The supreme court’s ruling against Bloomberg News in a landmark case is a threat to legitimate investigative reporting
Prince Andrew’s decision to cut his losses and settle out of court with Virginia Giuffre grabbed all the headlines. But the most far-reaching legal activity this week may have taken place in London rather than New York, with disturbing implications for the freedom of the press. On Wednesday, in a landmark privacy case, the UK supreme court ruled that suspects in a criminal investigation have the right not to be named in the media, prior to charges being brought against them. On that basis, it rejected an appeal against a previous high court judgment by Bloomberg News, which was found to have breached the privacy rights of a US business executive by naming him as the subject of a criminal inquiry.
In one sense, this was nothing new. The judgment merely confirmed a direction of travel that began a decade ago with the Leveson inquiry. The phone-hacking scandal that led to Leveson came to symbolise the excesses of intrusive and prurient reporting by the tabloid press in particular. In its wake, the concept of privacy – outlined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights – has been interpreted ever more broadly and generously by courts. The right to free expression – and the freedom of the press to report – has correspondingly taken a back seat. In 2018, in the most high-profile case of this type, the high court ruled that the BBC broke privacy law by identifying Sir Cliff Richard as being under investigation over allegations of sexual abuse. He was never arrested or charged.
