t a t e i s p r o o f o f how t h e v e r y s t r u c t u r e o f n e w s p a p e r s i s skewed by ad r e v e n u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . " The a r t i c l e a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t p u b l i s h e r s do n o t l i k e t o p u b l i s h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y a r e b e i n g b o y c o t t e d , and g a v e an e x a m p l e o f a b o y c o t t e d p a p e r p r i n t i n g a s t a t e m e n t d e n y i n g t h a t t h e r e had b e e n a b o y c o t t . One p r o m i n e n t e x a m p l e o f b o t h o v e r t and de f a c t o c e n s o r s h i p by a d v e r t i s e r s i s t h e e f f e c t on c o v e r a g e o f s m o k i n g - r e l a t e d h e a l t h i s s u e s o f r e l i a n c e on a d v e r t i s i n g f r o m t o b a c c o c o m p a n i e s , as documented by e m p i r i c a l and anecdotal e v i d e n c e ; s e e K e n n e t h E Warner, Selling Smoke: Cigarette Advertising and Public Health ( W a s h i n g t o n , DC: A m e r i c a n P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 8 6 ) , 74-81. Herman and  Chomsky, s u p r a n 45,  17.  See R o b e r t M a r t i n , "Does L i b e l Have a ' C h i l l i n g E f f e c t ' i n C a n a d a ? " i n M a r t i n and Adam, s u p r a n 29, 757 a t 75859. A f u r t h e r f a c t o r o t h e r t h a n p u b l i c i n t e r e s t w h i c h a f f e c t s what i s p u b l i s h e d i s t h e e a s e o f o b t a i n i n g t h e m a t e r i a l , and h e n c e r e l i a n c e on i n s t i t u t i o n a l sources. See C u r r a n and S e a t o n , s u p r a n 44, a t 270-72; Herman and Chomsky, s u p r a n 45, a t 18-25.  Many o f t h e b e s t - k n o w n n e w s p a p e r s a r e k e p t a l i v e o n l y by t h e p r o f i t s o f t h e i r c o n g l o m e r a t e p a r e n t s ' other interests. They are the kept mistresses o f major c o r p o r a t i o n s o p e r a t i n g i n a w o r l d where p o l i t i c s a n d b u s i n e s s i m p i n g e on one a n o t h e r . T h e t r a d i t i o n a l c l a i m made f o r the press that i t is a fourth estate, u n c o m p r o m i s e d a n d i n d e p e n d e n t , no l o n g e r h o l d s g o o d . 5 5  G i v e n t h e r e a l i t i e s o f modern mass m e d i a , p r e s s is  best  regarded  subservient  as being  derived  freedom  from freedom o f s p e e c h and  toi t :  Freedom o f t h e p r e s s i s a r i g h t b e l o n g i n g , likea l l r i g h t s i n a democracy, t o a l l t h e p e o p l e . As a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h o u g h , i t c a n be e x e r c i s e d o n l y b y t h o s e who h a v e e f f e c t i v e a c c e s s t o t h e p r e s s . Where f i n a n c i a l , economic, and t e c h n o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s l i m i t such access t o a small minority, the exercise of that r i g h t by t h a t m i n o r i t y t a k e s on f i d u c i a r y o r q u a s i - f i d u c i a r y characteristics. The e x c l u s i v e e x e r c i s e o f a g e n e r a l r i g h t by a l i m i t e d m i n o r i t y c a n be j u s t i f i e d o n l y i f the e x e r c i s e i s o f such a c h a r a c t e r as t o r e a l i z e t h e g e n e r a l p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h t h e r i g h t was e s t a b l i s h e d . 5 6  In other to merit  words, p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e mass m e d i a ,  p r o t e c t i o n , o u g h t t o be j u s t i f i e d by s o m e t h i n g more  than merely the i n d i v i d u a l  self-fulfilment  who h a p p e n s t o h a v e a c c e s s  t o o u t l e t s denied  person.  of the j o u r n a l i s t to the ordinary  S u c h f u r t h e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n may be f o u n d  motion of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t their  i n order  f o r those  own t h o u g h t s o r o p i n i o n s  i n the pro-  o f t h e p u b l i c who  expressed,  5 7  find  i n contributing  C u r r a n a n d S e a t o n , s u p r a n 44, a t 292. See a l s o Herman and Chomsky, s u p r a n 45, a t 3-14. From a n o t e by A r c h i b a l d M a c L e i s h i n H o c k i n g , a t 99.  supra  n 16,  As p o i n t e d o u t i n Raymond Wacks, Personal Information: Privacy and the Law ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , a t 74, t h e n o t i o n o f s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t i s more a p p l i c a b l e t o the e x p r e s s i o n o f ideas than i n f o r m a t i o n , so i s " o f l i m i t e d u t i l i t y " i n d i s c u s s i n g p r i v a c y law.  t o p u b l i c debate ing the p u b l i c It  and the attainment o f t r u t h ,  in their  or i n inform-  decision-making.  f o l l o w s t h a t t h e freedom  o f the p r e s s as an  important d e m o c r a t i c y a l u e s h o u l d not be d e f i n e d as "the freedom  o f a p u b l i s h e r t o p u b l i s h what h e w i s h e s " .  better definition  o f freedom  A  5 8  o f the press i s :  . . . t h a t freedom from r e s t r a i n t which i s e s s e n t i a l t o enable p r o p r i e t o r s , e d i t o r s and j o u r n a l i s t s t o advance the public interest by p u b l i s h i n g t h e f a c t s and o p i n i o n s without which a democratic e l e c t o r a t e cannot make r e s p o n s i b l e j u d g e m e n t s . 5 9  The  p u b l i c a t i o n o f a p r i v a t e matter  g e n e r a l l y does l i t t l e  t o further  informs decision-making. is  not r e l e v a n t  i n t h e media  f r e e speech  I n o t h e r words,  unless i t  i f a private  t o any o f the broad range  matter  o f c h o i c e s which  t h e p u b l i c must make, t h e n n e i t h e r w i l l  attainment o f t r u t h  on t h e m a t t e r  good. A l s o ,  be a s i g n i f i c a n t  societal  been p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t  i t has i s more*  a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f i d e a s and o p i n i o n s t h a n t o the d i s c l o s u r e  o f information, so i s "of l i m i t e d  discussing privacy  law.  utility" in  6 0  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was a d o p t e d i n t h e B r i t i s h Royal Commission on the Press 1961-2 Report, s u p r a n 43; a s q u o t e d i n C u r r a n a n d S e a t o n , s u p r a n 44, a t 2 97. T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was a d o p t e d i n t h e B r i t i s h Royal Commission on the Press 1974-7 Final Report, s u p r a n 43; a s q u o t e d i n C u r r a n a n d S e a t o n , s u p r a n 44, a t 296-97. In quoting t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i t i s not intended t o p l a c e any e m p h a s i s on t h e word " e s s e n t i a l " o r t o o t h e r w i s e s u g g e s t a more r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n t h a n t h e r e s t o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n s u g g e s t s . I t i s t o b e assumed t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t w i l l be advanced by p u b l i s h i n g t h e s a i d f a c t s and o p i n i o n s , r a t h e r than any s e p a r a t e i n q u i r y b e i n g made i n t o t h e p u b l i c b e n e f i t . Wacks, Personal  Information,  s u p r a n 57, a t 74.  Emerson's  third  category,  making,  can therefore  concept  of  public in  informing  goal  of  it  argument  of  on whether  process  for  already  discussed,  cess,  does not  Falsehood to  that  the  is  the  not  the  Furthermore,  where  the  which  a  they  make.  must  partly 6  of  topic  to  exchange of  the  is  be  value  one w h i c h  that  although  of  genuine  the  this  ideas  falsehood is  rectified  is  public  of  the  goal  tend  "the  best  truth of  by more is  called  "more  for.  As  3  this  more  pro-  speech,  and the  damage  speech.  assumed  ideas",  of  6  publications.  case,  concerns the is  6 5  of  principles  a privacy  "marketplace  "social judgment"  been remarked  main  for  of  of  the  and d i s c o v e r i n g t r u t h " .  the  in  to  on a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n  privacy-invasive  issue  cannot  the  of  decision-  is  members  Discussions  2  free  remedy  apply  individual  discussions  one  6 4  A matter  1  to  truth. the  6  in  some c o n t e n t  be u s e f u l  advancing knowledge  namely  simply  will  rests  give  concern.  choices that  attainment  centre  used to  public  concern i f  This  to  genuine  be  participation  in  and r i g h t l y public,  one  However,  open d i s c u s s i o n  of  so on  it  has  public  61  T h e m o r e common e x p r e s s i o n s , " o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " a n d " i n the public interest", are ambiguous. Although they are u s u a l l y i n t e n d e d t o be synonymous w i t h " o f g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n " , t h e y c a n a l s o b e t a k e n t o mean " o f i n t e r e s t t o the p u b l i c " and " b e n e f i c i a l t o the p u b l i c " r e s p e c t i v e l y . See P h i l i p H O s b o r n e , "The P r i v a c y A c t s of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Manitoba and Saskatchewan", i n Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1 9 8 0 ) , 73 a t 95-96. See a l s o Wacks, f o r some b r i e f  Personal Information, supra n comments on t h e argument f r o m  6T  Emerson,  supra n  6  4  See p  99-101  6  5  Emerson, supra n  7,  at  881.  