Court Cases of Naomi Campbell

Data Protection Act 1998 – gives individuals the right to know what information is held about them, and those that processes personal information must comply with eight principles, which makes sure that personal information is fairly and lawfully processed; processed for limited purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive; accurate and up to date; not kept for longer than is necessary; processed in line with your rights; secure; not transferred to other countries without adequate protection;

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

2 The Privacy Act 1988 (Commonwealth) is the law that explains the professional, ethical obligations related to privacy and confidentiality,

The common law jurisdiction in the UK did not hold the rights of an individual 's privacy highly against the public interest of free expression. UK had a tragic lesson learnt with the death of Princess Diana from chasing paparazzi and in 1998 the United Kingdom passed its Human Rights Act which included a right to privacy. Yet many Judges decisions still use the words of breach of confidence.

Behavioural privacy also plays a significant role in genetic profiling, as it is a technology which is frequently being enhanced, requiring constant review and law reform, ensuring that justice will be present, both presently and in the future, to protect the rights of each individual. Behavioural privacy refers to the use of genetic profiling predicting the past in an inadequate, unjust manner, as to restrict the confidentiality of individuals. Issues on genetic profiling, specifically behavioural privacy have arisen and been expressed in an article titled ‘Call to control police use of DNA’, as Associate Professor Jeremy Gans, of Melbourne Law School says ''Australian legislation leaves rape victims, just like their rapists, exposed to investigation aimed at determining their connection with any unsolved crime on a jurisdiction's DNA database''. This is present, as the Crimes Act 1914, division 7A section 23XX, part two, which states that inadmissibility of evidence from improper forensic procedures etc., does not apply where “(a) a provision of this Part required forensic material to be destroyed; and

This act is vital to follow in a health and social care setting. The act controls how your persona information is used by organisations, businesses or the government. Information must be used fairy, lawfully and for limited, specifically stated purposes. It should be handled according to people’s data protection rights and be kept safe and secure. By protecting vulnerable adults, confidentiality is essential. If a service feels that they cannot express their feelings freely, without assurance or judgement that it will be in self-assurance, then patients may withhold necessary information that may be important to their recovery. Violating someone's confidence may also outcome in alternate conditions for the patient. For example, if the patient

Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) Introduction to The Data Protection Act 1998. [Online] Available from: http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/ico_presentation_EVOC_20120528.ashx [Accessed: 11th October 2013]

Murray v Express Newspapers , a case similar to that of Wellers also saw the lack of consent being a major flaw with the published article however as stated before article 8 is a qualified right and was balanced with that of article 10 where it was found that there nothing embarrassing or publicly detrimental to their public appearance and therefore article 10 was granted allowing them to freely be able to publish the story. It has been found that a celebrities’ right to privacy is also highly debated since it is not illegal to photograph a celebrity as long as it does not harm their public appearance, it is found that if they are in the public eye then it is not considered their private life since this is the life they signed up to when they become a celebrity . Therefore, suggesting that since it wouldn’t be detrimental to the Pitt family and Mr Evans may have some rights when producing the article. After balancing both articles 8 and 10 for the Brad Pitt case it suggests that although there are no suggestions of

The Constitution states that a person has the right to publish or print any news or opinions that they deem worthy. Yet today some laws prohibit this freedom, by creating laws in order to protect the individual’s privacy, we are limiting ones ability to report facts. Furthermore many records previously available for the public to view are now sealed. On the opposite end of the spectrum new freedoms are being allowed. In a court case, “Justice Joseph Teresi has struck an important blow for constitutional rights and an open judicial process by allowing cameras to televise the murder trial.”[3] By allowing a camera into the courtroom people are better able to get a grasp on our judicial system in the United States. This decision also allows citizens to view first hand news in action, without any biases created by reporters. As some of our freedoms are revoked other are being ratified. These changes

The Data Protection Act 1988 – This act covers the rights of an individual. Written, confidentially, retrieval and handling of verbal information.

A defendant ran through a stop sign while driving an automobile and convincingly showed he had done so unintentionally. Should the court have acquitted him? (free from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.)

7). Furthermore, he discusses that the Grigg Committee vetoed the idea of preserving records due to containing information on individuals and providing ‘particular instance papers’ in 1954 as well as bringing up the example of Barnardo’s, the National Children’s Home, and other institutional archives that were experienced at Liverpool University during the 1980s. Ultimately, “nowhere are strong ethical guidelines more necessary than where questions of access to personal data are involved” (Cook, 2006, p.

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

The Data Protection Act 1998 defines UK law on the processing of data on identifiable living people. The act contains eight principles, which all organisations processing personal information must conform to, these are:

The appellant, David Murray, along with his parents, Mr and Mrs. Murray, as his litigation friends, sought an action against the respondent, Big Pictures Limited (BPL), for the striking out of his first claim for the infringement of his right to privacy under the European Convention of Human Rights. The respondent took a photograph of him without consent (and knowing that if asked, it would be rejected) to which they sought an injunction to restrain further publication, the misuse of such private information and compensation under Data Protection Act 1998.