Victory for free speech: Judge’s ruling on costs backs right to publish politician’s ‘love child’ story

August 1st, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

By
Michael Seamark

PUBLISHED:

17:33 EST, 31 July 2012

|

UPDATED:

17:33 EST, 31 July 2012

Ruling: Mrs Justice Davies

The legal backers of a baby said to be the love-child of a philandering politician were yesterday ordered to pay the majority of the Daily Mail’s costs after the High Court ruled the public had a right to know about the adulterous affair that led to her birth.

In a significant victory for Press freedom, a judge last week said Associated Newspapers was justified in publishing stories about the illegitimate child because the politician’s ‘recklessness’ in conducting extramarital affairs called into question his fitness for public office.

And yesterday, in what was seen as a further victory for the Press, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies ordered the claimants to pay 80 per cent of the Mail’s costs, an estimated £200,000.

Earlier the judge ruled the child’s mother had compromised her daughter’s right to privacy by hinting at the identity of the father. However, she decided it was not reasonable to publish photographs of the child – known only as AAA – and awarded her £15,000 privacy damages.

The High Court judge said it was undisputed that there was a public interest in the professional and private life of the alleged father, and yesterday made a costs ruling against the claimant.

Although the child is still very young, the case was brought by adults acting on her behalf who, the court ruled, should remain anonymous.

Media lawyer Mark Stephens, referring to last week’s ruling, said: ‘This was an important and very welcome decision to ensure that people who are in public office are held accountable in the way in which they conduct themselves. It is a critical decision for free speech.’

Explaining her costs decision, Mrs Justice Davies said she had assessed damages ‘upon the basis that the defendant (Associated Newspapers) has succeeded in defeating a substantial part of the claim as originally sought.’ The judge also dismissed allegations that journalists from Associated Newspapers ‘laid siege’ to the child’s family home.

The privacy claim was launched following articles that speculated about the identity of the baby girl’s father.

A newspaper carried a story in 2010, when the child was less than one year old, alleging that the politician fathered the child while he was married to somebody else and when the mother was in another relationship.

The girl’s mother has not named the father on her daughter’s birth certificate, saying she wants to find the ‘right time’ to reveal his identity to her.

However the judgment noted that the mother spoke about her child to guests at a country house weekend and gave an interview to a magazine. Even with strangers, she was ‘not averse’ to hinting at or permitting speculation as to the identity of her daughter’s father, the judge said. Making the privacy award earlier this month, the judge said the politician had ‘achieved a level of notoriety as a result of extramarital adulterous liaisons,’ noting that it was alleged that it was the second time he had made a lover pregnant during an affair. The judge said it was undisputed that gossip and speculation surrounding the paternity of the girl existed in the months before the publication of newspaper articles.

She concluded: ‘In balancing the claimant’s expectation of privacy against the public interest in the supposed father and in particular the recklessness, relevant to his character and fitness for public office, I find that the publication of the fact of the claimant’s birth in the circumstances alleged was justified.’

But she said the publication of photos of the child was not reasonable or justified by ‘exceptional public interest’.

Associated Newspapers argued that the girl was too young to know what was being said and having her photograph taken, in public, had not involved or caused distress.

Niri Shan, head of media law at Taylor Wessing, said he believed it was the first time damages had been awarded at trial in a privacy case involving the photograph of such a young child.

‘One of the factors that the judge took into consideration was her interpretation of the Press Complaints Commission code and how, when taking photographs of children, you have to show exceptional public interest,’ he added.

‘Now that might be true in older children but I think that with a very young child, who is unaware of having their photograph being taken, and the photograph is taken in a public place, that might not necessarily be a breach of the PCC code.

‘That is partly because the PCC has recognised that when children grow up their appearance changes significantly, so it is difficult to see how publishing pictures or information about them when they are very young breaches their privacy.’

The legal action was brought against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, under a no win, no fee arrangement.

An insurance policy – used by claimants to cover any potential costs of losing a case – accompanied the arrangement, and it is understood that it will cover the proportion of the newspaper group’s costs that the claimant has been ordered to pay.