The legislation will introduce a new offence of violating the
privacy of an individual. It says that people have a right to a
"personal sphere of privacy".
"For public figures that sphere is necessarily smaller than for
private citizens, and rightly so," said Justice Minister Michael
McDowell. "However, the very fact that a person may have a public
persona does not eliminate their right to enjoy a certain level of
privacy. This is particularly so where members of their families
are concerned."
McDowell had previously claimed that there was no need for a
specific privacy law, since the Irish Constitution and the European
convention on human rights both protected individuals' privacy. The
position of the Justice Minister, himself a former libel lawyer and
Attorney General, has changed.
The law is widely seen in Ireland as the price that McDowell has
had to pay to cabinet colleagues for a loosening of the defamation
laws. His party, the Progressive Democrats, is the minority partner
in Ireland's coalition government and had made a liberalisation of
the defamation laws a manifesto promise.
Ministers from the majority partner Fianna Fail are said to have
insisted on greater protection for privacy after a number of recent
intrusions into politicians' private lives by newspapers.
While individual editors have objected, the defamation and
privacy laws have received the support of the Press Industry
Steering Committee, which represents newspapers and
journalists.
Of more concern to some are the implications for the courts
system. The bill will bar even the press from some in camera court
hearings and expand the ability to hold trials in camera out of the
family courts.
"[This] adds a layer of secrecy to the judicial process," said
Pamela Cassidy, solicitor with Cassidy Law, a media specialist law
firm. "My argument is that this is unnecessary, that anonymity in
appropriate cases is sufficient, and also that it is an
interference with other equally important rights, free speech and
open justice."
McDowell set up a working group to assess the need for a privacy
bill; that group said that a law was needed, but that certain
safeguards must be put in place. "It is a matter of concern that
the bill departs from the recommendations of the working group on
the issues of press in court and strict qualifications on departing
from the constitutional principle of open justice," said
Cassidy.
The new law will contrast with the UK, where there is no
specific privacy law. Protection of privacy is governed by a slew
of Acts, such as the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act,
defamation laws, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
"There was a proposal in the 1990s for a privacy law but the
compromise was the Press Complaints Commission," said Dr Chris
Pounder, Consultant & Editor of Data Protection & Privacy
Practice at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. "The
Government published a consultation document but the press were up
in arms. They said they would have the PCC but no privacy
legislation."
Cassidy said that the new Irish law should not be a major
problem for newspapers. "The bill is not so bad for the press," she
said, "because it offers a defence of public interest, and also of
'acts of newsgathering', again in the public interest. Trivia will
be excluded."
