On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:35 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 17:59:19 -0400, Mike Ross
>wrote:
>>I didn't like the Campbell judgement, and I like this one even less; they both
>>seem wrong to me. It smacks of both new 'rights' being invented and significant
>>other rights being abridged, without any legislative process.
>
>It does.
>
>I can understand *what* the judges and the Lords have done, but I
>don't understand *why* they felt it necessary.
Well, I've only just realised exactly what the judgement was in respect of.
From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09/rowling_privacy_ruling/
"In a case brought on behalf of their son, David Murray, JK Rowling and her
husband argued that the taking and publication of photos of them on the street
breached David's privacy. They have won the right to a full trial in the Court
of Appeal after a High Court ruling that they did not have a strong enough case
for a trial was overturned."
So we're only dealing with a ruling that the case can go forward to trial;
there's no final judgement to worry about just yet. That hadn't been clear to me
from earlier comments.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |