- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) (1990) - Spycatcher Case
Core Principle: Information Already in the Public Domain Loses Confidentiality
Facts of the Case
Core Principle: Information Already in the Public Domain Loses Confidentiality
Facts of the Case
- Subject Matter: The case revolved around the book "Spycatcher," authored by a former government employee, containing sensitive government information.
- Initial Restriction: Due to the author's employment contract with the government, publication was initially prohibited in the UK.
- Publication Elsewhere: The book was slated for publication in Australia and the US.
- Newspaper Extracts & Government Response: A newspaper published extracts from the book within the UK. The Attorney General sought injunctions to halt further publication.
- Initial Court Decision: The High Court discharged these injunctions.
- Appeal: The Attorney General appealed this decision.
- Appeal Dismissed: The House of Lords sided against the Attorney General.
- Breach of Confidence (Initially): The court acknowledged that the initial publications of extracts did constitute a breach of confidence.
- Worldwide Publication as Key Factor: The crucial factor influencing the final decision was the book's widespread publication outside the UK.
- No Future Breach: Because the information was already globally accessible, future publications within the UK would not breach confidentiality. The "cat was out of the bag."
- Public Domain - A Matter of Degree: The concept of information being in the "public domain" is not absolute. It's a question of the extent and nature of the publication.
- D v L (2003) - Nuance Regarding Photographs:
- Context: This case introduces an important refinement to the principle.
- Waller LJ's Argument: Waller LJ highlighted that a visual representation (like a photograph) can have a significantly different impact compared to a verbal description of the same scene.
- "Improperly Obtained" Photographs: Even if the underlying information is public, the publication of a photograph obtained through unlawful or unethical means can still be restricted by the court. This is because the photograph itself might reveal additional confidential details or have a greater emotional impact.
0 Comments