Privacy Law in the UK

screen neareousness in the UKDefinition of loneliness try out T. Cooley provided the earliest and one of the guilelessst definitions of screen, defining it as the unspoilt(a) to be left(p) alone.1 However, throughout the years, many different definitions have come about in a more positive light rather than a negative, overmuch(prenominal) as, the right to be able to communicate information freely or simply, to keep such information to ourselves. The Younger Committee Report2 followed on from calculate Cooley concluding that thither was no satisfactory way of beginning to set up hiding, nevertheless, the Calcutt Committee Report went further and mentioned that it would however, be possible to define it licitly and went on to adopt this get along in their first report regarding silenceThe right of the individual to be fostered against intrusion into his personal look of affairs, or those of his family, by direct fleshly gist or by issuing of information.3The Calcu tt Committee then issued a further Report in response to Lord Chancellors part for Infringement of solitude to which had criticised English fairness declaring, it had not adequately protected the secrecy of individuals to which they called for an immediate need for nigh form of privacy legislation in the UK.4 The UK Government then followed on from previous renders at defining what privacy consists of, stating both individual has a right to privacy comprisingA right to be free from badgering and molestation andA right to privacy of personal information, communications and documents.5Yet, in this day in age, privacy is still perhaps the more or less touchy to define, as the definitions of privacy can vary depending on the context and surroundings that it is used in. As in various countries, the concept of privacy has been integrate with data protection, which can interpret privacy in the terms of a management of personal information. However, it can also be frequently see n as a way of drawing the line at how far rules of order can flare up into a persons affairs. Robert Ellis Smith, the editor of the Privacy Journal define privacy asthe desire by each of use for physical space where we can be free of interruption, intrusion, embarrassment, or accountability and the attempt to control the time and manner of disclosures of personal information about ourselves.6To which Edward Bloustein to an period agreed with this, mentioning that privacy is an interest of the human personality, as it can protect the inviolate personality, the individuals independence, dignity and integrity. 7 Therefore, it can be think that, though there are various different interpretations of privacy, it can prove difficult to define, and arrest just one particular(prenominal) meaning for it that can relate to everyone. However, most of the definitions pay close attention to the interests of human personality, as advantageously as, deciding where to draw the line at how far society can intrude into a persons undercover affairs.Why do we need Privacy?Every person needs some sort of privacy, whether that be for their physical, mental, emotional or spiritual wellbeing. So much so, that it is well established that everyone is actually empower to a degree of privacy in their lifetime. Although, it has not been a important and enforced right in English law, the need for some sort of individual privacy legislation has been often recognised. However, the Younger Committee concluded that a general privacy legislation would create a volume of uncertainty, so instead of developing a general right for privacy, they took the approach thatthe best way to ensure regard for privacy is to provide specific and effective sanctions against clearly defined activities which unreasonably frustrate the individual in his search for privacy.8However, it can be argued that without central rules on privacy, it would be much easier for individuals to gain private information on various others, as well as, it would also be difficult for prosecutions against individuals that invade the privacy of others. 9Privacy in the UK There is no freestanding right to privacy in the UK, with the courts repeatedly stating that English law knows no common law tort of attack of privacy.10 As an alternative, the cause of action for breach of confidence has been extended to extend misuse of wrongful dissemination of private information. 