 |
17th
March 2005, The Scotsman
ARE THERE any fathers on shakier ground when handing out pearls
of moral wisdom to their children than Mick Jagger and George
Best? Perhaps, when their offspring got into hot water, this
is the reason why the courts took a somewhat paternal approach.
Last week Elizabeth Jagger, model daughter of Mick and Jerry
Hall, was granted an injunction to restrain further publication
of a CCTV recording captured in a Soho nightclub. This injunction
followed publication in a Sunday newspaper of grainy CCTV images
of an alleged sexual encounter with George’s son, Calum
Best.
The order was granted not only against the suspended general
manager of the nightclub, but also against anyone who has acquired
or made a copy of the recording.
Jagger claimed that she feared the images could end up on the
internet, exposing her to the kind of damaging publicity suffered
by Paris Hilton - the heiress to the Hilton hotels fortune,
whose boyfriend passed on a recording of them having sex.
|
|
Now
from the hearing it is clear that Jagger and Best were involved
in some form of sexual activity. The judge, Mr Justice Bell,
confirmed this to be so.
Those who saw the tabloid images might guess that Jagger was
probably not looking for a contact lens. It was also clear that
the encounter took place just inside the closed front doors
of the club and that Best and Jagger were unaware that they
were being recorded.
There will certainly be some who would disagree with the judge
that Jagger had a legitimate expectation of privacy. Many would
argue that if you are caught carrying out a private act in a
semi-public place, then you should take the consequences.
CCTV cameras are there to deter criminal activity. There clearly
were no security issues here. There is a world of difference
between CCTV images and parties who consent to be filmed by
their partner. While their privacy may be breached, they have
at least consented to be filmed.
|
|
Unfortunately
the injunction case was not opposed - this would have forced
the judge to provide some answers as to the extent an individual
is entitled to privacy in the UK.
Even if there had been a hearing, it is difficult to see how
a court could decide other than to grant an injunction, particularly
when Jagger’s fear was that the footage might appear on
the internet.
By obtaining an injunction and purchasing the copyright in the
CCTV footage, Jagger will hope that will be and end of the matter.
But the internet is notoriously difficult to police. Once it
is out there, very little that can be done to control it - as
Paris Hilton knows to her severe immodesty.
|
|
