Harry Potter author wins privacy case

HARRY POTTER author JK Rowling today won a landmark privacy ruling in her battle to ban publication of covert long lens pictures taken of her son when he was 18 months old.

The Edinburgh author was unaware the photograph – which was taken in 2004 in a street in the Capital – was being taken and did not consent to it.

In a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent."

The case was brought by the writer under her real name, Joanne Murray, with husband Dr Neil Murray on behalf of their son, David, who is now aged five.

In a statement, the parents said: "We embarked on this lawsuit not because we were seeking special privileges for our children but because we wanted them to grow up, like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy.

"We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances.

"However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight."

They said the ruling would give their children protection from "covert, unauthorised photography" and make an "immediate and material difference to their lives".

Their solicitor, Keith Schilling, said: "This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country."

He said the ruling established a law of privacy for children from "intrusive photography".

"It will have a profound effect, especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it."

The appeal judges set aside a High Court ruling last year which struck out the claim against Big Pictures Ltd, which took the photograph, and ordered that there should be a trial of the issues unless they can be settled.

The colour photograph of JK Rowling walking in Edinburgh with Dr Murray pushing a buggy with David in it was published in 2005 in the Sunday Express magazine, which settled an action brought by the parents and was not involved in the appeal.

Big Pictures will have to pay the majority of the costs of the case, estimated at a total of £600,000.

But the appeal judges said in their ruling: "The law should indeed protect children from intrusive media attention, at any rate to the extent of holding that a child has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place for publication which the person who took or procured the taking of the photographs knew would be objected to on behalf of the children.

"That is the context in which the photographs of David were taken."

They ordered that there should be no further publication of the pictures in newspapers or on television.

Solicitors Schillings said it was a "landmark decision" and there has been a "dramatic shift" concerning children in the balance between rights to privacy of an individual and freedom of expression of the media.

High Court judge Mr Justice Patten had ruled that it was artificial for the parents to bring the action in the name of the child.

But the Sir Anthony said today: "The child has his own right to respect for his privacy distinct from that of his parents."