Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22

Naomi Campbell had publicly denied taking drugs. The Daily Mirror then published articles revealing that she was receiving treatment for drug addiction through Narcotics Anonymous. The reports included details of the frequency and location of her meetings and covert photographs showing her leaving a meeting. Campbell accepted that the newspaper could correct her false public denial by reporting her addiction and treatment. She challenged the additional treatment details and photographs as an unjustified intrusion into private information. The High Court found for Campbell, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The House of Lords had to decide whether the disputed information attracted privacy protection and, if so, whether publication was justified by freedom of expression.

Did Campbell reasonably expect the treatment details and photographs to remain private, and did her Article 8 interest outweigh the publisher's Article 10 right on these facts?

By a majority of three to two, the House of Lords restored Campbell's judgment. The newspaper was entitled to correct her public falsehood by reporting that she was addicted and receiving treatment. However, the specific location, frequency and nature of the therapy, together with the covert photographs, went further than that legitimate purpose required. Information attracts protection where the claimant reasonably expects privacy in the circumstances. Once that threshold is met, the court balances Articles 8 and 10 with close attention to the comparative importance of the particular rights, the justification for interference and proportionality. Medical treatment and recovery from addiction were especially sensitive, and the additional publication was not justified.

Misuse of private information involves asking first whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, balancing that interest against freedom of expression under Articles 8 and 10. Neither right has automatic priority; justification and proportionality depend on the particular information and context.

The decision is the foundation of the modern privacy action in English law. It shifted attention away from a pre-existing confidential relationship and towards the nature of the information and the claimant's reasonable expectation. It also established the rights-balancing method later applied in cases involving photographs, journalism and online publication. The result does not mean that public figures can suppress accurate criticism. Campbell's own false statement justified part of the report, while the unnecessary treatment details and images crossed the line. Later authority treats misuse of private information as a distinct common-law tort shaped by Convention rights.