Max Mosley takes privacy campaign to Strasbourg

Former Formula One supremo Max Mosley's privacy campaign has reached the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where judges will hear submissions arising from his case against the News of the World that dates back to 2008. The result, when it comes, could have far-reaching implications for the British media.

What does Mosley want?
 
Mosley, who was the subject of a News of the World sting in 2008, claims that the UK is violating the European Convention of Human Rights by failing to ensure that the media notify people before publishing stories about their private lives. He told Radio 4's Today programme: "If a newspaper is going to write something about your private life they should tell you beforehand."
 
Why does he want to change the law?
 
Writing in the Guardian, he explains: "Breach of privacy can be very serious – worse even than theft because once published, no court can make the information private again. Tabloid revelations can cause great pain, even suicide."
 
He says that if the subjects of a story are notified they will have the chance to apply to a court and a judge to prevent publication if they feel the story breaches their privacy. He argues that a judge, rather than a newspaper editor, should be the one to make the decision on whether an article violates privacy laws.
 
What has prompted Mosley to take up the issue?
 
Mosley is the youngest son of the former British fascist leader Oswald Mosley and was splashed across the front page of the News of the World in March 2008, when the paper obtained video footage of him with prostitutes, and claimed it was part of a "sick Nazi orgy".
 
It published the story without telling him. "The first Max knew about the News of the World story was on the morning of 30 March 2008, the same time as 15 per cent of the adult population of the UK were also reading it," said Dominic Crossley, partner at Collyer Bristow, the firm of solicitors representing Mosley.

Mosley did not deny that he used prostitutes nor that he enjoyed sadomasochistic sex – but it was none of anyone else's business and he refuted vehemently that there was any 'Nazi' tinge to his behaviour.
 
He went on to sue the newspaper for invading his privacy and was awarded £60,000 in damages. After winning the privacy action he decided to pursue the matter at the European Court of Human Rights.
 
Who is objecting?
 
Media organisations are up in arms over the move. They say that forcing newspapers and other news outlets to notify the subjects of their exposes would give them the chance to block publication. They fear that the rich and the powerful would be able to use the courts to stop the publication of stories they don't like, but which are in the public interest. They also claim that the move would violate the media's right to freedom of expression.
 
Geoffrey Robertson QC, who recently represented WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, is appearing on behalf of the various media organisations who are contesting the case.
 
Opponents point out that had the Daily Telegraph been forced to notify each individual MP who appeared in during last year's Commons expenses expose, then each of them would have been entitled to an individual hearing before the paper could have published its stories.
 
Caroline Kean, a partner at law firm Wiggin, told the journalism website Press Gazette that a system of prior notification would be "totally unrealistic and will put an enormous burden on the media."
 
How does Mosley respond?
 
He claims most journalists already let their subjects know about stories beforehand and that therefore his proposal is not overly demanding. "It's inconceivable that in serious journalism you would write something without first talking to the subject," he says.
 
Mosley's solicitor Crossley adds: "The decision not to notify the subjects of stories... is a technique used by tabloid editors in extreme cases when the article is clearly going to be unlawful – they take a decision which renders privacy rights entirely futile."
 
Mosley also says that judges would not block publication if the story was in the public interest, but he adds that a judge, not a newspaper editor, is the right person to decide.
 
Will he win?
 
Legal experts suggest that because the case has been fast-tracked and is being heard orally by the court (most cases are now dealt with writing) it has a good chance of succeeding. They also believe that the questions asked by the court suggest that they are leaning towards Mosley's argument. However, the court is unlikely to come to a decision until later in the year.
 
What will happen if he does win?
 
Newspapers would be required by law to notify the subjects of their stories before they publish them.
 
That could spell the end of the tabloid "kiss and tell" stories about the private lives of sports people and celebrities. It could also inform the wider debate over what is in the "public interest" because judges may have to make a ruling on the issue more frequently.
 
But there are fears for the future of investigative journalism.
 
Kean told the Press Gazette: "There will be a radically different press if he is successful, with a lot of the colour taken away. We would see papers folding because they can't afford the legal costs. I hate to say it, but it would imperil investigative journalism." ·