at  882.  above. 7,  57, at truth.  173,  issues  based  on f u l l  disclosure  o f t h e f a c t s " i s t o be  welcomed: . . . t h a t i s f a r from s a y i n g t h a t t h e p u b l i c i s e n t i t l e d t o know all t h e t r u t h about an i n d i v i d u a l o r group. Some a r e a o f a man's l i f e i s h i s b u s i n e s s a l o n e . 6 6  Curiosity, is  the desire  to attain truth  commendable a n d r i g h t l y a i d e d b y a s y s t e m o f f r e e  s i o n when i t r e l a t e s t o m a t t e r s as p h i l o s o p h y , is  directed  i n the public  s c i e n c e and p o l i t i c s .  at the private  affairs  unaccompanied by any l e g i t i m a t e on  f o r i t s own  i tless kindly,  secure It  domain,  sake,  expressuch  However, when c u r i o s i t y  of other  individuals,  n e e d t o know, s o c i e t y  and i t i s n o t t h e b u s i n e s s  looks  o f t h e law t o  i t s indulgence. i s important  t o note  that  the notion of choices  w h i c h t h e p u b l i c must make s h o u l d n o t be c o n c e i v e d t o o n a r rowly. The  Certainly  Younger  they  Committee  are not limited t o p o l i t i c a l Report  commented a s  choices.  follows:  K n o w l e d g e o f what o t h e r p e o p l e a r e d o i n g i s e s s e n t i a l t o members o f a s o c i e t y who a r e i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . . . . [ T h e need] extends t o a g e n e r a l knowledge o f e v e n t s i n t h e wider s o c i e t y and i n t h e w o r l d as a whole, which i s t h e raw m a t e r i a l o u t o f w h i c h p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s f o r m e d , on w h i c h n a t i o n a l a n d r e g i o n a l p o l i c i e s a r e made, a n d b y which standards of public and p r i v a t e customs and morals a r e e v o l v e d . . . . M a r r i a g e customs, t h e u p b r i n g i n g of c h i l d r e n , c o n v e n t i o n s and h a b i t s i n e d u c a t i o n , e n tertainment and s o c i a l life, a r e a l l examples o f s u b j e c t s w h i c h s h o u l d be w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t a n d y e t i n v o l v e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e way o f l i f e o f i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s a n d t h e i r f a m i l i e s , w h i c h most people r e g a r d as p r i v a t e . 6 7  Minority Report,  R e p o r t o f A W L y o n i n t h e Younger Committee s u p r a n 5, a t 209 ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) .  S u p r a n 5, a t 46-47.  All has  of the  subjects  important choices  meet t h e  listed  the  information  most v a l u a b l e  individual privacy.  a l l kinds  anonymity  studies  of  The  i s assured,  a t t i t u d e s and  In  intimate  People are  of personal  public  fact,  topics  to  topics  some o f is  obtained  often prepared to ,  d e t a i l s i f t h e y know  as  i s standard  that  i n surveys  and  behaviour.  s o l u t i o n to a great  b e t w e e n f r e e s p e e c h and 6  on  guaranteeing privacy.  disclose their  which the  p u b l i c ' s n e e d f o r open d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e on  by  o n e s on  t o make. However, i t i s p o s s i b l e  without trampling  only  are  number o f  privacy,  supposed  perhaps the  conflicts  majority  of  Q  them, ° i s s i m p l y  to protect  being  This  identified.  identity  i s not  seems t o be  the  the  i n d i v i d u a l s concerned  s o l u t i o n seems o b v i o u s , where  essence of the  overlooked completely  information, by  and  from  the yet  many c o m m e n t a t o r s  on  69 privacy.  3  The  Y o u n g e r Committee a d d r e s s e d t h e  p u b l i c a t i o n of  identities  Press Council's  v i e w s on  Council's  arguments a r e  Firstly, essential  to  the  s 6u Q c h as  matter.  very  7 0  of  reporting  None o f  the  "identities  a u t h e n t i c i t y of the are  given  g u i d e t o a u t h e n t i c i t y . On  the  one  Committee .  subject  Protection  Younger  of  .  .  identities  of Privacy,  Committee  Report,  Press  are  news".  i s not  Report,  a  very  hand, s t o r i e s  "Woman G i v e s B i r t h t o G r e e n P i g l e t s " o f t e n .  the  persuasive.  argued t h a t  e s t a b l i s h the  See t h e Younger  7 0  m a i n l y by  identities  fiQ  The  the  Council  However, w h e t h e r o r n o t reliable  briefly,  issue  come  i b i d a t p 36, p a r a 121.  .  i s mentioned b r i e f l y  s u p r a n 23, a t 90 and  s u p r a n 5, a t 49.  i n Wacks,  104-5.  complete is  w i t h names a n d p h o t o g r a p h s .  n o t uncommon  f o r t h e more r e l i a b l e m e d i a t o p r o t e c t  anonymity by t h e u s e o f p s e u d o n y m s , disguising and  a face or voice,  identifying  details.  v a r i o u s methods f o r  7 1  o r s i m p l y t h e o m i s s i o n o f names The q u a l i t y  7 2  n e w s p a p e r o r o t h e r m e d i a component credibility  On t h e o t h e r hand, i t  and r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e  i s a much b e t t e r g u i d e t o  t h a n w h e t h e r names a r e g i v e n .  Secondly,  i t was c o n t e n d e d  that  identities  n e c e s s a r y t o a v o i d new i t e m s b e i n g a t t r i b u t e d person. This i s a v a l i d this  t o t h e wrong  i n some c a s e s , b u t u s u a l l y  d a n g e r c a n be a v o i d e d b y o m i t t i n g u n n e c e s s a r y  which unduly may  concern  were  refer.  narrow t h e range  o f people t o which t h e item  7 3  Thirdly, publication  t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l mentioned  of identities  commence p r o c e e d i n g s  that the  enabled the persons  identified to  i f t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t h e y had been  d e f a m e d . T h e Y o u n g e r Committee n o t e d  a case decided  t h e P r e s s C o u n c i l g a v e e v i d e n c e w h i c h made t h i s obsolete.  details  since  argument  7 4  Fourthly,  the effect  of identities  on t h e r e a l i s m a n d  i m m e d i a c y o f a news i t e m a n d t h e p u b l i c ' s  "sense  i n v o l v e m e n t " was p o i n t e d o u t . However, t h i s  of personal  "heightening of  71  For 7  2  example,  "Nancy and R o b e r t  (not t h e i r  real  F o r example, "An o n l o o k e r , who d i d n o t w i s h identified...."  names)".  t o be  7 "\  See f o r example c h a p t e r 3, n o t e s 75 a n d 84. The p r o b l e m t h e r e n o t e d might have been a v o i d e d i f t h e media had n o t d i s c l o s e d t h e n a t i o n a l i t i e s o f t h e s u s p e c t e d war criminals. 7 4  Younger  Committee  Report,  s u p r a n 5, a t p 49, n 65.  effect" the  does not  values of  free  w h i c h makes t h e itself.  in itself  s p e e c h . I t may  name o f  are  icing  c a k e more e n j o y a b l e ,  but  i t i s not  justify  further  ought  that to  be  most b a s i c  the  interested  assumption of t a k e an  public  then the t a k e an  but  a trivial  i t i s the by  the  i n . The  of  sensational  i s not  conclusion  of the  i n t e r e s t should not  individual privacy  to  i n the  or  invasion  The  justify  arouse such  actual  the  the  of  i n media the  tantamount  to  public to  the  f o u n d e d on public  public  the  will  the  names.  substance of  press that  cake  7 5  speech,  choice.  pictures  interested  the  argument i s c o n t r a r y  free  cake  d e c i d e what t h e  free  or  publicity in  argument was  a system of  r a t i o n a l i t y and  the  "victims"  to t h e i r p l i g h t .  a r i g h t to  on  i n t e r e s t i n some m a t t e r s w i t h o r w i t h o u t  publication the  often  Council's  p r e s s has  tenets of  any  victimised  drawing a t t e n t i o n  Furthermore, the saying  debate  the  especially since  s t o r i e s who  to public  be  I t should not  privacy,  contribute  a  7 6  If  matter,  ought  to  v i o l a t i o n of  interest.  An example i s f o u n d i n t h e Younger Committee Report, ibid a t 48-49. V i v i d n e w s p a p e r a c c o u n t s and p h o t o g r a p h s o f the d i s t r e s s of c h i l d r e n taken from t h e i r f o s t e r p a r e n t s and r e t u r n e d t o n a t u r a l p a r e n t s a t t r a c t e d p u b l i c i n d i g n a t i o n and c o n d e m n a t i o n . The p r e s s c l a i m e d t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s were j u s t i f i e d b e c a u s e t h e y s t i m u l a t e d public i n t e r e s t i n an i m p o r t a n t s o c i a l i s s u e . See a l s o B r i a n W i n s t o n , "The T r a d i t i o n o f t h e V i c t i m i n G r i e r s o n i a n D o c u m e n t a r y " i n Image Ethics, s u p r a n 42, a t 34, w h i c h a r g u e s t h a t " t h e f i f t y - y e a r p a r a d e o f t h e h a l t and lame h a s p a t e n t l y done more g o o d t o t h e d o c u m e n t a r i s t s t h a n i t has t o t h e v i c t i m s " (p 53) and t h a t f i l m - m a k e r s h a v e a d u t y o f c a r e t o o b t a i n f u l l y i n f o r m e d and voluntary consent from t h e i r s u b j e c t s . See t h e Younger Committee Report, s u p r a n 5, a t 50, f o r an example where " t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e news, w i t h o u t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e g i r l b e i n g r e v e a l e d , was enough t o arouse great p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " .  