Home
Learn More
Release Features
Success Stories
Contact Us
Search Archives
PRWeb Direct
Submit Release
May 13, 2008
 
Industry Categories  
News by Country  
News by MSA  
Todays News  
Browse by Day  
PR Trackbacks™  
Featured Videos  
ViewNews™  
eBook Digests  
RSS  
 
PRWeb, a leader in online news and press release distribution, has been used by more than 40,000 organizations of all sizes to increase the visibility of their news, improve their search engine rankings and drive traffic to their Web site.
 
All Press Releases for May 9, 2008 Subscribe to this News Feed     Subscribe to this Podcast Feed  
 

Schillings Win Privacy Appeal for J K Rowling's Son

Schillings win privacy appeal for J K Rowling's son to grant enhanced privacy rights for children.

(PRWEB) May 9, 2008 -- Schillings the solicitors to David Murray (the son of J K Rowling and Dr Neil Murray), has succeeded in achieving a favourable judgment on behalf of their client in his court action against Big Pictures (UK) Ltd. This decision from the appeal court will grant enhanced privacy rights for children in the UK.

The Court of Appeal handed down the judgment in favour of David, now aged 5, in his action against picture agency Big Pictures for breach of privacy (http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display.aspx?MasterId=64da6b0c-df50-4c0f-9166-809c88e3fc09&NavigationId=287 ) and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was brought by Dr Neil Murray and his wife, Mrs. Joanne Murray (a.k.a. J K Rowling) as "Litigation friends" of their son. Dr. and Mrs Murray made no claim in these proceedings for protection of their own privacy.

The Court of Appeal upheld David Murray's appeal in respect of covert long lens photographs of him taken by a photographer whilst David was being pushed in a buggy by his parents down an Edinburgh street on a family outing on 8th November 2004.

In a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said, "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent. In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."

In a statement released through their lawyers, Schillings (http://www.schillings.co.uk/ ), David's parents said, "We embarked on this lawsuit, not because we were seeking special privileges for our children, but because we wanted them to grow up like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances. However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight. We are immensely grateful to the Court for giving our children protection from covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and material difference to their lives."

Keith Schilling (http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display.aspx?&MasterId=056c39fa-1d70-4a58-97f5-f554b1f912b5&NavigationId=232 ), Senior Partner at Schillings said, "This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country. Following the House of Lords decision in Campbell v MGN, which established a right of privacy (http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display.aspx?MasterId=123d42c7-ab56-4089-8748-a171d79de8f7&NavigationId=218 ), this case establishes a law of privacy for children in those cases where, understandably, the parents wish to protect their children from intrusive photography by the paparazzi. It will have a profound effect especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it. After all, the change in the law broadly reflects what was already provided for, voluntarily, in the PCC Code of Practice"

Neil Blair, instructing solicitor from J K Rowling's literary agents, Christopher Little Literary Agency, said, "Whilst the case concerned photography, which has always been recognised as especially intrusive in privacy cases, the principles that this decision establishes are apposite to the protection of private information concerning children generally."

Issued by Schillings, solicitors for Dr. and Mrs. Murray, litigation friends of David Murray.

Further details of the judgment and additional editors' notes are available in PDF format from the Schillings website.

Court of Appeal Case Number A3/2007/2236

For further press enquiries and information please contact:

Christopher Mills
Business Director
Schillings
41 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3HX
Tel: 020 7034 9000
Fax: 020 7034 9200
www.schillings.co.uk

###

Other Releases by this Member
OPTIONS
Printer Friendly Version
Email this story to a colleague
CONTACT INFORMATION
Christopher Mills
Schillings
020 7034 9000
Email us Here
ATTACHED FILES

There are no multimedia files attached to this release. If this is your release, you may add images or other multimedia files through your login.

ABOUT PRESS RELEASES
If you have any questions regarding information in these press releases please contact the company listed in the press release. Please do not contact PRWeb. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry. PRWeb disclaims any content contained in these releases. Our complete disclaimer appears here.
 
Disclaimer: If you have any questions regarding information in these press releases please contact the company listed in the press release.
Please do not contact PRWeb®. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry.
PRWeb® disclaims any content contained in these releases. Our complete disclaimer appears here.

© Copyright 1997-2008, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright