In advance of next week's judgment on the Max Mosley versus News of the World privacy case comes this interesting court ruling in Ireland. A woman was today awarded €90,000 (£71,000) damages against Associated Newspapers for publishing newspaper articles about her relationship with a priest based on unlawfully tapped phone conversations.
The articles which appeared in the Ireland on Sunday (the paper that morphed into the Irish Mail on Sunday) were ruled to be a breach of the woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The judge, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, said the paper's behaviour in publishing the contents of conversations between Michelle Herrity and Father Heber McMahon, was "nothing short of outrageous" and "could not be condoned in any way whatsoever".
The judge said a recording device was attached by a private investigator to Ms Herrity's phone at the instigation of her estranged husband. After the articles were published in three successive weeks in November 2003, Ms Herrity sued over a breach of her right to privacy.
Ms Justice Dunne ruled that the right to freedom of expression cannot be asserted over information unlawfully obtained even when that information is true and there may be a public interest in publishing information about the conduct of a priest. She awarded Ms Herrity €30,000 punitive damages and a further €60,000 as ordinary and aggravated compensatory damages.
She rejected the paper's claims that publication was justified on grounds of its right, and the right of Liam Herrity to freedom of expression; that Ms Herrity did not challenge the accuracy of the information; and that publication was in the public interest as it exposed the conduct of a Roman Catholic priest required to be celibate.
This is a fascinating example of the way in which privacy is becoming a new ground for complaint against newspapers. Now for the Mosley ruling, probably on Thursday. (Source: Irish Times)