Besides, event  interest  aroused  only through  and t h e " c h a r a c t e r s " i n v o l v e d  Creating  7 7  tends  e m o t i o n i n t h i s way may a c t u a l l y ,  the purpose  claimed,  f o l l o w i n g quote  o f a r o u s i n g genuine  supports t h i s  d r a m a t i s i n g an to lack  depth.  over time,  social  thwart  c o n c e r n . The  view:  Sensationalism i s t h e attempt t o r e c o v e r by a c e r t a i n v i o l e n c e t h e freshness o f f e e l i n g which t o a j a d e d s p i r i t t h e s i m p l e human r e c o r d h a s l o s t . . . . T h e moral emotions a r e t h e most costly, the indignant response to injustice, pity toward misery, the e x p a n s i o n o f one's b e i n g i n p r e s e n c e o f an element o f human g r e a t n e s s . R e a d e r s a r e n o t p r e p a r e d t o spend l a v i s h l y i n t h e s e c o s t l y t e r m s ; a n d t h e p r e s s , whose e m o t i o n a l s t r a t e g y must v e e r t o w a r d t h e n o n - c o m m i t t a l , tends to avert i t s e l f from t h e e x i s t e n c e o f moral concern. I t must d e a l w i t h e n t e r t a i n m e n t , with the " f u n n i e s , " w i t h a crime, c a t a s t r o p h e , and adventure, because these involve the common emotion of s e m i p h y s i c a l " r e a c t i o n " ; t h e y make no h e a v y d r a f t s on e i t h e r thought o r conscience o r f a i t h . is of  The c h i e f d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h i s s t r a t e g y i s t h a t i t a p r a c t i c e o f emotional u n t r u t h . I t robs t h e event i t s genuine depth.  Finally,  "besides a l l these  Council maintained important public  that the publication  reasons,  informed  o t h e r w o r d s when i t s d i s c l o s u r e  i s an  i n keeping the  on a l l r e l e v a n t i t e m s o f n e w s " . of the person  the Press  of i d e n t i t i e s  p a r t o f t h e newspaper's s e r v i c e  t r u e when t h e i d e n t i t y  public  special  i s i n fact  7 9  This i s  relevant, i n  contributes t o informing the  i n c h o i c e s i t must make.  " D e c i s i o n s a b o u t what e v e n t s a r e newsworthy a n d a b o u t how t o p r e s e n t them a r e h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f d r a m a t i c form and c o n t e n t (e.g. c o n f l i c t and r e s o l u t i o n ) t h a t a r e drawn f r o m f i c t i o n a l a r c h e t y p e s . . . . " L a r r y G r o s s , "The E t h i c s o f ( M i s ) r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " , i n Image Ethics, s u p r a n 42, a t 191. See a l s o Smythe, s u p r a n 51, a t 15. Hocking, Younger  s u p r a n 16, a t 45. Committee  Report,  s u p r a n 5, a t 49.  It test  i s submitted  should  be  used  t h a t i n an  the  i t must f i r s t  The  of p r i v a c y according  first  question  three-part  particular is  Before  meaning whether i t i s o f use  c h o i c e s w h i c h t h e p u b l i c must make. Not  political  c h o i c e s are r e l e v a n t , but  personal,  e c o n o m i c , and  there  i s no  against the there be  first  interest  ought n o r m a l l y  f r e e speech i n t e r e s t  t o be  journalist.  Some o f t h e in chapter  a remedy i n law.  8 1  negative, t o be  An  in  social,  then  balanced  i n i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . In such a  the p u b l i c a t i o n of items  television  i s answered i n t h e  is  only  also religious,  philosophical choices.  question  significant  reasonable  standards.  informing  the  case  example m i g h t  about the marriage break-up of  * Professor Tribe i s  is  the  i n v a s i o n of  t o community  test  i s whether the m a t t e r p u b l i s h e d  genuine p u b l i c concern,  If  justified  this  have been d e t e r m i n e d t h a t  publication constitutes a non-trivial expectations  a  p u b l i c a t i o n i n the media  grounds of freedom of e x p r e s s i o n .  applied,  of  system  i n c o n s i d e r i n g whether a  i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y by on  ideal  a  probably  f e a t u r e s of such a system w i l l 6.  be  mentioned  Of c o u r s e , a l m o s t any i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be o f u s e t o t h o s e who know them p e r s o n a l l y , i n d e c i d i n g how t o s p e a k o r b e h a v e t o w a r d s t h a t p e r s o n . Such p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t does n o t i n i t s e l f j u s t i f y widespread p u b l i c a t i o n unless the information i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t , f o r example i f i t w a r n e d t h e p u b l i c t h a t t h e p e r s o n had a h i s t o r y o f v i o l e n c e . P e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t m i g h t be r e l e v a n t i f t h e m a t t e r was only p u b l i s h e d l o c a l l y , i n which case the l o c a l i n t e r e s t w o u l d n e e d t o be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t . See A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair Publication, s u p r a n 43, a t 120. I f t h e r e were more t h a n t o t a l l y s u p e r f i c i a l d i s c u s s i o n about the causes of such a breakup, t h e n t h e m a t t e r s h o u l d p r o c e e d t o t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n . A famous c a s e where t h e r e was no g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n , and y e t a U n i t e d S t a t e s c o u r t h e l d t h a t  referring  to t h i s type  concerning  of case  i n the  f o l l o w i n g passage  t h e accommodation o f t h e v a l u e  of " u n i n h i b i t e d  p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n " with the value of p r i v a c y : F i n a l l y , t h e r e comes a p o i n t where o n l y t h i s latter value p l a y s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n a case - a p o i n t at which such p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n as occurs is wholly parasitic upon a c l e a r i n v a s i o n o f an individual's right to retain control over personal information. N o t h i n g i n t h e C o u r t ' s d e f a m a t i o n d e c i s i o n s , and n o t h i n g i n t h e t h r e e d e c i s i o n s coming c l o s e s t t o a d d r e s s i n g the conflict between speech and privacy, remotely s u g g e s t s t h a t , when t h i s p o i n t i s r e a c h e d , government must e x a l t an a b s t r a c t r i g h t t o know, h e r e r e d u c e d t o g o s s i p , a b o v e t h e d e e p e r c o n c e r n s o f p e r s o n h o o d . On t h e c o n t r a r y , once t h i s p o i n t i s reached, i t would d e p r i v e i n d i v i d u a l s o f l i b e r t y o r p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due process o f law t o p r o v i d e no l e g a l remedy. 3  If  on  the  o t h e r hand t h e  the a f f i r m a t i v e ,  then  first  question  i t i s necessary  i s answered i n  to proceed  to  the  s e c o n d q u e s t i o n . F o r example, a news i t e m a b o u t a r a p e genuine p u b l i c concern. situations and  of the  c h o i c e s such  t o a v o i d , whether t o take  whether t o advocate The  I t informs  second q u e s t i o n  individual  self  changes i n the  interest  i t i s not  of the  of the  vote  the  spiritual  " f r e e speech" should p r e v a i l , Corp, 113 F 2d 806 (1940). n 3,  the  identity  information to already  at  889-90.  question w i l l  the be  t o make c h o i c e s  i n d i v i d u a l s p e r s o n a l l y , such  whether t o f o l l o w t h e i r  supra  As  information. Generally this  f o r them, w h e t h e r h a v e f i n a n c i a l  Tribe,  classes,  enough t h a t i d e n t i t y m e r e l y a d d s t o  a n s w e r e d by w h e t h e r t h e p u b l i c i s c a l l e d concerning  what  law.  the p u b l i c i n informing decision-making. discussed,  defence  i s whether d i s c l o s i n g  a d d s t o t h e value  as  i s of  as whether  dealings with  to  them,  l e a d e r s h i p , o r maybe i n i s Sidis  v F-R  Publishing  the  c a s e o f p e o p l e who make t h e i r money f r o m a  following adulate To it but  such as f i l m  personal  s t a r s and pop s i n g e r s , whether t o  them. consider  again  may b e i n t e r e s t i n g  t h e example o f a n a c c o u n t o f a t o know t h e i d e n t i t y  t h i s would n o t add t o t h e u s e f u l n e s s  rape,  of the victim,  of the  84  information. the  third  In such a case,  were now s t a n d i n g information  i f a man c o n v i c t e d f o rparliament,  information.  the public interest  seen i n c o n t e x t . Where i d e n t i f y i n g  add be  t o the value  without  ago  this  but d i s c l o s u r e of  add t o t h e v a l u e  of the  disclosure of the  i n f r e e s p e e c h w o u l d n e e d t o be i n privacy,  both i n t e r e s t s  8 5  the individual  of the information,  a s k e d . I t must be c o n s i d e r e d  published  n o t o n l y would  I f he a t t e m p t e d t o p r e v e n t  weighed a g a i n s t h i s i n t e r e s t being  of fraud t e n years  be o f g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n ,  i d e n t i t y w o u l d most c e r t a i n l y  matter,  t o move on t o  question.  In c o n tr a s t ,  his  i t i s necessary  mentioning  See a l s o Turton v Buttler a b o v e a t p 79-80.  