London Daily

Focus on the big picture.
Saturday, Jul 05, 2025

Meghan Markle and the trouble with human rights law

Meghan Markle and the trouble with human rights law

Meghan Markle hailed her victory in a high court privacy case as a 'comprehensive win' over the Mail on Sunday’s 'illegal and dehumanising practices'. But is that right? If you dig beneath the headlines and read the judge's ruling, it becomes clear that her victory has much to do with a burgeoning expansion of privacy rights based on human rights law. This change in the law has taken place with little fanfare and the victim – the press – generate little sympathy. Yet it is something that should worry any supporter of free speech.

Until about twenty years ago, the English courts were pretty robust about celebrities’ privacy suits, then known as actions for breach of confidence. A typical example was a 1977 episode where a well-known pop group indignantly sought to stop the Daily Mirror spilling the beans about their private high jinks. A Court of Appeal judge tersely told them that even if someone was breaking confidence, high-living celebrities like them who sought the limelight and courted good publicity could not generally complain if someone publicised less complimentary facts about them.

So what has changed? The explanation here lies fairly squarely with human rights activism. As early as 1970, the Council of Europe, the body behind the European court of human rights, had passed Resolution 428 saying that the human right to privacy needed to be put to work to curb what it clearly saw as a vulgar and unsavoury mass media.

This should trouble anyone with a concern for a free press
By 2004, the court had enthusiastically taken the hint. It decided that Princess Caroline of Monaco had a human right to suppress paparazzo photographs of her in public places, sniffily adding that free speech was all very well, but not really for publications 'of which the sole purpose was to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership' about a person in the public eye.

What the European court initiated, the English courts happily adopted. From then on they decided that any information could be suppressed which someone had a reasonable expectation would be kept private (whatever that meant). Celebrities’ privacy actions became simply an exercise in deciding whether this was so, and then asking (in the words of the judge in the Meghan case) 'whether in all the circumstances the privacy rights of the claimant must yield to the imperatives of the freedom of expression enjoyed by publishers'. The vital point (again in his words) was whether there was a 'contribution which the publication of the relevant information would make to a debate of general interest'.

And so, we come to the result in Meghan’s claim against the Mail on Sunday. The judge there excoriated the old robust approach to newspaper exposés as an obviously outdated 'crude common law principle'. Today what mattered was the new human-rights-based sophistication. Here, since Meghan understandably hoped that her letter to her father would never be revealed, and there was no sufficiently high-minded addition to public debate to justify publicising it, she had to win.

We should not criticise the judge for deciding as he did; he was loyally applying the law as it is now. Nor is the result reached necessarily misguided. It is certainly arguable, even if most Spectator readers are likely to disagree, that people – including celebrities – ought to have an extensive right to privacy and the press a correspondingly narrow right to inform its readers about their inner lives.

But the important point here lies in the word 'arguable'. It is this which demonstrates the problem arising from the fact that almost all press privacy questions have now been deftly transmuted into human rights cases. The essence of human rights claims is precisely that they are not arguable in this sense. To call a right a human right is to say it is so important that no state can deny it and still be called civilised, and that therefore it needs to be taken out of the democratic political process and entrusted to supranational institutions like the European court.

There is no reason, however, to think that privacy claims such as Meghan’s fall into this category. Indeed there is every reason to think they are not: it is perfectly possible for a civilised state to support either a wide or a narrow definition of privacy. The choice between them is a vital question of social policy. The proper place for the matter to be decided is in the democratic political sphere. If human rights law requires that privacy be preferred over press freedom whatever the voters think, then this should trouble anyone with a concern for a free press.

Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
London Stock Exchange Faces Historic Low in Initial Public Offerings
A new online platform has emerged in the United Kingdom, specifically targeting Muslim men seeking virgin brides
Trump Celebrates Independence Day with B-2 Flyover and Signs Controversial Legislation
Boris Johnson Urges Conservatives to Ignore Farage
SNP Ordered to Update Single-Sex Space Guidance Within Days
Starmer Set to Reject Calls for Wealth Taxes
Stolen Century-Old Rolls-Royce Recovered After Hotel Theft
Macron Presses Starmer to Recognise Palestinian State
Labour Delayed Palestine Action Ban Over Riot Concerns
Swinney’s Tax Comments ‘Offensive to Scots’, Say Tories
High Street Retailers to Enforce Bans on Serial Shoplifters
Music Banned by Henry VIII to Be Performed After 500 Years
Steve Coogan Says Working Class Is Being ‘Ethnically Cleansed’
Home Office Admits Uncertainty Over Visa Overstayer Numbers
JD Vance Questions Mandelson Over Reform Party’s Rising Popularity
Macron to Receive Windsor Carriage Ride in Royal Gesture
Labour Accused of ‘Hammering’ Scots During First Year in Power
BBC Head of Music Stood Down Amid Bob Vylan Controversy
Corbyn Eyes Hard-Left Challenge to Starmer’s Leadership
London Tube Trains Suspended After Major Fire Erupts Nearby
Richard Kemp: I Felt Safer in Israel Under Attack Than in the UK
Cyclist Says Police Cited Human Rights Act for Riding No-Handed
China’s Central Bank Consults European Peers on Low-Rate Strategies
AI Raises Alarms Over Long-Term Job Security
Saudi Arabia Maintains Ties with Iran Despite Israel Conflict
Musk Battles to Protect Tesla Amid Trump Policy Threats
Air France-KLM Acquires Majority Stake in Scandinavian Airlines
UK Educators Sound Alarm on Declining Child Literacy
Shein Fined €40 Million in France Over Misleading Discounts
Brazil’s Lula Visits Kirchner During Argentina House Arrest
Trump Scores Legislative Win as House Passes Tax Reform Bill
Keir Starmer Faces Criticism After Rocky First Year in Power
DJI Launches Heavy-Duty Coaxial Quadcopter with 80 kg Lift Capacity
U.S. Senate Approves Major Legislation Dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Largest Healthcare Fraud Takedown in U.S. History Announced by DOJ
Poland Implements Border Checks Amid Growing Migration Tensions
Political Dispute Escalates Between Trump and Musk
Emirates Airline Expands Market Share with New $20 Million Campaign
Amazon Reaches Milestone with Deployment of One Millionth Robot
US Senate Votes to Remove AI Regulation Moratorium from Domestic Policy Bill
Yulia Putintseva Calls for Spectator Ejection at Wimbledon Over Safety Concerns
Jury Deliberations in Diddy Trial Yield Partial Verdict in Serious Criminal Charges
House Oversight Committee Subpoenas Former Jill Biden Aide Amid Investigation into Alleged Concealment of President Biden's Cognitive Health
King Charles Plans Significant Role for Prince Harry in Coronation
Two Chinese Nationals Arrested for Espionage Activities Against U.S. Navy
Amazon Reaches Major Automation Milestone with Over One Million Robots
Extreme Heat Wave Sweeps Across Europe, Hitting Record Temperatures
Meta Announces Formation of Ambitious AI Unit, Meta Superintelligence Labs
Robots Compete in Football Tournament in China Amid Injuries
Trump Administration Considers Withdrawal of Funding for Hospitals Providing Gender Treatment to Minors
×