11 However, expansion of the law in this area has occurred throughout the years.The earliest example in the UK of protecting an individuals privacy is seen in Thompson v Stanhope,12 where an injunction was granted by the court preventing and halting the manation of private letters that were sent from Lord Chesterfield to his son, by his widow. However, this case was followed by various other cases, such as Prince Albert v Strange, 13 where the Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and other lis ts of works by Queen Victoria, to which were obtained by an employee to whom Price Albert had trusted. This case provides a good simile of how the right to confidence protects privacy. Although the right to privacy was not recognised at the time, it was argued on behalf of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert that they had a right to keep private the art works that they had commissioned for their personal enjoyment. Ruling in save of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, the court heldEvery man has a right to keep his own sentiments, if he pleases. He has certainly a right to judge whether he will make them public or grade them only to the sight of his friends.Whereas the court further held that the publication of the etchings invaded the Royal Familys right to privacy, in the sense of a right to control ones possessions and enjoy them. much developments in UK privacy were issued in the case of Malone v Metropolitan law of nature Commissioner, 14 Malone held that his right to privacy w as breached by the Metropolitan Police by means of interception of his telephone calls. He claimed that the police interception of his phone calls had been unlawful on the evidence that it concerned itself with breach of confidence, trespass and an unlawful interference with his privacy. However, the case was fired by Sir Robert Megarry, statingEnglish law did not entertain actions for interference with privacy unless the interference amounted to one of the established causes of actions in tort or equity.15Though, Malone appealed to the ECtHR that a breach of Article 8 had occurred, to which the court found in privilege of Malone and this decision influenced a response by the UK Parliament in regards to Interception of communication theory Act 1985 and Police Act 199716 which was introduced to control telephone interceptions. 17This decision was after echoed in the case of Wainwright Anor v Home Office, 18 where Lord Hoffmann cut a great danged in the courts attempting to fash ion a tort ground on the unjustified invasion of privacy. He however, preferred the idea that fantan should legislate for such protection since there will invariably be exception and defences.How the Law has authentic due to the introduction of the ECHR?What is in the public interest is not the same as what is of interest to the public, to which, in simple terms the court will balance a persons right to a private and family life against the medias right to freedom of expression. This is an area of the law that has developed significantly following the incorporation of the European Convention on benignant Rights into UK law in 1998.Bibliography Cooley TM, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Or, The Wrongs Which Arise indie of adopt (1st edn, Callaghan 1879) 29Smith RE, Ben Franklins web site Privacy and low density from Plymouth rock to the internet (Privacy Journal 2000) 7Crystal G, Protecting your privacy (Civil Rights Movement, 2000) accessed 04 January 20171 Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Or, The Wrongs Which Arise Independent of Contract (1st edn, Callaghan 1879) 292 Department of National Heritage, Younger Committee Report on Privacy (Cmnd 5021, HMSO 1972)3 Department of National Heritage, Calcutt Committee Report on Privacy and Related Matters (Cm 1102, HMSO 1990) 74 Department of National Heritage, Calcutt Review of Press Self-Regulation (Cm 2135, HMSO 1993)5 Department of National Heritage, Parliament Privacy and media intrusion The Governments response to the House of common land National Heritage Select Committee (Cm 2918, HMSO 1995)6 Robert Ellis Smith, Ben Franklins web site Privacy and curiosity from Plymouth rock to the internet. (Privacy Journal 2000) 77 Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an fount of human dignity An answer to Dean Prosser (1964) 39.6 N.Y.U. L. Rev 962 1007 http//heinonline.org/HOL/Page? adhesive friction=hein.journals/nylr39div=71start_page=962collection=journalsset_as_cursor=0men_tab=srchresults accessed 05 January 20178 Department of National Heritage, Younger Committee Report on Privacy (Cmnd 5021, HMSO 1972)9 Garry Crystal, Protecting your privacy (Civil Rights Movement, 2000) accessed 04 January 201710 OBG Ltd v Allan Douglas v Hello Ltd 2007 2 WLR 920, 272. invite also Wainwright v Home Office 2004 2 AC 406.11 Campbell v MGN Ltd 2004 2 AC 457 B McDonald, Privacy, Princesses, and Paparazzi (2005-2006) 50 New York Law School Law Review 205, 232. See also Hosking v Runting 2005 1 NZLR 1, 23-53.12 (1774) Amb. 73713 1849 EWHC Ch J2014 1979 Ch 3441516 Police Act 1997 Part III17 Malone v United res publica 1984 ECHR 8691/7918 2003 UKHL 53