## Facts

- Naomi Campbell, a well-known fashion model, had publicly denied using drugs.
- A newspaper published a front-page story stating she was a drug addict and was receiving treatment, which Campbell accepted could be published in the public interest to correct her prior denials.
- The publication also included additional details: that she attended Narcotics Anonymous (NA), the duration and frequency of her meetings, and a covert photograph of her leaving an NA meeting with an accompanying caption and location-related context.
- Campbell sued, alleging misuse of private information (as an extension of breach of confidence) and violations of the Data Protection Act 1998 based on the disclosure of her therapy-related information and the photograph.
- The trial court found for Campbell and awarded damages; the intermediate appellate court reversed, treating the disputed material as peripheral to a legitimate corrective story.
- Campbell appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether the publication of details about Campbell’s NA attendance and the covert photograph constituted misuse of private information.
2. How to balance Campbell’s right to respect for private life (Article 8) against the newspaper’s freedom of expression (Article 10).
3. Whether the additional details and photograph were justified as part of a legitimate public-interest story correcting Campbell’s public denials.
4. Whether publication of the information and photograph breached the Data Protection Act 1998, including whether any journalistic exemption applied.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal by a 3–2 majority and restored the trial judge’s damages award.
- The majority held that the additional details about NA attendance, treatment pattern, and the covert photograph were private information and their publication was unjustified.
- The majority accepted a legitimate public interest in reporting that Campbell was a drug addict and receiving treatment, but held the further details and photograph were not necessary or proportionate to that aim.
- The majority treated the photograph as materially increasing the intrusion by visually confirming confidential therapy attendance and contributing to identification of the meeting context and location.
- The dissent would have dismissed the appeal, viewing the additional details and photograph as within permissible editorial judgment once publication of addiction and treatment was conceded as justified.

## Legal Principles

- The common law action traditionally framed as breach of confidence extends to protection against misuse of private information, with focus on whether the material is private and whether publication is justified.
- The threshold question is whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information disclosed; medical and therapeutic information is strongly protected.
- When Articles 8 and 10 conflict, courts must conduct a proportionality balancing exercise, asking whether publication pursues a legitimate aim and whether the extent of intrusion is necessary and proportionate.
- Public figures may have a reduced zone of privacy where correction of misleading public statements is justified, but that does not justify disclosure of gratuitous medical-treatment details or therapy-related identification.
- Photographs taken in public may still engage privacy rights when their context reveals inherently private activity and increases the intrusiveness of the disclosure.
- Processing and publication of sensitive personal data may be unlawful where fairness and justification are not met; journalistic protections do not extend to unjustified publication of additional private details.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that, although correcting Campbell’s public denials justified reporting her addiction and treatment, disclosing NA-related details and publishing a covert photograph of her leaving a meeting was a misuse of private information; after balancing Articles 8 and 10, the majority found the added intrusion disproportionate and reinstated damages.


Campbell v. MGN Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 A.C. 457 (H.L. 2004)