Privacy law: breaking news vs ‘innocent until proven guilty’

The Supreme Court confirmed that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy up to the point of charge (Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5).  In practice, this means that the media should not ordinarily publish the identify of people arrested during a criminal investigation.

When high profile individuals are involved and then identified by the media, how does this impact the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

In Richard v BBC and another [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch), the High Court held that Sir Cliff Richard’s privacy rights were infringed by the BBC by broadcasting the fact he was the subject of a police investigation.  In this case, Mr Justice Mann accepted that although public figures may have a diminished expectation of privacy, they “…are not fair game for any invasion of privacy” [287].

In another case (WFZ v BBC [2023] EWHC 1618 (KB)), Mrs Justice Collins Rice granted an interim injunction preventing the BBC from identifying a high-profile man accused of sexual offences because to do so would amount to a contempt of court and misuse of private information.

The law is supposed to protect individuals under criminal investigation against the stigma connected with being arrested. Where the media widely identifies a person under police investigation, what becomes of the presumption of innocence requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt?

The Hamlins Reputation and Privacy team is widely recognised as an advisor of choice for both individuals and businesses seeking advice in relation to reputation management, including complaints in defamation and privacy law and we handle cases involving print and digital media.

If you would like to find out more about how Hamlins can help you, please get in touch.