These three cases demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights balances different human rights in its case law: 1) Attorney-General v Guardian Newspaper (1987) - The Court held that the Guardian did not breach confidentiality by reporting on Australian court proceedings regarding a book revealing UK intelligence secrets, as the reports contained no damaging information. However, the Times was liable for profits from publishing extracts from the book itself due to breaching a duty of confidence. 2) Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004) - The European Court of Human Rights ruled that while the Daily Mirror was entitled to report that Naomi Campbell was a drug addict, it breached her privacy by revealing confidential details about her treatment and publishing a photo

1. Article8 : Right to respect for private and Article 10: right of freedom of expression
family life – Case Law
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspaper (1987)
Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004) Article 11: Right to freedom of peaceful assembly
Peter Wright worked for the MI5 and wrote a book called and to freedom of association) – Case Law
Supermodel Naomi Campbell won a landmark Spycatcher, describing his work. This was a breach of the
privacy ruling against the Daily Mirror. She was Official Secrets Act 1911. It was published in the US and Applebey and others v UK (2003)
awarded £3,5000 damages after the Mirror Australia. The Guardian newspaper published articles on the
revealed she was a drug addict . The Law Lords court proceedings in the Australian courts by the UK This case involved balancing the rights of freedom of speech
ruled that although the tabloid was entitled to government to stop the publication. The court held that the against the rights of private property owners. The issue was
reveal that she was an addict, because she has Guardian’s articles contained no damaging information and so whether shopping centres in new towns.
always made a point of distancing herself from there was no breach of confidentiality. However, the Times on
drugs, it had committed a breach of confidence by Sunday who published extracts from the book was in breach
revealing details of her treatment and printing a of its duty of confidence and were therefore liable for the
photograph of her outside or Narcotics profits it made as a result of publishing the extracts.
Anonymous.
Article 14: Freedom from Discrimination – Case
Article 9: the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion Law
R (on the application of Begum v Denbigh High School (2004) BB v United Kingdom (2004).
The applicant was arrested and charged with ‘buggery’
Shabina Begum was a pupil at Denbigh High School. She wished to wear the long coat like garment (homosexual relations) with a young man aged 16 years of
known as the jilbab instead of the options given to her by the school who had consulted with local age. The decision was made to prosecute the applicant (who
mosques, religious organisations and parents. The school considered the shalwar kameez attractive as was in his 40’s) and not the 16 year old boy. The applicant
it was worn by several faith groups and helped to minimise the differences between them. For 2 years held this to be discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 in
Ms Begum attended the school without complaint but then refused to attend for 3 years if she was conjunction with Article 8 (the right to private and family life).
not allowed to wear the jilbab which she believed was required by her Muslim faith. The Government conceded that they had violated these rights
but made it clear that they had gone some way to preventing
She lost her case at the High Court but later won an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The school this happening again by fixing the age of consent for both
appealed against this decision and the case was heard by the House of Lords. The law lords took the hetro- and homosexual acts at 16.
view that although a persons right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute (i.e. could not be
interfered with), a persons right to manifest (display) their religious belief was qualified (i.e. it could be
interfered with if there was a justification. The Law Lords held that there were justifiable grounds for
interference. One of the grounds was to protect the rights of other female students at the school who
would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form of dress.
HUMAN RIGHTS CASE LAW