Privacy in English law

Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what situations an individual has a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorised disclosure.[1] Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognised no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.[2]

Definition

The earliest definition of privacy in English law was given by Thomas M. Cooley who defined privacy as "the right to be left alone".[3] In 1972 the Younger Committee, an inquiry into privacy stated that the term could not be defined satisfactorily. Again in 1990 the Calcutt Committee concluded that: "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy".[3]

Common law

There is currently no freestanding right to privacy in common law.[4] This point was reaffirmed when the House of Lords ruled in Home Office v Wainwright (a case involving a strip search undertaken on the plaintiff Alan Wainwright while visiting Armley prison).[5] It has also been stated that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require the development of an independent tort of privacy.[6] In the absence of a common law right to privacy in English law torts such as the equitable doctrine breach of confidence,[7] torts linked to the intentional infliction of harm to the person[8] and public law torts relating to the use of police powers[9] have been used to fill a gap in the law. The judiciary has developed the law in an incremental fashion and have resisted the opportunity to create a new tort.[10]

Expansion of privacy laws

British Radio Jockey Sara Cox's case against The People newspaper was one of the first celebrity privacy cases. The media referred to the case as a "watershed". The disc jockey sued after the newspaper printed nude photographs of her taken while on her honeymoon. However the case was settled out of court and so did not establish a precedent.[11] The decision was seen as discrediting the Press Complaints Commission[12]

The expansion of the doctrine of breach of confidence under the Human Rights Act began with the Douglas v Hello! decision. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act requires English courts to give effect to the rights in the Convention when developing the common law. There is no need to show a pre-existing relationship of confidence where private information is involved and the courts have recognised that the publication of private material represents a detriment in itself.[6] The Human Rights act has horizontal effect in disputes between private individuals meaning that the Human Rights Act is just as applicable as if one party had been a public body.[13] Breach of confidence now extends to private information (regardless of whether it is confidential) so as to give effect to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before this breach of confidence afforded "umbrella protection" to both personal and non-personal information.[1]

ECHR challenge

Following Max Mosley's successful action against the News of the World Newspaper for publishing details of his private life, he announced that he would challenge English law's implementation of the Article 8 right to privacy guaranteed when the Human Rights Act implemented the European Convention on Human Rights into English law.[14] The European Court of Human Rights was asked to rule on the issue of "prior notification". This would require journalists to approach the subject of any investigation and inform them of the details of any allegations made about them, therefore allowing an injunction to be claimed.[14]

Debate

The increasing protections afforded to the private lives of individuals has sparked debate as to whether English law gives enough weight to freedom of the press and whether intervention by Parliament would be beneficial. The editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye Ian Hislop has argued against the development of English privacy law. He told BBC's Panorama: "You don't have to prove it [an allegation] isn't true, you just have to prove that it's private by your definition. And in some of the cases the definition of privacy is pretty weak."[15] However, Liberal Democrat politician Mark Oaten has stated that the press were right to expose details of his private life:

"I concluded that however awful it may be, it's better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press… it means we can expose corruption."[15] Max Mosley has argued for the further advancement of the law[16] whereas the editor of the Daily Mail newspaper Paul Dacre has accused Mr Justice Eady, the judge in the Mosley case, of bringing in a privacy law by the back door.[17]
Key cases European rulings See also Further reading
  • J. Morgan, “Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble” (2003) 62 (2) Cambridge Law Journal 444
  • H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Confidence and Privacy: A Re-Examination” [1996] Cambridge Law Journal 447.
  • H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Remedy in the Human Rights Act Era” (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 660.
  • R. Singh and J. Strachan, “Privacy Postponed” [2003] European Human Rights Law Review Special Issue: Privacy 12-25.
Notes and references
  1. http://www.11sb.com/pdf/privacyaftermaxmosley.pdf
  2. [1]
  3. "Princess Diana, Privacy Laws And Press Freedom In The United Kingdom". Leeds.ac.uk. 1997-10-30. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  4. Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, Gordon Kaye v. Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd
  5. Dyer, Clare (2003-10-17). "Law lords rule there is no right to privacy | UK news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  6. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/publications/institute/docs/privacy_100804.pdf
  7. A v. B plc [2003] Q.B. 195.
  8. Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081.
  9. Ellis v Chief Constable Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321.
  10. [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, at para. 42.
  11. "Cox privacy case 'a watershed'". BBC News. 2003-06-07. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  12. "Privacy law remains confused". BBC News. 2003-06-09. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  13. See Lord Nicholls [17] - [18] and Lord Hoffman [50] in Campbell v MGN [2004]
  14. "Programmes | Law in Action | Mosley v UK". BBC News. 2009-02-24. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  15. "UK | Is it farewell for Kiss and Tell?". BBC News. 2009-06-15. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  16. "BBC - Panorama - Max Mosley on his right to privacy". BBC News. 2009-06-12. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  17. "UK | Mail editor accuses Mosley judge". BBC News. 2008-11-10. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
External links
Continue Reading...
Content from Wikipedia Licensed under CC-BY-SA.

