Former FIA president Max Mosley has said that it was "a little bit sad" that he had lost a court case in Strasbourg's European court of human rights over the media's right to publish news stories relating to people's private lives.
Mosley had pushed on with the human rights case after initially winning £60,000 of damages from the News of the World newspaper over the publication of revelations regarding his private sex life.
The UK high court ruled that the Sunday tabloid had not been justified in publishing a front-page spread relating to Mosley taking part in a BDSM sex act with five prostitutes.
And after that win, Mosley pushed on to the European courts, hoping to secure a ruling forcing newspapers to warn people prior to publishing stories regarding their private lives.
But that case was rejected by the court on Tuesday, with the Strasbourg ruling suggesting that any such move would have a "chilling effect" on newspapers worldwide.
It did criticise the News of the World's publication of the Mosley story, suggesting that the story was run "merely to titillate the public and increase the embarrassment of [Mosley]".
But the court emphasised that the wider implications of the proposed system from Mosley, saying that: "The court is of the view that article 8 [of the European convention on human rights] does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement.
"Accordingly, the court concludes that there has been no violation of article 8 of the convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law."
Article 8 of the human rights convention relates to the right of an individual's privacy, stating: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
The court also suggested that a ruling in favour of Mosley would have "run the risk" of being incompatible with another human rights convention, namely Article 10 - which concerns freedom of expression.
The court suggested that new privacy laws might become might "a form of censorship prior to publication".
"The threat of criminal sanctions or punitive fines would create a chilling effect which would be felt in the spheres of political reporting and investigative journalism," the court verdict stated.
Speaking after the verdict was delivered, Mosley admitted that he was disappointed to have lost, but insisted that he was not yet prepared to concede defeat.
"It's not over yet," he told the BBC on Tuesday, "I think it's absolutely essential to do everything one can to preserve people's privacy - people's freedom in that sense - and whatever I can do in that regard I am going to do
He added: "It's a little bit sad there is a gap in the law which should have been closed where newspapers ambush people. It should have been closed. Maybe it will be one day."
The main argument against forcing newspapers to contact the subject of a story prior to publication involved the potential increase in the current trend of 'superinjunctions', preventing the media from reporting a story, or even the fact that they have been prevented from reporting on a story.
But Mosley denied that his request would have led to more 'gagging orders' on the press, saying: "In the overwhelming majority of cases the person knows beforehand. It is a small minority of cases where you are ambushed."
Leading legal figures suggested that although Mosley has refused to give up his case, the chances of this European ruling being overturned are slim.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
