Summary Of Murray V Big Pictures

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,

Article 13- Children have a right to receive and share information as long as that information is not damaging to others.

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

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]

Articles 8 and 10 of the European convention of human rights and section 6 of the human rights act 1998 relate directly to both of the key issues throughout this problem question. These problems regard towards the publication of photographs containing Brad Pitts family and Dylan Davies attendance to a gamblers anonymous meeting.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion on seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and the harm it caused. These factors should be balanced against any steps taken by the defendant to rectify the breach. Ultimately, this assessment should be

This case represents quite a relaxed approach to conflicts. It is in line with cases such as Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) 1 All ER 517 (HL) and World Medical Manufacturing v Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick [2000] VSC 196 (Gillard J). More traditional approaches have been more strict, not requiring identification of actual confidential information, but merely the chance of misuse, or the appearance of impropriety. See e.g. Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd (2001) 4 VR 501 (Brooking JA); Village Roadshow v Blake Dawson [2003] VSC 505 (Byrne J); Connell v Pistorino [2009] VSC 289 (Byrne J); and Nettle J in Sent and Primelife Corporation Ltd v John Fairfax Publication Pty Ltd and Hills [2002] VSC 429 (7 October 2002) where Jeff Sher QC was restrained on the basis of a brief 14 years previously he could not even remember! Whilst the liberal view might be the current law, Nettle J is now on the High Court and thus could signal a shift.

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

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

| |The data protection act gives individuals the right to see the information recorded about them and | |

Images, sound and video content containing individuals that can be identified can be considered as contain personal data for the individuals concerned. Therefore in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998 it is necessary to obtain consent from those who are being recorded as well as ensuring the recordings are managed within the laws set out by the Act.

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: