skeleton argument (40% weighting); the skeleton will be limited to two sides of one A4. You will be required to write a skeleton argument which is the document outlining the submissions to be made in furtherance of the ground of appeal of the case scenari

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

19 March 2018

BETWEEN:

HOT! MAGAZINE Appellant

-and-

JENNY LAPEZ Respondent

_____________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

____________________

Pursuant to, and in compliance with, Rule 8(a) (i) and (ii), the Appellant now submits its:

1) List of Authorities and

2) [one page] summary, setting out the main points of counsels’ arguments

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22

Legislation

European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8)

European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10)

SUMMARY

The grounds of appeal

1. The Appellant submit that the trial judge erred in not applying Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 to this case, which states that if information regarding the drug addiction and treatment was already put into the public domain, it cannot retain its character of private information sufficiently to engage the protection offered by Article 8[footnoteRef:1]. [1: (Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, [2004]) ]

2. The Appellant submit that the trial judge erred in failing to recognise that the right to privacy was outweighed by the public interest of said celebrity injecting another person with heroin, where it is stated in the ECHR, Article 8, Section 2, There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

3. The Appellant submit that the trial judge erred in not applying Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 to this case, which states that we have not so far held that the mere fact of covert photography is sufficient to make the information contained in the photograph confidential, therefore said celebrity had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to the birthday party and the photographs taken[footnoteRef:2]. [2: (Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, [2004]) ]

Submissions

1. It was established in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead that if information regarding the drug addiction and treatment was previously made public, it surely cannot retain its character of private information sufficiently to engage the protection offered by Article 8.

a. This principle should be applied to the current case, where the Respondent had previously given an interview to Daily Gossip Magazine revealing her battle with addiction.

b. Therefore, the right of privacy could not have been violated as the information was in the public domain.

2. As it is in the interest of protecting all parties, the law requires taking into account the ECHR, Article 8 section 2, in order to examine whether an individual’s right of privacy outweighs the public interest for safety.

a. This assessment should have been applied to the current case, where the Respondent’s action was a crime, and brought harm to another individual.

b. Therefore, the question of the right to privacy is irrelevant and should not outweigh the interest of public safety.

3. It was established in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 by The Baroness Hale of Richmond that we have not so far held that we do not recognise a right to one’s own image, the mere fact of covert photography is insufficient to make the information contained in the photograph confidential.

a. This principal should be applied to the current case, where the Respondent is a celebrity who regularly courted publicity.

b. Therefore, the right of privacy is outweighed by the right of freedom of expression and information of the magazine.

The Appellant ask the Court to allow the appeal for the reasons advanced above

References:

· Publications.parliament.uk. (2018). House of Lords - Campbell (Apellant) v. MGN Limited (Respondents). [online] Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-5.htm [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

· Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004][2004] UKHL 22.

13404481