Neuberger Committee

topic

Neuberger Committee

The Neuberger Committee was a committee set up to examine the law and practice surrounding super-injunctions in English law. It reported in May 2011.[1] References "Report of the Neuberger Committee: thorough, thoughtful but not the last word". Inforrm.wordpress.com. 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2013-08-11. ...more...

Member feedback about Neuberger Committee:

Legal history of England

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


PJS v News Group Newspapers

topic

PJS v News Group Newspapers

PJS v News Group Newspapers ([2016] EWCA Civ 100) is an English legal case in which an anonymised privacy injunction[n 1] was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", in order to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people.[1] In January 2016, PJS applied to the High Court of Justice in London for an injunction to prevent publication of a news story relating to the encounter by The Sun on Sunday. This was declined on the basis that publication would be in the public interest. PJS applied to the Court of Appeal and was successful in overturning the High Court decision. In April 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction should be lifted, as the allegations had been published widely both abroad and online. PJS then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which in May 2016 decided to uphold the injunction by a majority of 4-1. The case has led to debate about the effectiveness of injunctions in the age of the Internet a ...more...

Member feedback about PJS v News Group Newspapers:

United Kingdom free speech case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


NEJ v Wood

topic

NEJ v Wood

NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) ([2011] EWHC 1972 (QB) is a 2011 High Court case involving issues of privacy in English law. On 13 April 2011, Mr. Justice King granted an anonymised privacy injunction (often erroneously referred to as a superinjunction), preventing the publication of details of an alleged extra-marital relationship between NEJ (described as "a world famous celebrity" and "an actor, well-known to the public"), and BDZ, a prostitute who claimed to have met and had sex with the actor in Dublin in December 2009. At the 13 April hearing, the judge allowed BDZ to be named as 23-year-old Helen Wood of Bolton, Greater Manchester. In its original form as granted by Mr. Justice Blake on 9 April 2011, the injunction had prevented the UK media from naming either party or reporting the reason why the injunction had been sought.[1][2] The case sparked a debate about whether the newspapers that wanted to publish Ms Wood's claims had a public interest defence based on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human ...more...

Member feedback about NEJ v Wood:

2011 in British law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Data Protection Act 1998

topic

Data Protection Act 1998

The Data Protection Act 1998 (c 29) was a United Kingdom Act of Parliament designed to protect personal data stored on computers or in an organised paper filing system. It enacted the EU Data Protection Directive 1995's provisions on the protection, processing and movement of data. Under the DPA 1998, individuals had legal rights to control information about themselves. Most of the Act did not apply to domestic use,[1] for example keeping a personal address book. Anyone holding personal data for other purposes was legally obliged to comply with this Act, subject to some exemptions. The Act defined eight data protection principles to ensure that information was processed lawfully. It was superseded by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) on 23 May 2018. The DPA 2018 supplements the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into effect on 25 May 2018. The GDPR regulates the collection, storage, and use of personal data significantly more strictly. Background The 1998 Act replaced the Data P ...more...

Member feedback about Data Protection Act 1998:

Computer crimes

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

to wait is to serve

(gentleman)

Revolvy User


Credit Reporting Privacy Code (New Zealand)

topic

Credit Reporting Privacy Code (New Zealand)

The Credit Reporting Privacy Code (CRPC) was issued by the Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff on 6 December 2004. It is one of several Codes of Practice issued by the Privacy Commissioner under section 46 of the Privacy Act. The Code has been amended 6 times, with a 7th amendment pending, with the amendments as follows: Amendment No 1 – 1 April 2006 (now expired) Amendment No 2 – 1 April 2006 Amendment No 3 – 22 February 2010; Amendment No 4 – 1 October 2011 and 1 April 2012 Amendment No 5 – 1 December 2011 and 1 April 2012 Amendment No 6 – 1 April 2012 The Code replaces the Privacy Act’s 12 Privacy Principles, with 12 Privacy Rules specifically customised for credit reporting matters. Summary of the Code The Code regulates into law matters related to credit reporting. The Code is however only limited to credit reporters that actually sell credit information, so at current the Code only applies to 3 credit reporting firms, Veda Limited, Dun & Bradstreet Limited, and recent newcomer Centrix Grou ...more...

Member feedback about Credit Reporting Privacy Code (New Zealand):

Privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Human rights in Singapore

topic

Human rights in Singapore

The government in Singapore has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to inhibit political opposition.[1][2] In 2015, Singapore was ranked 153rd out of 175 nations by Reporters Without Borders in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Freedom in the World scored Singapore 4 out of 7 for political freedom, and 4 out of 7 for civil liberties (where 1 is the most free), with an overall ranking of "partly free" for the year 2015.[3] LegislationInternal Security Act The Ministry of Home Affairs Internal Security Department enforces the country's Internal Security Act (ISA) as a counter to potential espionage, international terrorism, threats to racial and religious harmony, and subversion. The ISA permits indefinite detention without formal charges or recourse to trial, and has been used to imprison political opponents of the ruling party, including former parliamentary member Chia Thye Poh, who was held for 32 years without trial before being released.[4] As of 2005, 36 men were being held under the ISA.[5] Se ...more...

Member feedback about Human rights in Singapore:

Human rights in Singapore

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Toonen v. Australia

topic

Toonen v. Australia

Map of Australia highlighting the location of Tasmania Toonen v. Australia was a landmark human rights complaint brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) by Tasmanian resident Nicholas Toonen in 1994. The case resulted in the repeal of Australia's last sodomy laws when the Committee held that sexual orientation was included in the antidiscrimination provisions as a protected status under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[1][2] In 1991, Toonen complained to the Human Rights Committee that Tasmanian laws criminalising consensual sex between adult males in private were a violation of his right to privacy under Article 17 of ICCPR; distinguished between people on the basis of sexual activity, sexual orientation and identity in violation of Article 26; and meant that gay men in Tasmania were unequal before the law. As a result of his complaint, Toonen lost his job as General Manager of the Tasmanian AIDS Council, because the Tasmanian Government threatene ...more...

Member feedback about Toonen v. Australia:

1990s in LGBT history

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Ntuli v Donald

topic

Ntuli v Donald

Ntuli v Donald was a 2010 privacy case involving Take That singer Howard Donald in which the singer attempted to use a privacy injunction to prevent details of a former relationship being made public.[1] See also Super-injunctions in English law References http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=17298&c=3&eclipse_action=getsession External links Bailii ...more...

Member feedback about Ntuli v Donald:

Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Natasha Law

topic

Natasha Law

Andrea Natasha Law (born 1 January 1970) is an English painter and graphic designer. Biography Natasha Law was born in Lewisham, London, England, on 1 January 1970. Law was the first born child of Margaret Anne (née Heyworth) a comprehensive school teachers, and Peter Robert Law (professionally known as Sir Taggalot) a British actor. Law is also the older sister of Jude Law, an English actor, film producer and director. Due to her mother's encouragement Natasha was introduced to the creative world at a young age. She gained experience acting at the Bob Hope Theatre (then called the Eltham Little Theatre) in Eltham, where she performed in Teenage Follies in 1982. Law's love of art didn't end with her youth, while she first went to University of Warwick to study history; she soon switched to studying art at Camberwell College of Arts in South London.[1] Since graduating from Camberwell College of Art, Natasha has remained in Peckham London with her husband, Fintan Ryan, and three children, Edie, Ondine and Mar ...more...

Member feedback about Natasha Law:

People from Lewisham

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Interdicts in Scots law

topic

Interdicts in Scots law

In Scots law, an interdict is a court order to stop someone from breaching someone else's rights.[1] They can be issued by the Court of Session or a Sheriff Court. The equivalent term in England is an injunction. A temporary interdict is called an interim interdict.[2] A court will grant an interim interdict if there is a prima facie case and on the balance of convenience the remedy should be granted.[3] Breaching an interdict can result in a fine or imprisonment.[4] See also Injunction Super-injunctions in English law References Campbell, Kenneth (29 July 2015). "Interdicts and Exposure". DWF. Retrieved 17 May 2016. Hennessy, Charles (2014). Civil Procedure & Practice (4th ed.). W. Green. p. 185. MacQueen, Hector (2007). Contract Law in Scotland (2nd ed.). Tottel Publishing. p. 223. Breakey, Leon (9 January 2015). "Breach of interdict – a cautionary tale". MacRoberts LLP. Retrieved 17 May 2016. ...more...

Member feedback about Interdicts in Scots law:

Scots law legal terms

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Terms of Service; Didn't Read

topic

Terms of Service; Didn't Read

Terms of Service; Didn't Read (ToS;DR) is a community project that aims to analyze and grade the terms of service and privacy policies of major internet sites and services. Each aspect of a TOS or privacy policy is assessed as positive, negative, or neutral. Services are graded from A (best) to E (worst) once project members form a consensus on it. The name of the project is a play on the phrase too long; didn't read. The project was founded in June 2012 by Hugo Roy, programmer Michiel de Jong and designer Jan-Christoph Borchardt. It was lead by Hugo Roy, when he was a law student , from 2012 to 2015. History Several sources of inspiration have been noted for ToS;DR, including Creative Commons' plain English summaries of licenses, EU energy efficiency ratings, and Aza Raskin's Privacy Icons. See also Terms of service Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies References "About - Terms of Service; Didn't Read". Retrieved 28 March 2014. "Legal - Terms of Service; Didn't R ...more...

Member feedback about Terms of Service; Didn't Read:

Open content projects

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN

topic

Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN

Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN ([2011] EWHC 1437 (QB)) is a 2011 privacy case involving Fred Goodwin. Facts The claimant sought an injunction preventing publication of the fact he had an affair with a co-worker. After widespread publication of this information the defendant was successful in getting the injunction discharged. However, the defendant now also sought to identify the woman involved. Judgment Tugendhat J ruled that publication of the identity of the woman would not be in the public interest.[1] References http://swarb.co.uk/goodwin-v-ngn-ltd-and-vbn-QBD-9-Jun-2011/ ...more...

Member feedback about Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN:

English privacy case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Data Privacy Day

topic

Data Privacy Day

Data Privacy Day (known in Europe as Data Protection Day)[1] is an international holiday that occurs every 28 January.[2] The purpose of Data Privacy Day is to raise awareness and promote privacy and data protection best practices. It is currently observed in the United States, Canada, India and 47 European countries. Data Privacy Day's educational initiative originally focused on raising awareness among businesses as well as users about the importance of protecting the privacy of their personal information online, particularly in the context of social networking. The educational focus has expanded over the past four years to include families, consumers and businesses. In addition to its educational initiative, Data Privacy Day promotes events and activities that stimulate the development of technology tools that promote individual control over personally identifiable information; encourage compliance with privacy laws and regulations; and create dialogues among stakeholders interested in advancing data prot ...more...

