Actress Sienna Miller has won the first round of her battle against the media with the award of £35,000 compensation from the Sun and News of the World for breaching her privacy.
She’s also currently suing paparazzi agency Big Pictures for “gross intrusion.”
This won’t make Miller, 26, any more popular with the papers who already suspect her of playing up to the paps when it suits her (being pictured cuddling recent boyfriend Balthazar Getty for example) and launching letters from the dreaded solicitors Carter-Ruck when it doesn’t.
It also won’t please Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre who accused the judges of bringing in a privacy law by stealth in a speech at the weekend to the Society of Editors.
Dacre has a point, as doubtless does Miller.
At some stage we’d probably be better off with a Privacy Bill rather than allowing messrs Carter-Ruck and assorted judges to make it up on the hoof (although such a monstrosity wouldn’t improve Mr Blatherskite’s employment prospects).
One Comment
What if Sienna Miller knew the photos were being taken(ie. could see the photographer or it would be reasonable to assume the photograhers would be there) and acted up a private scenario for the cameras with intention of suing would that not be fraudulent?
I would be interested to know because how can you determine what is private or not at the exact moment of the photograph and how can you proove that the photographer has that knowledge, with celebrities would it not be correct to assume that they know they will be photographed while in public.
Surely this is not foolproof and could lead to numerous fraudulent claims.