Max Mosley wins privacy case: Motorsport chief awarded £60,000

MOTOR racing boss Max Mosley today won his privacy action against the News of the World.

The newspaper, which had accused the 68-year-old son of the 1930s Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley of taking part in a "sick Nazi orgy" with five prostitutes, must now pay him a record £60,000 compensation.

Mr Justice Eady did not make an additional award – which would have been unprecedented in invasion of privacy cases – of punitive exemplary damages.

Mr Mosley, president of the FIA (Federation Internationale de l'Automobile), did not dispute taking part in the sadomasochistic roleplay at a rented Chelsea basement flat, but said it was consensual and private, with no Nazi overtones.

He said his life was devastated by the March expose and by the newspaper putting secretly-filmed footage of what it called a "truly grotesque and depraved" event on its website, attracting at least 3.5 million hits at the last count.

James Price QC told London's High Court that the "gross and indefensible intrusion" by the tabloid in its role as a titillating Peeping Tom was made substantially worse by the false suggestion that Mr Mosley was playing a concentration camp commandant and a cowering death camp inmate.

The newspaper's editor, Colin Myler, said he believed the story was one of "legitimate public interest and one that I believe was legitimately published" and that it was "absolutely not true" that the newspaper had fabricated the Nazi aspect.

Mr Mosley was in court but showed no emotion at the ruling.

The judge said: "I decided that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.

"I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust.

"There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S and M behaviour. But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website – all of this on a massive scale.

"Of course, I accept that such behaviour is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the claimant."

The judge said: "It is perhaps worth adding that there is nothing 'landmark' about this decision. It is simply the application to rather unusual facts of recently developed but established principles.

"Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.

"It is necessary, therefore, to afford an adequate financial remedy for the purpose of acknowledging the infringement and compensating, to some extent, for the injury to feelings, the embarrassment and distress caused.

"I am not persuaded that it is right to extend the application of exemplary (or punitive) damages into this field or to include an additional element specifically directed towards 'deterrence'. That does not seem to me to be a legitimate exercise in awarding compensatory damages.

"It has to be recognised that no amount of damages can fully compensate the claimant for the damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined.

"What can be achieved by a monetary award in the circumstances is limited.

"Any award must be proportionate and avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. I have come to the conclusion that the right award, taking all these circumstances into account, is £60,000."

During the trial, Mr Mosley, who revealed a 45-year involvement in corporal punishment, said in evidence that his sexual tastes were "completely out of the scope of my work and have no connection to it whatsoever".

"I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that any of this is depraved, fundamentally disagree with the fact that it is immoral.

"I think it is a perfectly harmless activity provided it is between consenting adults who want to do it, are of sound mind, and it is in private."

He said he could think "of few things more unerotic than Nazi roleplay".

"All my life I have had hanging over me my antecedents, my parents, and the last thing I want to do in some sexual context is be reminded of it.

"There was not even a hint of that – certainly not in my mind and, I'm convinced, not in the minds of any of the other participants. It simply didn't arise."

He denied, as did the four dominatrices who gave evidence, that there was any brutality involved in the beating he received during the prison scenario, for which he paid the women £2,500.

"The pain involved in that, compared to all sorts of things, is very modest.

"I'd far rather do that than jump into a cold swimming pool."

The suggestion that it amounted to a criminal assault, as the newspaper argued, was "utterly absurd".

"The level of violence is minimal, the drawing of blood a little like cutting yourself shaving."

He said that Jean, his wife of 48 years, had not known of this aspect of his life so the revelation was "completely, totally devastating" for her and their two adult sons.

Arguing for maximum compensation, Mr Price said the newspaper's failure to give Mr Mosley notice of its intention to publish, so depriving him of the chance to seek an injunction, "brings shame on British journalism".

"This should not happen again and newspapers need to be taught that disregard of the rights of others does not pay."

He said the newspaper had rushed into print, without having the video transcribed or obtaining a transcript of the German being spoken.

It had "deliberately refrained from taking these obvious steps which would have revealed the truth" – the entire absence of any Nazi aspect to the events – because of the phenomenal scale of the material advantage to be gained from publication, he said.

Mark Warby QC, for News Group Newspapers, had argued that the beating inflicted on Mr Mosley amounted to an offence of wounding and that he had "instigated a crime" upon himself.

"The fact that a person agrees to it, and indeed encourages it and brings it about, is no defence."

He added: "The law draws a line and the reason is that sado-masochistic cruelty is contrary to civilised values and is corrupting of those involved."

Mr Myler said that the newspaper did not take Mr Mosley "kicking and screaming" to the flat.

"The News of the World did not engage five girls for five hours of what went on – which was brutal."

Publication was probably justified on the S and M basis alone.

But, he added: "We felt that what we saw, what we witnessed, was on balance a fair and reasonable interpretation of Nazi style role play."

Reporter Neville Thurlbeck said that what happened in the flat was no watered down version of 'Allo 'Allo.

"There was an overwhelming, absolutely overwhelming Nazi theme."

Mr Warby said that there had been a deliberate attempt by Mr Mosley and the women to turn the encounter into a "Carry on spanking"-style caper.

But the true picture was very far from that and involved "psychological darkness".

"There is a form of corruption of the personality and there is, we suggest, true depravity."

There was no basis for punitive damages, because the newspaper honestly believed what was written, and because there had been a failure to put a case of cynical calculation of wrong-doing for financial motives.

He said that the FIA's membership had a right to expect their elected leader to comply with proper standards, both in his professional and private life.

There was also the fact of Mr Mosley's background, and that he was a committed adherent to his father's party until he was 23.

He told the judge: "I invite you to conclude that what went on in the flat suggests that, just as he has remained committed to an unfortunate interest in S and M, some of the old racist sentiments which he was prepared to endorse also remained with him – and the public are entitled to know that."