Member feedback about Data Privacy Day:

Fixed holidays

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd

topic

Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 11 (Ch) is an English legal case brought about when The Mail on Sunday published extracts of a dispatch by Charles, Prince of Wales, the heir to the British throne. The extracts published from the dispatch; titled "The Great Chinese Takeaway", were personally embarrassing to the Prince. The dispatch had been written on the flight back from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom from the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, and had been handed out to friends. The Prince described the Hong Kong handover ceremony as an "awful Soviet-style" performance and "ridiculous rigmarole" and the likened Chinese officials to "appalling old waxworks". .[1] Judgment The Prince won the case and gained an injunction which prevented The Mail on Sunday from publishing further extracts from the diary.[2] See also Privacy in English law References "Prince to sue over China diaries". BBC News Online. BBC. 18 November 2005. Retrieved 2013-03- ...more...

Member feedback about Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd:

Daily Mail and General Trust

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


YYZ v YVR

topic

YYZ v YVR

YYZ v YVR [2011] EWHC 274 (QB) is an anonymised privacy injunction case.[1] The tabloid Daily Star states that the case, in which an injunction was successfully granted, prevents a man from revealing the contents of an e-mail that was accidentally sent to him.[2] References http://www.medialaws.eu/super-and-anonymous-privacy-injunctions-in-the-uk/ http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/190968/Dead-and-buried-Super-Injunction-exclusive ...more...

Member feedback about YYZ v YVR:

English privacy case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd

topic

Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd

Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18 is an important privacy case from the Human Rights Review Tribunal that is mentioned on their website. Background Ms Andrews was in a relationship with Mr Ballantyne. In an apparent sign of generosity, Ballantyne made Andrews a director and a shareholder in his insurance restoration company INS Restorations Limited. Later it turned out Mr Ballantyne’s benevolence, was more to do with the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt, and so legally was unable to be a director of a company until his bankruptcy ceased on 6 August 2007. In December 2007 Mr Ballantyne made the remark to her that he had removed her as a director of the company and their relationship ended in 2009, which did not seem to end very well, as Mr Ballantyne subsequently won a court judgment against Ms Andrews for $15,000. On 20 August 2010, Ms Andrews got her lawyers to send INS Restorations a request for all her personal information. Under the Privacy Act, INS ...more...

Member feedback about Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd:

2012 in case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Negligence

topic

Negligence

Negligence (Lat. negligentia)[1] is a failure to exercise appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances.[2] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.[3] Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.[4] Elements of negligence claims Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in negligence. These are what are ...more...

Member feedback about Negligence:

Tort law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc

topic

Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Not to be confused with Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc (2000) Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2005] EWHC 246 was a judicial decision of the English High Court relating to the Data Protection Act 1998.[1] The claimant was seeking data from the bank, and he sought to advance two relatively novel lines of argument. The first was referred to in the case as the "once processed always processed" argument, i.e. that even if the respondent no longer held the data in electronic form, if they once held it in electronic form they are obligated to provide it. The second was that if data was held in a non-electronic form but could readily be turned into electronic form, then it constituted data for the purposes of the act.[2] Both arguments failed. Facts The claimant, Mr Smith, was the former managing director and controlling shareholder of a company called Display Electronics Ltd (referred to in the judgment as "DEL"). At some time in 1988, Mr Smith decided to transfer the banking for DEL from Barclays Bank Plc to Lloyds B ...more...

Member feedback about Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc:

United Kingdom privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Human rights in the United Kingdom

topic

Human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom are set out in common law, with its strongest roots being in the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689, as well as legislation of European institutions: the EU and the European Court of Human Rights.[1][nb 1] At the same time, it has been alleged that the UK has also had a history of both de jure and de facto discrimination,[4] and, in recent history, occasional violations of basic human rights, particularly in times of national security crises, or regarding the rights of migrants,[5][6][7] the unemployed,[8] and the disabled.[9] In recent years, however, British human rights legislation has been criticised by some for what they perceive as excessive attention to the human rights of offenders at the expense of those of victims; high-profile cases, such as those of Learco Chindamo[10] and the 2006 Afghan hijackers,[11] have attracted controversy, sparking calls for the review of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation. David Cameron in his s ...more...