concerned would n o t a third  question  must  w h e t h e r t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be  identity  or providing  (1987) 42 CCLT 74, d i s c u s s e d  Tucker v News Media Ownership Ltd [1986] 2 NZLR 716, d i s c u s s e d a t p 52-62 a b o v e , i s an example i n v o l v i n g a matter o f genuine p u b l i c concern under t h e d e f i n i t i o n g i v e n h e r e i n , and where t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o n c e r n e d would have been o f use i n i n f o r m i n g p u b l i c decision-making ( s u c h a s w h e t h e r t o d o n a t e f u r t h e r money f o r t h e t r a n s p l a n t ) . Hence t h e r e was a f r e e s p e e c h i n t e r e s t t o be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t Mr T u c k e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n privacy. Nevertheless, the courts f e l t that the privacy i n t e r e s t was o f g r e a t e r w e i g h t t h a n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n f r e e s p e e c h . S e r i o u s i r r e m e d i a b l e harm w o u l d be c a u s e d by p u b l i c a t i o n .  identifying  details.  I f i t could,  speech can  be  privacy.  F r e e s p e e c h and  8 6  conflict.  An  satisfied  i n t h i s way privacy  i n j u n c t i o n can  be  d i s c l o s u r e of  i d e n t i t y without  of  expression.  freedom of  disclosed, reference  then the to  then the  interest in  w i t h o u t any are  not  breach  truly  I f i d e n t i t y has  breach of p r i v a c y  f r e e s p e e c h p r i n c i p l e s , and  the  of the  already  c a n n o t be  of  in  granted to prevent i n f r i n g i n g any  free  values  been  justified  damages may  by  be  appropriate. For  example, t h e  New  dealt with a complaint been a b l e  to  Committee d e c i d e d  the  victim's  age  and  from d e t a i l s g i v e n  that  the  small  p u b l i s h the  town she  i t i s not  information  to balance privacy  and  and  the  fact  lived  while concealing  included she  if i t  lived had  in.  i d e n t i t y i s not possible  had  newspaper.  that  have breached p r i v a c y  I n c a s e s where, a l t h o u g h uine p u b l i c concern,  in a  p u b l i c a t i o n , which  occupation,  i n a home u n i t , w o u l d n o t a l s o named t h e  Committee  from a rape v i c t i m t h a t p e o p l e  i d e n t i f y her  The  not  South Wales P r i v a c y  8 7  itself  of  or d e s i r a b l e i d e n t i t y , the  freedom of e x p r e s s i o n  i n the  gen8 8  to  need  relevant  8  6  T h e r e may be some l e s s e n i n g o f p r i v a c y s i n c e t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s e d r i s k t h a t s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s , o r m a t t e r s known to c e r t a i n persons, w i l l connect the i n d i v i d u a l with the f a c t s . See G a v i s o n , s u p r a n 22, a t 43 0-31, f o r an a n e c d o t e i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s d a n g e r . However, c a s e s where t h i s r i s k w o u l d be s e r i o u s enough t o o v e r r i d e t h e i n t e r e s t i n f r e e s p e e c h w o u l d p r o b a b l y be e x c e p t i o n a l . O f t e n p e o p l e s u c h as c o u n s e l l o r s who c i t e r e a l - l i f e c a s e s t u d i e s n o t o n l y c o n c e a l i d e n t i t i e s b u t a l s o c h a n g e some unimportant d e t a i l s to p r o t e c t t h e i r c l i e n t s .  8  7  F o r example, d e t a i l s w h i c h a r e i m p o r t a n t t o t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n may b e t r a y i d e n t i t y .  8  8  F o r e x a m p l e , where a news i t e m i s l i k e l y t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e wrong p e r s o n i f t r u e i d e n t i t y i s c o n c e a l e d .  context  c a n n o t be  balancing  a v o i d e d . An  p r o c e s s w o u l d be  cause s e r i o u s  irremediable  important  whether the harm. As  resembles a c t i o n r a t h e r harm t o  do,  importance of the The  information  proposed three-part  s u m m a r i s e d as  in this  be  above,  harm, a s  t h a n s p e e c h . The  i n d i v i d u a l d i g n i t y should  in  for public  a  8 9  privacy-  crucial  respect  l i k e l i h o o d of  balanced against  t e s t can  the  p u b l i c a t i o n would  discussed  p u b l i c a t i o n which causes irremediable invasive publications generally  consideration  such the  decision-making.  therefore  9 0  be  follows:  (1) Does t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e t o i n f o r m i n g the p u b l i c i n t h e c h o i c e s i t must make? I f n o t , t h e n i t i s n o t o f g e n u i n e p u b l i c c o n c e r n , and t h e r e i s no f r e e s p e e c h i n t e r e s t t o be w e i g h e d a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l privacy. (2) Does t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o n c e r n e d c o n t r i b u t e t o the v a l u e of the i n f o r m a t i o n ? I f so, t h e n t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f r e e s p e e c h i n t e r e s t t o be weighed a g a i n s t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g p r i v a c y i n the r e l e v a n t context. (3) Can t h e i n f o r m a t i o n be d i s c l o s e d w i t h o u t r e v e a l i n g i d e n t i t y ? I f s o , t h e n f r e e s p e e c h v a l u e s c a n be f u r t h e r e d w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . I f not, then i t i s necessary t o weigh the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n f r e e speech a g a i n s t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g p r i v a c y i n the r e l e v a n t context. The  above a n a l y s i s demonstrates t h a t  p o s s i b l e to decide cases private values  See  f a c t s i n the of  freedom of  i n v o l v i n g the  i t i s sometimes  publication  of  media w i t h o u t n e e d i n g t o b a l a n c e expression  and  privacy.  Where  the  the  p 99-101 a b o v e .  O t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h may be r e l e v a n t i n t h e b a l a n c i n g process i n c l u d e the conduct of the p a r t i e s , the motives o f t h e p u b l i s h e r , t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e information was a c q u i r e d , and t h e e f f e c t on t h i r d p a r t i e s s u c h as the f a m i l y of the i n d i v i d u a l concerned.  information  i s not of genuine  free  a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y advanced  speech  publication, seriously public  public  and i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y  concern, the values of by i t s  i s the only  a t s t a k e . Where t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s o f  concern but i d e n t i t y i s not, p u b l i c a t i o n  private  f a c t s without  enables free significant The  speech  interest genuine of the  identifying details, i f possible,  g o a l s t o be f u l f i l l e d  without  any  harm t o p r i v a c y .  need t o b a l a n c e p r i v a c y a g a i n s t f r e e  speech  i n the  c o n t e x t o f t h e c a s e o n l y a r i s e s where b o t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and  the individual's  i d e n t i t y are of genuine  o r where i d e n t i t y i s n o t i m p o r t a n t b u t c a n n o t  public be  concern,  obscured.  129  CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC FIGURES AND  This figure" as  chapter w i l l  and  s h o u l d be  examine t h e  "public place"  categories  as  a n y t h i n g more t h a n t e r m s  s i m p l e answers t o  more c a r e f u l An States  important concept i s that  of the  assumed r o l e s o f who  power and  influence  the  1  2  3  4,  the  in privacy  "public  law  figure".  Firstly,  1  i n the  require  Public  there are  that  they are  of  United figures  t h o s e who  such  c o m p r i s e s t h o s e who  resolution  of the  deemed p u b l i c  figures  for  mentioned  themselves  controversies  issues  of  persuasive  "have t h r u s t  particular public  fall  "have  affairs  A more common c a t e g o r y , w h i c h was  f o r e f r o n t of  influence  claims,  of  complex m a t t e r s w h i c h  "occupy such p o s i t i o n s  purposes". chapter  viewed  suggest  e s p e c i a l prominence i n the  society",  in  they can  "public  consideration.  into three categories.  all  r e l a t e d terms  determination of p r i v a c y  convenience. I f used f o r a n a l y s i s deceptively  two  w h i c h , a l t h o u g h commonly  which a i d the  discarded  PUBLIC PLACES  i n order  involved".  to to  3  The c o n c e p t o r i g i n a t e d i n d e f a m a t i o n law; s e e A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 11, Unfair Publication ( C a n b e r r a : A u s t r a l i a n Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 8 ) , App F. Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc, 418 US 323 a t 325 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; as q u o t e d i n Raymond Wacks, Protection of Privacy, Modern L e g a l S t u d i e s S e r i e s (London: Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 0 ) , a t 102. Ibid at  325.  