On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:30:52 -0400, Mike Ross
wrote:
>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.
>
True in this case, but there has been a final judgment in the Naomi
Campbell case, and that is the main one being quoted as precedent
here.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"If the shoe fits, buy it." Imelda Marcos
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |