Podcast 75: Carl Gardner on the Mosley judgment, privacy and exemplary damages

Today I am talking to Carl Gardner, barrister and author of the Head of  Legal blog, about the judgment of Mr Justice Eady in Mosley.  We examine the developing law on privacy, exemplary damages and question whether the decision was in fact a ‘landmark’ decision in some aspect, including, as a side effect, the law on consent generally after R v Brown.

Carl has also done a short post on the Eady J judgment

***

Listen to Podcast 75:  Carl Gardner on the Mosley judgment, privacy and exemplary damages

11 thoughts on “Podcast 75: Carl Gardner on the Mosley judgment, privacy and exemplary damages

  1. Thanks for that – it was a fascinating podcast.

    It was nice to hear a rather more balanced view of the impact of the case upon investigative journalism than one comes across in the more reactionary newspapers (and, of course, it is always nice to hear ones own view supported!).

    The other aspect that’s winding me up, one outside the remit of this podcast, is the claim that it in some way legitimises “immorality”. The Daily Mail in particular is irate that, from their viewpoint, the judgement makes the law “morally neutral”. All I know is that I’d rather not have to have the editorial staff of the Daily Mail sitting in judgement over my morality; give me Parliament and the Judiciary, with all their flaws, any day!

    Thanks both to you, Charon, and to Carl Gardner for a very interesting 25 minutes :)

  2. Ro: Thanks for your kind remarks

    It is a very interesting area. I am not convinced that journalists are heavily restricted by this judgment – there will always be a legitimacy in solid, thorough and accurately reprorted investigative journalism – it is a question of balance.

    However – we shall have to see how the law develops in practice following this judgment.

  3. Well exactly, Charon.

    After all, I can’t help wondering how “investigative journalism” really applies to this story anyway – how much investigation was really involved in Mrs E going to spill the beans to the press? Or have I misunderstood?

  4. Mrs E was swayed by £25k… and now she is oh, so sorry! Yeah… only because she never got the second half of the money, AND that her husband lost his job!

    I’m also willing to bet that Max won’t be paying her and her pals £2,500 per party any more! Her pals, yes… but not Mrs E!

  5. Pingback: 26-27 July: Postcard from the Staterooms - In medias res… « Charon QC…the blawg

  6. MM was entirely correct to bring his action for breach of privacy because the sting of what he was complaining about were the allegations of Nazi links in his S & M orgy. However disgusting or ludicrous MM’s activities were, the ‘shaving’ incident referred apparently to MM’s bottom not to his head! Now MM has shown that the Nazi allegations were baseless and the result of NotW trying to over-egg the pudding, any libel allegations will be easier to press. Subtle strategy on the part of MM’s legal team. Well done!

    Best wishes,

    Richard R

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>