P e r s o n s i n t h e s e two rights to privacy  categories  i n United  States  sacrifice  most o f  their  law:  [The law] h a s r e c o g n i z e d a l e g i t i m a t e p u b l i c c u r i o s i t y about the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of c e l e b r i t i e s , and about a g r e a t d e a l o f o t h e r w i s e p r i v a t e and p e r s o n a l informat i o n c o n c e r n i n g them. T h e i r b i o g r a p h i e s c a n be w r i t t e n , and t h e i r l i f e h i s t o r i e s and t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s s e t f o r t h before the world i n u n f l a t t e r i n g d e t a i l . D i s c r e d i t a b l e f a c t s a b o u t them c a n be e x p o s e d . And as o u r n e w s p a p e r s demonstrate d a i l y , the p u b l i c can be treated to an enormous amount o f p e t t y g o s s i p a s t o what t h e y e a t f o r b r e a k f a s t , wear, r e a d , do w i t h t h e i r s p a r e t i m e , o r s a y to t h e i r friends.  The  third  figure", in  the  category  ordinary  i s t h a t of the  p e r s o n who  l a w f u l and  and  unexciting  community, t h e y a r e  "until  life  leaders,  subject  for  of p r i v a c y  frequently to  United the  should  States  not  be  used  f r e e speech  William 416. Ibid at  of  court public  bulk  privilege  and  of  to  the  the  which  of the  victims".  i n the  involved  p u b l i c as  "public figures", often quoting  from  term  i s often  determination  convenient  of p r i v a c y  "Privacy"  first  i s simply  (1960) 48  Calif  claims.  concept  of a n a l y s i s i n balancing  i n t e r e s t s . The  the  i t i s submitted that i t  s e v e r a l reasons f o r r e j e c t i n g the a tool  to  5  also  i n the  L Prosser, 413.  or  public  Commonwealth  purposes of d i s c u s s i o n ,  a p u b l i c f i g u r e as  5  law  great  curiosity  d e c i s i o n s . While the  There are  and  the  status  the  to the  heroes, v i l l a i n s  Discussions refer  accident  they have r e v e r t e d  l e d by  p u b l i s h e r s have t o s a t i s f y their  an  Such p e r s o n s a t t a i n t h e  figures temporarily,  4  h a p p e n s t o become  some newsworthy e v e n t s u c h as  proceedings.  "involuntary  of  privacy  that  the  L Rev  383  at  concept  i s unnecessary,  and m e r e l y  c o m p l i c a t e s m a t t e r s . As  P r o f e s s o r Wacks p o i n t s o u t , t h e c o u r t w i l l u l t i m a t e l y have t o r e v e r t disclosure  areas of t h e i r  A second,  life  since the fact  may be e x p o s e d .  t o the real  6  that  determine  what  I t i s better to  issue.  more i m p o r t a n t , r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i n g t h e  i s that  i t confuses several quite d i f f e r e n t  which i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t reasons  interest,  f i g u r e does n o t i n i t s e l f  private  proceed d i r e c t l y  concept  t o c o n s i d e r i n g whether a  i s i n the public  someone i s a p u b l i c  i n any c a s e  considerations.  f o r the d i f f e r e n t i a l  treatment  7  matters  Prosser l i s t e d the  of public  f i g u r e s as  follows: T h r e e r e a s o n s a r e g i v e n , more o r l e s s i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y , i n t h e d e c i s i o n s : t h a t t h e y have sought p u b l i c i t y and c o n s e n t e d t o i t , and so cannot c o m p l a i n o f i t ; t h a t t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s and t h e i r a f f a i r s a l r e a d y h a v e b e come p u b l i c , a n d c a n no l o n g e r be r e g a r d e d a s t h e i r own p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s ; and t h a t t h e p r e s s has a p r i v i l e g e , g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , t o i n f o r m t h e p u b l i c about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest.  Wacks, Protection  of  Privacy,  s u p r a n 2, a t 102.  F o r example, t h e i s s u e o f c o n s e n t i n v o l v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r c o n s e n t c a n be r e v o k e d , w h e t h e r v a l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a s b e e n g i v e n , w h e t h e r t h e c o n s e n t was f u l l y i n f o r m e d a n d v o l u n t a r y , a n d by whom c o n s e n t was g i v e n . See P h i l i p H O s b o r n e , "The P r i v a c y A c t s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M a n i t o b a a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n " , i n Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed D a l e G i b s o n ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1980), 73 a t 90-94. An example o f t h e l a s t - m e n t i o n e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n was t h e d e c i s i o n o f a c o u r t t h a t Brooke S h i e l d s c o u l d n o t r e s t r a i n t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f nude p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n when s h e was o n l y t e n y e a r s o l d , b e c a u s e h e r m o t h e r h a d s i g n e d a n u n l i m i t e d r e l e a s e . See R i c h a r d F H i x s o n , Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights in Conflict (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1987), 162. Prosser,  s u p r a n 4, a t 411.  O b v i o u s l y not figures; public  in fact,  i n some c a s e s a p e r s o n  avoidance of  separately,  by  reasons,  leads to  empts i m p o r t a n t The British  1 0  i n the  consent to  the  that to  the  analysis  9  and  and  pre-  t o l d the  m e d i a , and  invasive  Younger  The  Committee a  such a p e r s o n does a t t r a c t  could  be  described  reasons l i s t e d  as  above  a  public  justify  p u b l i c i t y a b o u t t h i s woman.  a well-known f o o t b a l l e r . U n l e s s  she  interviews  m e d i a makes them s o . her  implied  Her the  personality  i n c h a p t e r 4,  example.  merely from  v o l u n t a r i l y give her  an  a w e l l - k n o w n f o o t b a l l e r w o u l d be  know t h a t  i s dating  eye,  of  descriptive  figure status  s u c h p u b l i c i t y c a n n o t be she  public  till  We  of  However, none o f t h e  u n w a n t e d and  starts  of p u b l i c  matters  independently  c o n f u s i o n between t h e  i s b e s t d e m o n s t r a t e d by  girlfriend  figure.  figure.  fact  label defined  Broadcasting Association  attention  any  a  these  questions.  problem  the  public  is labelled a  i n q u i r i n g i n t o each of  attaching  normative i m p l i c a t i o n s  that  a l l public  f i g u r e e v e n t h o u g h none o f t h e s e r e a s o n s r i g h t l y  a p p l y . The  the  a l l of these reasons apply to  and  And  as  and  place  affairs can  be  personal business  are  herself not  public  seen from i s not  in  the  of  The d e s c r i p t i v e and n o r m a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s o f a p u b l i c f i g u r e a r e m e n t i o n e d i n Wacks, Protection of Privacy, s u p r a n 2, a t 102; however, i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e c a t e g o r y o f i n v o l u n t a r y f i g u r e s c a n be d e f i n e d by n o r m a t i v e as w e l l a s d e s c r i p t i v e c r i t e r i a , by reference to genuine p u b l i c concern. Report of the Committee on Privacy (chairman: Kenneth Y o u n g e r ) , Cmnd. 5012, 1972, 61. The same a r g u m e n t a p p l i e s t o t h e o t h e r example g i v e n , o f t h e r e l a t i v e s an a c c i d e n t v i c t i m .  of  genuine  public  concern,  informing public Another Corp,  since  i t would n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o  decision-making.  example i s t h e c a s e o f Sidis  v F-R  i n w h i c h a man who h a d b e e n a w e l l - k n o w n  11  prodigy, life,  but had s i n c e h i s l a t e teens t r i e d  was h e l d t o b e a p u b l i c  consented  to the publicity  figure.  already being public,  means t h a t publicity  gone t o some  s i n c e he h a d l a r g e l y twenty  stating  second  to  and so t h e  i t does n o t a p p l y t o S i d i s  r e g a i n e d h i s anonymity over t h e l a s t  r e a s o n may a l s o be a l e s s  the third  interest,  life  that  years.  The  public  reason,  needs e x p l a n a t i o n . I f i t  anonymity has a l r e a d y been l o s t , d o e s no harm, t h e n  a quiet  He h a d c e r t a i n l y n o t  and had i n f a c t  itself  child  to live  l e n g t h s t o m a i n t a i n h i s a n o n y m i t y . The s e c o n d of  Publishing  reason, that  c l e a r way o f  of legitimate  public  o r a s i t was e x p l a i n e d i n c h a p t e r 4,  concern. A p p l y i n g t h e t e s t proposed  of a child  p r o d i g y might  genuine  i n c h a p t e r 4, t h e  provide information relevant  q u e s t i o n s o f e d u c a t i o n , u p b r i n g i n g and t h e e f f e c t o f  publicity  on c h i l d r e n ,  b u t S i d i s was o n l y a c a s e  i d e n t i t y was n o t o f g e n u i n e not c a l l e d  public  t o make c h o i c e s a b o u t  study. H i s  concern; the p u b l i c  him p e r s o n a l l y  were  such as  w h e t h e r t o v o t e f o r h i m o r i n v e s t t h e i r money w i t h h i m . However, i t m i g h t  be d i f f i c u l t  revealing h i s identity, might  so t h e importance  n e e d t o be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t S i d i s '  on w i t h h i s l i f e  113  to publish h i s story  F 2d 806  without p u b l i c  (1940).  scrutiny.  without  of the case interest  study  i n getting  It  i s important to consider s e p a r a t e l y the questions of  whether t h e r e has t h e r e has is  been s i g n i f i c a n t  been express or i m p l i e d  of genuine  disclosed.  