It’s hard to say which revealed the greatest sense of frustration – Prince Philip’s complaint to the PCC over the Evening Standard’s claim that he has prostate cancer, or the palace’s understated riposte that such stories persist “during the quieter news months”.

But what’s noteworthy is the speed with which the paper accepted it was an unacceptable breach of privacy and apologised.

No doubt all parties had their eye on the incoming tide of privacy law and felt it was a cut and dried case.

Stories about people’s health have always featured heavily in the regional and national press.

Information about so-and-so’s condition is often volunteered by concerned friends and adds human interest even where it’s not a story’s main focus.

However, with the high-water mark of privacy reached last month in Max Mosley’s court victory over the News of the World (partly on the basis that public figures are just as entitled to privacy as lesser mortals), all such health-intrusion will be increasingly open to question.

A false cancer scare may be blatantly disrespectful but what about an accurate report that a public or private individual has a certain illness or symptom?

More and more could be off-limits for the media as people gain confidence in bringing privacy complaints, reducing the information freely available to the public.

---

Elsewhere, in the costly world of libel, the level of damages appropriate for harm to reputation is once again a hot issue after the large payout to Kate and Gerry McCann.

Following remarks by Mr Justice Eady in a case in 2002 that the “effective ceiling” for compensatory libel damages is £200,000, libel litigants have had to adjust to drastically changed circumstances since the heady 1980s, when huge damages were common including an award of £1.5m to Lord Aldington.

The idea of a “ceiling” arose after earlier Court of Appeal guidance that damages for harm to reputation should more closely mirror the level of damages payable in personal injury cases.

Although the Privy Council upheld libel damages of £533,000 in 2003 in a case appealed from Jamaica, it has been generally accepted that maximum libel damages in English law remain at around £200,000.

However, now that the McCanns have secured £550,000 in a settlement with Express Newspapers and property consultant Robert Murat has secured £600,000 in a deal with a group of national newspapers over defamatory reports on the disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann, it has triggered new debate that libel damages should increase again.

The acid test will be whether judges will be influenced to increase the damages they award or alter guidance given to juries.

---

Last but not least, a failed private prosecution over an alleged breach of Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 had a curious outcome.

Section 97(2) prohibits publication of any material which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in proceedings under the Children Act.

A mother involved in such proceedings in relation to her child took part in a protest by campaign group Fathers 4 Justice in front of TV cameras and was named in a subsequent report in the Daily Mail.

She began private prosecutions against editor Paul Dacre and Mail owners Associated Newspapers, claiming the report was likely to identify her child contrary to Section 97(2), but the case was quashed by the Divisional Court as an abuse of process.

Lord Justice Latham said: “The fact that the Daily Mail may have been in breach of Section 97 itself does not mean that she can properly complain.

“It seems to me to be a clear case where the court’s conscience is offended by the fact that the prosecution is brought by a person who by her conduct was likely, if not certain, to identify the child as being the subject of proceedings to which Section 97 applied.”

There was no sign of the Director of Public Prosecutions taking over the prosecution in the public interest.

The result seems to be: Who cares if the media identify children in breach of Section 97, if a publicity-seeking parent has already done so?

Solicitor Nigel Hanson is a member of Foot Anstey’s media team.
To contact Nigel telephone 0800 0731 411 or e-mail [email protected]