Defamation

• Author: International Law Group

On February 1, 2001, The Mirror newspaper of London published a prominent front-page article about the plaintiff, Naomi Campbell, a celebrated English-born fashion model who travels widely but resides in the United States. The plaintiff had several times boasted publicly that, unlike many others in the fashion business, she was not a drug addict. The Mirror article reported that she had not been telling the truth.

In fact she is an addict, the paper reported, and often went to meetings of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) both in the U.S. and the U.K. to conquer her addiction. The headline was "Naomi: I am an addict." Otherwise, the tone of the initial piece was to praise plaintiff's courage in facing down her problem and to wish her well.

The Mirror captioned one of the accompanying photos, "Hugs: Naomi ... arrives for a lunchtime group meeting this week". It depicted the plaintiff as the central figure in a small group standing on the doorstep of a building. Two persons (with pixilated faces) were shown embracing the plaintiff. The article did not mention the location of the meeting. But anyone who knew the Kings Road area well could identify the place where the group had gathered.

Ms. Campbell sued MGN Ltd, publisher of The Mirror, in the English courts seeking damages, inter alia, for breach of confidence. The matters which were alleged to be in breach of confidence or an unlawful invasion of her privacy were, first, the fact that she was attending meetings at NA, secondly, the published details of her attendance and what went on at the meetings and thirdly, the photographs taken with a telephoto lens from a nearby parked car without her knowledge or consent.

The trial judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor and awarded her £2,500 in compensatory damages and £1,000 in punitive damages growing out of the later Mirror articles more critical of the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed defendant's appeal and plaintiff obtained review in the House of Lords. In a vote of three Lords of Appeal to two, the House of Lords reverses the Court of Appeal and restores the order of the court of first instance.

The plaintiff did not so much object to defendant's publication having set the record straight about her self-serving claims of nonaddiction. Rather, the core of plaintiff's case was that the court should treat the details of her drug treatments, including the photograph, differently. This material was not the subject of any falsehood that justified correction. Moreover, it was information which any reasonable person, such as an attendee, who acquired it would realize had been confidentially obtained.

In opposition, the defendant urged that the treatment information was marginal and not meaningful enough to constitute a breach of confidence. It also urged that the Court of Appeal had struck the proper balance between the plaintiff's right to protect her private life under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as against the right to freedom of expression provided for by Article 10(1).

Plaintiff stated her position concisely in the particulars of her claim. There she alleged that: "Information about whether a person is receiving medical or similar treatment for addiction, and in particular details relating to such treatment or the person's...