public  concern,  and  harm t o p r i v a c y , consent,  whether a  whether i d e n t i t y  I t i s submitted that the a n a l y s i s  c h a p t e r 4 a s k s t h e s e q u e s t i o n s more c l e a r l y less  The  be  s e t out i n and  in a  notion of a "public place" i s vulnerable to  i s commonly s a i d  p l a c e s and  way  "distressed,  ill  implied;  that  of p u b l i c  i s minimal;  I  in public  apparent  exception  is in a  T  The  reasons  figures:  that  a l r e a d y been l o s t and  that  events  behind  consent and  in a  concern. Again these three  so  can the  public  reasons  considered i n context rather than a v o i d i n g  i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s by i s often  a descriptive  categorisation.  l e g i t i m a t e t o imply consent  p u b l i c a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s On  .  condition".  p r i v a c y has  place are of p u b l i c  always.  One  1 2  .  .  or injured  treatment  harm t o p r i v a c y  It  be t a k e n  f o r p u b l i c p l a c e s a r e t h e same t h r e e a s f o r t h e  differential  s h o u l d be  may  i s when t h e i n d i v i d u a l .  the  s h o u l d be u s e d w i t h c a u t i o n .  published with impunity.  .  the r u l e s  and  t h a t photographs  i n U n i t e d S t a t e s law  and  should  figure.  same k i n d s o f c r i t i c i s m s ,  be  matter  s u s c e p t i b l e t o pre-judgment than the c o n c e p t u a l l y f u z z y  notion of a p u b l i c  It  whether  t h e one  to observation  i n a p u b l i c p l a c e , but  hand, p e o p l e do h a v e  not  different  See f o r example A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair Publication, s u p r a n 1, a t 125; A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t No. 22, Privacy (Canberra: A u s t r a l i a n G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , 1983), p a r a 1186; Wacks, Protection of Privacy, s u p r a n 2, a t 103. See  P r o s s e r , s u p r a n 4,  a t 392-93.  expectations their  o f p r i v a c y when i n p u b l i c p l a c e s t h a n  when i n  own homes: When we go i n t o a p u b l i c p l a c e we know t h a t we a r e l i k e l y t o be seen by o t h e r s , s t r a n g e r s and a c q u a i n tances. We g e n e r a l l y c o n t r o l o u r s e l v e s according t o t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e way we d r e s s a n d a c t . We know we a r e , t o some extent, objects of public scrutiny. In a private place we may r e a c t quite d i f f e r e n t l y , k n o w i n g o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t we w i l l o n l y be seen by s p e c i f i c people, usually family or intimate friends.... Privacy values may b e v i o l a t e d i f some other person, without consent o r other proper reason, transforms t h e second situation into the first, exposing a person to a public audience when he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d t h a t h e was a b l e t o b e h a v e i n a manner a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a l i m i t e d audience. 1 4  On t h e o t h e r hand, most p e o p l e their they  everyday l i v e s arebeing  limited  i n p u b l i c places without  observed  a n y more t h a n  number o f p e o p l e .  maintained  by s t r i c t  spend a g r e a t d e a l o f imagining  that  c a s u a l l y and by a  Privacy i npublic places i s  social  r u l e s a n d by a n o n y m i t y .  1 5  What  i s more, i n t h e n o r m a l c o u r s e  o f things people  these  and c a n r e a c t a c c o r d i n g l y t o  r u l e s a r e being  broken,  p r o t e c t t h e i r p r i v a c y . F o r example, a p e r s o n private react her  l e t t e r while  by h i d i n g t h e l e t t e r  shoulder.  that  sitting  i f someone t r i e s  She w o u l d p r o b a b l y  l e n s and p u b l i s h e d  t o read  i t over  be h i g h l y i n d i g n a n t t o f i n d using a pages.  between p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e  by n o t i o n s  of property  A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Unfair s u p r a n 1, a t 125 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . A l a n F W e s t i n , Privacy 1 9 6 7 ) , 31.  be a b l e t o  i t i n t h e human i n t e r e s t  Furthermore, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n p l a c e s t e n d s t o be c o n f u s e d  reading a  on a p a r k bench w i l l  a r e p o r t e r had photographed t h e l e t t e r  telephoto  know when  and Freedom  rights,  Publication,  (New Y o r k : Atheneum,  w h i c h h a v e o n l y a l o o s e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h how r e a s o n a b l y be  expected  in a particular  In r e g a r d t o expectations of p r i v a c y , distinction difference situation  between p u b l i c of degrees.  i s , and  Consent  p l a c e or  People  there i s not a  a s s e s s j u s t how  more r e a d i l y  be  implied  likely  t o c r e a t e a good d e a l o f i n t e r e s t ,  with  famous p e o p l e " ,  knows t h e r e w i l l  a  "public"  a  i f a person  a t t e n t i o n by p l a c i n g h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f  i n scanty clothing,  sharp  behaviour a c c o r d i n g l y .  sought  in public  can  situation.  and p r i v a t e p l a c e s b u t  adjust their  might  much p r i v a c y  in a  such as  "has  position  appearing  or appearing i n a s s o c i a t i o n  o r " a t t e n d s an e v e n t  be p r e s s o r t e l e v i s i o n  a t w h i c h he  coverage".  1 6  or  she  In  contrast: A p e r s o n who w a l k s down a s t r e e t , s i t s i n t h e p a r k , o r v i s i t s a s t o r e o r r e s t a u r a n t , c a n n o t be [ f a i r l y ] said t o be i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t i n g t o e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c a t i o n o f any p h o t o g r a p h t a k e n o f h i m o r h e r . 1 7  G e n e r a l l y the second significant  privacy  of photographs activity.  will  apply to protect  involved  i n such  However, i n some c a s e s w i d e s p r e a d  destroying  Westin  loss,  of people  otherwise harmless  t h e media  r e a s o n , t h a t t h e r e i s no  m a t e r i a l may  cause  publications  innocuous publication  significant  harm  of by  anonymity. Constant harassment or s u r v e i l l a n c e in public  c a n be  a very s i g n i f i c a n t  privacy  by  loss.  observes:  O s b o r n e , s u p r a n 7, a t 92; c i t i n g Field v United Amusement Corp [1971] CS 283 (Que Sup C t ) a s an example o f someone who i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t e d t o p u b l i c i t y when he f r o l i c k e d i n t h e nude i n p u b l i c a t t h e W o o d s t o c k M u s i c Festival. Osborne,  ibid  at  91.  Knowledge or fear that one i s under systematic observation i n public places destroys t h e sense of r e l a x a t i o n a n d f r e e d o m t h a t men s e e k i n o p e n s p a c e s a n d public arenas. 1 8  One r e a s o n n o t t o be t o o r e a d y t o d i s m i s s public places  i s that t h i s type of p r i v a c y  important t o the l e s s w e l l private homes  1 9  o f f , who  privacy i n  i s especially  cannot a f f o r d  large  and gardens, p r i v a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,  and t h e  like. It "public  i s submitted, therefore,  f i g u r e " and " p u b l i c p l a c e "  t o o l s o f a n a l y s i s . The i s s u e s public  that the notions should  n o t be u s e d a s  o f c o n s e n t , harm, a n d g e n u i n e  i n t e r e s t need s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n  confusion  Westin,  of a  and pre-judgment o f i m p o r t a n t  to avoid  questions.  s u p r a n 15, a t 31.  W e s t i n , i b i d , n o t e s t h a t p e o p l e i n crowded q u a r t e r s o f t e n seek p r i v a c y outdoors.  living  138  CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION  The has  conflict  b e t w e e n p r i v a c y and  g e n e r a l l y been o v e r - s t a t e d  t h e s i s has  attempted t o  contrary  i s an  ensure t h a t the public  will  such as public  the  affairs  and  P r i v a c y has accessibility,  t h a t put  values  values  of  that  herein  secrecy,  This definition  f o r w a r d by  Professor  promotes i n d i v i d u a l i t y  and  as  the  limited and  sensory  i s a slight modification 1  As  a value,  self-government, community and  and  i n the  i n t e r n a t i o n a l obligations to protect little  Ruth Gavison, " P r i v a c y Yale LJ 421.  and  effective protection  the  L i m i t s o f Law"  of  privacy  can  involvement.  i s as y e t v e r y  i t  issues.  deter  there  If  participation in  o f p u b l i c i s s u e s where unwanted p u b l i c i t y  Despite  the  expression  discussion such  help  i t serves,  anonymity,  Gavison.  encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the  a  inform  freedom of  individuality,  been d e f i n e d  on  i s used t o  u n i n h i b i t e d debate of p u b l i c  comprising  inaccessibility.  but  of  pose  i n d i v i d u a l freedoms.  a c l e a r s i g h t of the  development of  system  t o such a system, t o  power o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n  f u n c t i o n t o advance the  This  does not  freedom of e x p r e s s i o n ,  rather than to override  applied with  effective  media i n v a s i o n s  important adjunct  expression  under-analysed.  