In a ruling that could establish a privacy law through the back door, the high court today said celebrities and public figures were entitled to "some space of privacy" even if they shamelessly courted media attention.
Awarding Naomi Campbell £3,500 in damages agains the Mirror newspaper for breach of privacy, Mr Justice Michael Morland said newspapers had no legitimate right to pursue every detail of celebrities' private lives.
The declaration in the Campbell case against the Mirror appears to be a direct clash with a court ruling two weeks ago that said a Premiership footballer had no right to block a newspaper's publication of "kiss-and-tell" stories because he was public figure.
"Although many aspects of the private lives of celebrities and public figures will inevitably enter the public domain, in my judgement it does not follow that even with self publicists every aspect and detail of their private lives are legitimate quarry for the journalist. They are entitled to some space of privacy," Mr Justice Morland said today.
He based his ruling on the principle of privacy enshrined in article 8 of the European Human Rights Act, which was incorporated into UK law in October 2001.
"In my judgement the media to conform with article 8 should respect information about aspects or details of the private lives of celebrities and public figures which they legitimately choose to keep private, certainly "sensitive personal data" unless there is an overriding public interest duty to publish consistent with article 10."
The judge said the Mirror had a right to report that Ms Campbell was a drug addict and that she was receiving therapy but was wrong to publish the details of her Narcotics Anonymous treatment.
"Clearly in my judgement the public had a need to know that Miss Naomi Campbell had been misleading the public by her denial of drug addiction and balanced and positive journalism demanded that the public be told that Miss Naomi Campbell was receiving therapy for her drug addiction.
"Clearly the Mirror was fully entitled to put the record straight and publish that her denials of drug addiction were deliberately misleading. She might have been thought of and indeed she herself seems to be a self appointed role model to young black women.
"However, consistent with article 8 in my judgement the court should protect from publication and give remedies for the wrongful publication in breach of confidence of details which have the mark and badge of confidentiality."
