JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son

· Author's children entitled to remain out of public eye
· Verdict adds to developing French-style privacy laws

David Murray, aged five, yesterday joined the model Naomi Campbell, Princess Caroline of Monaco and the Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt on the list of names shaping Britain's emerging privacy laws.

The son of the Harry Potter author JK Rowling and her husband, Dr Neil Murray, won a landmark court of appeal ruling establishing that the law protects the children of celebrities from the publication of unauthorised photographs, unless their parents have exposed them to publicity.

Rowling and her husband brought the case in their son's name in an attempt to ban publication of covert long-lens pictures of her son taken when he was 19 months old by an agency photographer. In the images, one of which was published in the Sunday Express magazine, David was being pushed in a buggy by his parents near their home in Edinburgh in 2004.

Express Newspapers settled the case against it for invasion of privacy out of court but the agency, Big Pictures, applied to a high court judge to have the claim against it struck out. Last August, Mr Justice Patten threw out the parents' claim, saying that "the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything".

But three appeal court judges, headed by the master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, overturned that judgment yesterday. Clarke, England's second most senior judge, 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."

Rowling and her husband said in a statement: "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 intrusion into their privacy.

"We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of ... interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances. However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight."

They said the ruling would give their children protection from "covert, unauthorised photography" and make an "immediate and material difference to their lives". The couple also have a young daughter, and Rowling has a daughter from a previous marriage.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, an expert on privacy law, said: "In this case an English court has held, for the first time, that the publication of an inoffensive photograph of an everyday activity in the street could amount to an invasion of privacy. This brings English privacy law more closely into line with the position in France. This case puts in place another building block in the gradual construction by the courts of a fully developed law of privacy."

Rowling's solicitor, Keith Schilling, said: "This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country." He said the ruling established a law of privacy for children from "intrusive photography".

"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."

The ruling means the claim for invasion of privacy against Big Pictures can now go ahead unless it is settled out of court.

Contributor

Clare Dyer, legal editor

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Holiday photo ruling is new blow to paparazzi

Hugh Grant, Liz Hurley and her husband have accepted £58,000 in damages for invasion of their privacy. By Clare Dyer

Clare Dyer, legal editor

16, May, 2008 @6:35 AM

Madonna seeks £5m from Mail on Sunday

Claim, if accepted, will be biggest payout in a privacy case in the UK, dwarfing £60,000 awarded to Max Mosley

Leigh Holmwood

09, Dec, 2008 @12:01 AM

Article image
Zac Goldsmith calls for privacy law
Tory MP says superinjunctions are an 'overreaction', but are inevitable given newspapers' interest in celebrities' private lives. By Dan Sabbagh

Dan Sabbagh

10, May, 2011 @1:00 PM

Dan Tench's expert view: An exercise in damage limitation

Dan Tench: Max Mosley's success is the culmination of nearly a decade of privacy law development

Dan Tench

24, Jul, 2008 @11:01 PM

Daily Mail editor promises new look at personal privacy rules for journalists

The editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, has promised to re-examine rules that prevent journalists accessing personal information by subterfuge. By Owen Gibson

Owen Gibson, media correspondent

16, Jun, 2008 @11:01 PM

Explainer: Public interest

The News of the World's 'public interest' defence in Max Mosley case examined. By Leigh Holmwood

Leigh Holmwood

24, Jul, 2008 @11:01 PM

Sienna Miller sues paparazzi for harassment

Hollywood actor Sienna Miller has launched legal proceedings against Big Pictures photography agency and founder Darryn Lyons. By Afua Hirsch

Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent

31, Oct, 2008 @12:01 AM

Who's who in the Max Mosley privacy judgement

The key players in Max Mosley's £60,000 privacy action against the News of the World

24, Jul, 2008 @11:01 PM

No show for newspaper's star witness in Mosley case

The dominatrix who received £12,000 for secretly filming Max Mosley's orgy has failed to appear at the high court as the News of the World's star witness. By Helen Pidd

Helen Pidd

10, Jul, 2008 @11:01 PM

Article image
Mosley v the News of the World: Whips, cups of tea and a cut-price exposé

Motor racing boss Max Mosley's attempt to sue for gross invasion of privacy has been an educational experience. By Helen Pidd

Helen Pidd

09, Jul, 2008 @11:01 PM