show t h a t an  privacy protection against t h r e a t t o a system of  and  freedom of  free would  privacy, against  (1980)  89  i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y by countries,  although  Zealand  been l a c k i n g  the media i s not  of the  t h e r e h a v e b e e n some  d e v e l o p m e n t s i n New What h a s  t h e m e d i a i n any  and  Commonwealth  encouraging  Canada.  i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f p r i v a c y law  s o much a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of p r i v a c y  a realistic  a p p r a i s a l of the v a l u e of freedom of  in relation  t o p u b l i c a t i o n s of p r i v a t e matters  The  identification  t h e media see  media which does not has  thus  failed  accord with present-day  t o r e c o g n i s e the commonality  b e t w e e n f r e e s p e e c h and A test public  has  interest making,  f r e e flow of context  of the p a r t i c u l a r  context  of the case,  concepts of the was  and  seriousness of the  the matter  i s one  be  or  It  or  on  the  in decisionThree  i s a way  either  any  balanced  i n the  r e f e r e n c e t o such "public place".  hybrid  Questions  l o s s t o p r i v a c y , whether  i m p l i e d , and  of  i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . When  s h o u l d be  without  as a " p u b l i c f i g u r e "  g i v e n or can  impinging  speech i n t e r e s t interests  the  value  both  case.  the problem without  t h e two  of  i n f o r m a t i o n of use  resolving  necessary,  a view of  the p u b l i c  a r e used t o determine whether t h e r e  free  whatever  realities.  which assesses  questions  significant  media.  interests.  i n p r o t e c t i n g p r i v a c y , and  i n the i n the  privacy  been developed  interest  i n the  b e e n b a s e d on  as  expression  of freedom of e x p r e s s i o n w i t h  f i t t o p u b l i s h has  and  w h e t h e r and  of genuine p u b l i c concern,  consent  t o what should  extent each  be  given separate consideration. I t r e m a i n s t o make some b r i e f  observations  on what  t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p r i v a c y a g a i n s t media i n v a s i o n s ideally  take.  There are  s e v e r a l important  criteria  form  should for  an  effective  system of h e a r i n g  privacy  which have been i n d i c a t e d i n the An  important consideration  n e e d t o be  heard  C o m m i s s i o n on  p l a i n t i f f s m i g h t be  some o f  course of t h i s  thesis.  i s that privacy  i n p r i v a t e . The  Unfair  complaints,  complaints  A u s t r a l i a n Law  Reform  P u b l i c a t i o n , concerned t h a t deterred,  recommended t h a t  genuine  privacy  legislation: . . . s h o u l d empower t h e c o u r t t o o r d e r t h a t t h e hearing, o r any p a r t i c u l a r p a r t of the hearing, be i n c l o s e d court and to prohibit or restrict report of the p r o c e e d i n g s . P r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s t y p e a r e t o be f o u n d i n numerous e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s . . . . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h a f a c i l i t y has b e e n a b u s e d . J u d g e s a r e w e l l aware of the d e s i r a b i l i t y of c l o s i n g the court or r e s t r i c t i n g publication only where t h e i n t e r e s t s of justice so require. This  seems an  reflected  i n any  Zealand, the  all  of the  of the  new  private hearing  obvious point,  i n Tucker  Another c r i t e r i o n  out  that  "the  of  bringing  an  not  greatest  f r o m many s m a l l  Act  be  p  67-68 a b o v e .  See  p  62  not  the  On in  costs  provide the  been  on  to privacy  of  been p o i n t e d  other  In  New  a hand,  3  bringing been  in this  one's p r i v a c y " .  for  camera.  p r o h i b i t i v e . I t has  threat  a c t i o n has  2  were h e l d  i s that  assaults  See  i t has  does not  i t s predecessor d i d .  hearings  proceedings should  yet  Canadian p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s .  Broadcasting as  and  4  t o as  The one  pointed  society high  is  cost  speculative  above.  P h i l i p H O s b o r n e , "The P r i v a c y A c t s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M a n i t o b a and S a s k a t c h e w a n " , i n Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed D a l e G i b s o n ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 8 0 ) , 73 a t 101, r e f e r r i n g t o Ryan i n O n t a r i o Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , Report on Protection of Privacy in Ontario (1968) 68.  reason f o r the provincial It  statutes.  of cases under the  injunctive relief  publication  should  Finally, completely  the  not  be  and  the  the  be  e f f e c t i v e remedies  damages. C e r t a i n l y  main or  body m a k i n g t h e  independent of the  reflect  Canadian  5  i s also v i t a l that there  including  will  paucity  only  decisions  m e d i a so  i n t e r e s t s of the  that  further  remedy a v a i l a b l e . should  be  i t s decisions  public rather  than  private  media i n t e r e s t s . It  i s submitted that  t r i b u n a l w o u l d be empowered by  e i t h e r the  courts  or  s u i t a b l e forums f o r p r i v a c y  s t a t u t e t o meet a l l o f t h e  a  statutory  complaints i f  criteria  P e t e r B u r n s , "The Law and P r i v a c y : The C a n a d i a n E x p e r i e n c e " (1976) 54 Can Bar Rev 1 a t 38.  listed.  142  SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and R e p o r t s A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n . D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No. 2, Privacy and Publication - Proposals for Protection. S y d n e y : A u s t r a l i a n Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , 1977. . R e p o r t No. 11, Unfair Publication. A u s t r a l i a n Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e , . R e p o r t No. 22, Privacy. Government P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e ,  Canberra: 1983.  Canberra: 1978. Australian  B l o u s t e i n , Edward J . Individual and Group Privacy. New B r u n s w i c k , New J e r s e y : T r a n s a c t i o n B o o k s , 1978. B r u c k e r , H e r b e r t . Communication in a Changing Journalism. P r e s s , 1973.  is Power: Unchanging Values New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y  C u r r a n , James, a n d J e a n S e a t o n . Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in 2nd e d . L o n d o n a n d New Y o r k : Methuen, 1985.  Britain.  D w o r k i n , R o n a l d . Taking Rights U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977.  Harvard  Fleming, John 1987.  G. The Law of  F r i d m a n , G H L . The Law of C a r s w e l l , 1990.  Seriously.  Torts. Torts  Cambridge:  Sydney: Law Book Co L t d , in  Canada.  Toronto:  G i b s o n , D a l e , e d . Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in of John M. Sharp. T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1980. G i d d e n s , A n t h o n y . The Constitution the Theory of Structuration. C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1984.  Honour  of Society: Outline of Berkeley: University of  G r o s s , L a r r y , J o h n S t u a r t K a t z , a n d J a y Ruby, e d s . Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film, and Television. New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1988. Herman, Edward S, a n d Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New P a n t h e o n B o o k s , 1988.  Consent: York:  143 Hixson, in  Richard Conflict.  F. Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1987.  H o c k i n g , W i l l i a m E r n e s t . Freedom of the Press: A Framework of Principle. A R e p o r t f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n Freedom of t h e Press. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1947; r e p r . New Y o r k : Da Capo P r e s s , 1972. M a r t i n , R o b e r t , a n d G S t u a r t Adam. A Sourcebook of Media Law. O t t a w a : C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Mayer, M i c h a e l Defamation 1987. Meiklejohn, Powers Press, Ott,  F. The Libel and Privacy.  Canadian 1989.  Revolution: A New Look at New Y o r k : Law A r t s P u b l i s h e r s ,  A l e x a n d e r . Political Freedom: The Constitutional of the People. New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y 1965.  D a v i d H. Public International Law in P i t m a n P u b l i s h i n g : L o n d o n , 1987.  the  Modern  World.  P r o u d f o o t , G o r d o n F. Privacy Law and the Media in Canada. Law a n d t h e M e d i a S e r i e s . O t t a w a : C a n a d i a n B a r F o u n d a t i o n , 1984. Report  of the Committee on Privacy Y o u n g e r ) , Cmnd 5012, 1972.  (chairman:  Kenneth  Smythe, D a l l a s W. Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness and Canada. Norwood, New J e r s e y : A b l e x P u b l i s h i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , 1981. T r i b e , L a u r e n c e H. American Constitutional M i n e o l a , New Y o r k : F o u n d a t i o n P r e s s ,  Law. 2nd e d . 1988.  Wacks, Raymond. The Protection of Privacy. Modern L e g a l S t u d i e s S e r i e s . L o n d o n : Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1980. . Personal Information: Oxford: Clarendon Press,  Privacy 1989.  