Ex-FIA president Max Mosley will continue with his attempts to change the UK privacy laws, despite seeing his case with the European Court of Human Rights thrown out last month, as he now pushes for an appeal against that judgment.
Mosley has been arguing for a change in the law since winning a lawsuit against the News of the World tabloid over their decision to print private and lurid details of a BDSM sex act he took part in with five prostitutes in 2008.Mosley received £60,000 worth of damages from the newspaper in that verdict, but since then he has taken his case further, seeking to change the law in order to force newspapers to warn people before they publish stories regarding their private life.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled against Mosley last month, suggesting that although Mosley's own private story was published for little reason other than to "titillate the public", a change in the law would have a "chilling effect" on the media.
But Mosley's legal team have announced their intention to appeal that verdict, seeking to take the case to the 'upper court' in Strasbourg, the highest legal option for his appeal.
The so-called Grand Chamber in Strasbourg is specifically designed to discuss "serious questions of interpretation" of the European human rights convention.
Mosley's team will argue that with the UK government failing to change the country's privacy laws to protect against the 'habitual trade' in lurid sex scandals of famous people in the UK media, the European Court must act.
"The UK government and parliament have left it to the courts to develop the law which protects Article 8 rights," a statement from his lawyers explained, referencing the right to a 'private and family life'.
"The [court] noted that no other contracting state imposes such a pre-publication requirement to notify...But no other state [aside from the UK] has a press which habitually trades on the publication of the intimate, sexual details of people's private lives.
"It is because of such journalistic malpractices, in breach of Article 8, that an effective remedy is required."
His legal team insisted that without newspapers carrying an obligation to notify people of their intended publication of private details of their lives, their intrusive behaviour could continue unimpeded.
"Newspapers could use the same techniques tomorrow to obtain and publish intimate photographs and details of the sex lives of individuals, without notice and in the knowledge that it is wholly unlawful," the lawyers stated.
"A ruling from the grand chamber of the court is needed upon this important issue to close a clear gap in UK law."
The debate over press freedoms in terms of private sexual details is of particular interest in the UK given the recent 'super-injunction' scandal.
Recently, the details of several 'gagging orders' on the press by famous actors and sports stars were effectively circumvented on social networking websites.
The newspaper's main argument against Mosley's proposal is that by forcing them to give prior warning of their stories, each of them would simply be blocked by a super-injunction of their own, which would contravene article 10 of the Human Rights act, which concerns freedom of expression.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