W a l k e r , S a l l y . The Law of Journalism Law Book Co L t d , 1989.  in  and  the  Law.  Australia.  Sydney:  Warner, K e n n e t h E . Selling Smoke: Cigarette Advertising and Public Health. W a s h i n g t o n DC: A m e r i c a n P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n , 1986. Westin, Alan 1967.  F. Privacy  and  Young, J o h n B, e d . Privacy. 1978.  Freedom.  New  Y o r k : Atheneum,  C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley  1.  & Sons,  144  Articles B u r n s , P e t e r . "The Law a n d P r i v a c y : (1976) 54 Can Bar Rev 1. .  "Privacy  The C a n a d i a n  a n d t h e Law: 1984 i s Now"  Experience"  (1974) N Z L J 1.  Emerson, Thomas I . "Toward a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f t h e F i r s t Amendment" (1963) 72 Yale LJ 877. . "The R i g h t o f P r i v a c y a n d Freedom (1979) 14 Harv CR-CLL Rev 329. Fish,  of the Press"  S t a n l e y . " S t i l l Wrong A f t e r A l l T h e s e Y e a r s " Law and Philosophy 401.  (1987) 6  Gavison, Ruth. " P r i v a c y Yale LJ 421.  a n d t h e L i m i t s o f Law" (1980) 89  Glover,  to Privacy"  R G. "The R i g h t  (1983) 2 Cant  L Rev 51.  L a s t e r , D a n i e l . " B r e a c h e s o f C o n f i d e n c e a n d o f P r i v a c y by Misuse o f Personal Information" (1989) 7 Otago L Rev 31. Lusky, L o u i s . " I n v a s i o n o f P r i v a c y : A C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f C o n c e p t s " (1972) 72 Columbia Law Review 693. Palmer, G e o f f r e y .  "Privacy  a n d t h e Law" [1975] NZLJ 747.  P a r k e r , R i c h a r d B. "A D e f i n i t i o n Rutger's Law Review 275.  of Privacy"  (1974) 27  P a t o n , E l i z a b e t h K. "A C o m p a r i s o n Between S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e F a i r T r a d i n g A c t 1986 a n d t h e Common Law" (1988) 6 AULR 14. Prosser,  William  L. " P r i v a c y "  Warren and B r a n d e i s . Rev 193.  (1960) 48 Calif  "The R i g h t  to Privacy"  L Rev 383. (1890) 4 Harv  L  W h i t e , J B. "The J u d i c i a l O p i n i o n a n d t h e Poem: Ways o f R e a d i n g , Ways o f L i f e " (1984) 5 Missippi College L Rev 25. Zimmerman, D i a n e . " F a l s e L i g h t I n v a s i o n o f P r i v a c y : T h e L i g h t t h a t F a i l e d " (1989) 64 NYULR 364.  145 Newspapers  and M a g a z i n e s  Barrett, Emily. New Zealand  " ' F a i r G o ' team l i e s Herald, 27 F e b r u a r y  low i n r u r a l 1990, s e c 1,  "Blast  jockeys"  Herald,  for  Chisholm, Star  disc  New Zealand  22  June  D o n n a . " N a z i - h u n t e r l i s t k i l l e d my mum" ( A u c k l a n d ) , 20 May 1990, A l .  "Code g i v e s bereaved g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n " 22 J u n e 1990, 6.  The  stakeout" p 21. 1990.  Sunday  Times  (London),  " C o u n s e l r o l e t o p r o t e c t c h i l d f r o m m e d i a c i r c u s " New Zealand Herald, 27 F e b r u a r y 1990, s e c 1, p 20. "Custody cover ' d i s g r a c e f u l ' " February 1990. "Doubts about 1990, 6.  a b i l i t y to  New Zealand  behave"  The  Herald,  Times  28  (London),  Evans, R i c h a r d . " B r i t i s h press gets one-year Times ( L o n d o n ) , 22 J u n e 1990, 1.  22  deadline"  June The  Evans, R i c h a r d . "Support f o r h o t l i n e to stop p u b l i c a t i o n i n t r u s i v e r e p o r t s " The Times ( L o n d o n ) , 22 J u n e 1990, Karp,  Abby. A3.  "Hilary in Hiding"  Vancouver  L e t t e r s t o t h e e d i t o r , New Zealand a n d 9 M a r c h 1990.  Sun,  Herald,  3 M a r c h 199 0,  2 March,  Murphy, T i m . " N a z i h u n t e r s send apology t o Palmer" Zealand Herald, 22 May 1990, s e c 1, p 1.  5 March New  N i x o n , R i c h a r d . " I C o u l d See No R e a s o n t o Y o r k ) , A p r i l 2 1990, 43.  L i v e " Time  "Offences proposed to J u n e 1990, 6.  Times  deter  " P r i v a c y invaded i n b a t t l e 22 J u n e 1990, 6. "Slamming the 58.  door  excesses"  The  of t a b l o i d s "  on t h e i r  " S t a t u t o r y o p t i o n t o be k e p t 22 J u n e 1990, 6.  feet"  The  Economist,  in reserve"  The  of 6.  (New  (London),  Times  (London),  31 M a r c h Times  22  1990,  (London),  146 "Waddington backs i n d e p e n d e n t P r e s s C o m p l a i n t s The Times ( L o n d o n ) , 22 J u n e 1990, 6.  Commission"  Z w i c k e r , B a r r y . "Where commerce, j o u r n a l i s m meet." Globe Mail, 15 September 1990, D l .  and  Cases Baron  Philippe 17 CIPR  Bathurst  de Rothschild SA v Casa de Habana Inc (2d) 185, 19 CPR (3d) 114 (Ont H C ) .  City  Council  v Saban  Belzjbergr v BC Television C803082 ( B C S C ) . Bingo  Enterprises CA), a f f ' g  Burnett  (1985) 2 NSWLR 704  Broadcasting  Ltd v Plaxton (1985) 36 Man R  v R (1979) 94 DLR  v Capan  (1981) V a n c o u v e r  (1986) 2 6 DLR ( 4 t h ) 604 (Man (2d) 249 (QB).  (Attorney-General)  Corp v New York (1980).  Charboneau v College of Physicians & Surgeons (1985) 22 DLR ( 4 t h ) 303 (Ont H C J ) . v Mirror  Crowley Davis  Newspapers  v Glisson  (No 2)  Edwards Books (SCC).  Field  of  Service  Ontario  [1971] 1 NSWLR 623 ( C A ) .  (1905) 2 CLR 744  (HC A u s ) .  (3d) 760 (BCCA), r e v ' g  46 M i c h 160, 9 NW  Edmonton Journal v Alberta ( 4 t h ) 577 ( S C C ) .  (P)  Public  (1969)  [1987] 2 NZLR 443 ( C A ) .  De May v Roberts,  F  Ltd  v McArthur (1971) 17 DLR 10 DLR (3d) 250 (BCSC).  Day v Mead  (1988) 52  (1980) 14 CCLT 191 (Ont H C ) .  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Commission, 447 US 557  Cohen  (Sup C t ) .  (3d) 281 (Ont H C ) .  Canadian Newspapers Co v Canada DLR ( 4 t h ) 690 (SCC) . Capan  Ltd  (1987)  v Ontario v United  and Art  Ltd  146  (1881).  (Attorney-General) v The  Queen  (1989) 64 DLR  (1986) 35 DLR  (4th) 1  (1989) 47 CCLT 231 (Ont DC) . Amusement  Corp  [1971] CS 283  (Que Sup C t ) .  147 Ford  v Quebec (SCC).  Gates  v City Mutual Life 600 (HC A u s ) .  Gertz  (Attorney-General)  v Robert  Welch,  Harder  v Brown  Hunter  v Southam  ICBC V Somosh  Joseph  Assurance  Inc,  418 US 323  Inc  (1984) 11 DLR  (1983) 51 DCLR Kingdom,  Toy Ltd c Quebec ( 4 t h ) 577 ( S C C ) . v Daniels  v Chrysler CA) .  Canada  Ltd  Newspapers  (1988) 55 DLR  (SCC).  o f 18 J a n  (1989) 58 DLR  21 M a r c h  (1970) 12 DLR case),  1990, 51 (16  (3d) 463 (Ont  297 P 91  (1931).  (1937).  Co Ltd  ( 4 t h ) 481  (1988) 55 DLR  R v Finlay & Grellette [1986] 1 SCR i x . R v LeBeau  General)  302 US 319  Parasiuk v Canadian QB) .  R v Dyment  ( 4 t h ) 641  (London),  ( t h e Red Kimono  v Connecticut,  R v Beare  (1974).  (1986) 4 BCLR (2d) 239 ( S C ) .  Krouse  Palko  (1986) 63 ALR  (SCC).  (Procureur  v Robertson, The Times M a r c h 1990, C A ) .  v Reid  Ltd  E C t HR, S e r A, Judgment  Kaye  Melvin  Society  ( 4 t h ) 577  (1989) 50 CCLT 85 (BC S C ) .  Ireland v United 1978. Irwin  (1988) 54 DLR  ( 4 t h ) 503  [1988] 2 WWR  737 (Man  (SCC). (SCC).  (1985) 23 DLR  ( 4 t h ) 532 (Ont C A ) ,  (1988) 41 CCC (3d) 163 (Ont C A ) .  R v Oakes  (1986) 26 DLR  R V Smith  (1988) 44 CCC (3d) 385 (Ont H C J ) .  R v Whyte  (1988) 51 DLR  ( 4 t h ) 200  ( 4 t h ) 481  (SCC).  (SCC).  R v Wong (1987) 34 CCC (3d) 51 (Ont C A ) . Re Zaduk  and  The  Queen  (1979) 46 CCC (2d) 327 ( O n t C A ) .  148 Retail,  Wholesale Delivery Ltd  & Department Store Union v Dolphin (1986) 33 DLR ( 4 t h ) 174 ( S C C ) .  Robbins v Canadian Broadcasting DLR (2d) 35 (Que Sup C t ) . Saccone Sidis  v Orr v F-R  Silber  Publishing  v Hutton  v News Media  Turton  v Buttler  Co,  113 F 2d 806  System  Ltd  Ownership  Ltd  (1987) 42 CCLT 74  Virginia State Board Consumer Council v Little  v Storey,  (1982) 24 CCLT 37 324 F 2d 450  (1963).  Kingdom:  Right of Privacy B i l l  1961.  Right  of Privacy B i l l  1967.  Right of Privacy B i l l  1969.  Right of Privacy B i l l  1989.  Right of Reply B i l l New  (1986) 25 DLR  ( 4 t h ) 345  ( A l t a QB). Grounds  Co Ltd  v  of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Inc, 425 US 748 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .  Statutes United  (1940).  [1986] 2 NZLR 716 ( H C ) .  Victoria Park Racing and Recreation (1937) 58 CLR 479 (HC A u s ) .  York  [1958] CS 152, 12  [1944] T a s SR 1 ( S C ) .  Tucker  Wooding  (Que)  (1981) 19 CCLT 37 (Ont Co C t ) .  v BC Broadcasting (BC S C ) .  Tisdall  Corp  1989.  Zealand: B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1976. B r o a d c a s t i n g A c t 1989. F a i r T r a d i n g A c t 1986. G u a r d i a n s h i p A c t 1968.  (BCSC).  Taylor  149 Human R i g h t s C o m m i s s i o n A c t 1977. Australia: Criminal  Code 1899  ( Q l d ) , s 376.  D e f a m a t i o n A c t 1901  ( A C T ) , s 6.  D e f a m a t i o n A c t 1957  (Tas),  D e f a m a t i o n A c t 1974  (NSW), s 15.  P r i v a c y A c t 1988 Privacy  s 15.  (Cth).  Committee A c t 1975  T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t 1974  (NSW).  (Cth).  Canada: C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t 1982, P a r t and F r e e d o m s ) .  1 (Canadian C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s  J u d i c a t u r e A c t RSA 1980, c J - l . P r i v a c y A c t RSBC P r i v a c y A c t RSM  1979, c 33 6. 1987, c P125.  P r i v a c y A c t RSS 1979, c P-24. P r i v a c y A c t SBC 19 68,  c 39.  P r i v a c y A c t S N f l d 1981, c 6.  r  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077723/manifest

Comment

Related Items