Member feedback about Human rights in the United Kingdom:

Human rights in the United Kingdom

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Costs in English law

topic

Costs in English law

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties. Each party is initially liable to pay his own solicitors on their agreed basis his "solicitor and own client costs", which will include disbursements such as barrister's fees; in case of dispute, the court has jurisdiction to assess and determine the proper amount. In legal aid cases, a similar assessment will determine the costs which the solicitors will be paid from the Legal Aid Fund. In most courts and tribunals, generally after a final judgment has been given, and possibly after any interim application, the judge has the power to order any party (and in exceptional cases even a third party, or any of the lawyers personally) to pay some or all of other parties' costs. The law of costs defines how such allocation is to take place. Even when a successful party obtains an order for costs against an opponent, it is usual that he may nevertheless still have to pay his solicitors a balance between the costs recoverable ...more...

Member feedback about Costs in English law:

Civil procedure

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Law of Denmark

topic

Law of Denmark

Private law The Funktionærloven governs labour law concerning salaried employees. The Ferieloven governs vacation time for employees. The Købeloven governs consumer law. The Lejeloven governs landlord–tenant law. Privacy law in Denmark Public law The Straffeloven is the criminal code. The Planloven governs urban planning. The Serviceloven governs social programs. Abortion in Denmark Danish nationality law History The law of Denmark was originally based on regional laws, of which the most important was the Jyske Lov, or the Law of Jutland 1241. The Danske Lov, or the Danish Code of 1683, promoted unity. The law has been developed via judicial decisions and royal decrees. Roman law has not had much influence on the law of Denmark. See also Courts of Denmark Constitution of Denmark References Blume, Peter. In Winterton and Moys. Information Sources in Law. Second Edition. Bowker-Saur. 1997. Chapter Nine: Denmark. Pages 149 to 162. External links Guide to Law Online - Denmark from the Libr ...more...

Member feedback about Law of Denmark:

Danish law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Goldsmith v BCD

topic

Goldsmith v BCD

Goldsmith & anon v BCD [2011] EWHC 674 was a case in English privacy law in which the Conservative politician Zac Goldsmith sought a superinjunction to prevent the publication of private correspondence after his e-mails were hacked. The defendant cannot be named due to an anonymity order. The defendant's mental health is said to be "fragile".[1] References Butterworth, Siobhain (2011-08-05). "Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list | Siobhain Butterworth & Maya Wolfe-Robinson | Law | guardian.co.uk". Guardian. Retrieved 2012-01-21. External links Bailii ...more...

Member feedback about Goldsmith v BCD:

2011 in law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

topic

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) (“the Act”)[1] is a piece of privacy legislation enacted by the Parliament of New South Wales the most populous state in Australia. It replaced the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW).[2] The Act makes it an offence to record private conversations apart from in specific and defined circumstances. It makes provision for law enforcement officers to apply for warrants authorising the use of such devices and the circumstances in which judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales might issue such warrants. History In 1997, the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service found that the use of electronic surveillance was the single most important factor in achieving a breakthrough in its investigations. Justice Wood concluded that the law lagged well behind technical developments and patterns of crime and recommended a systematic and comprehensive review of legislation and procedures to assist the pursuit of law enforcement.[3] The Surveillance Devices Bill 2007 ( ...more...

Member feedback about Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW):

New South Wales law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Mary Anne Franks

topic

Mary Anne Franks

Mary Anne Franks speaks at the Internet Education Foundation in 2014 Mary Anne Franks is an American legal scholar, author, activist, and media commentator. She is professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law, where she teaches family law, criminal law, criminal procedure, and First Amendment law.[1] Her scholarly work focuses on online harassment, free speech, discrimination, and violence. Franks also writes for various news media outlets, including The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Independent, and the Daily Dot. She is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.[2] As a frequent legal commentator in the media on cyberlaw and criminal law issues, Franks has been quoted in publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker, and has appeared on the Today show, HuffPost Live, and Al Jazeera America.[3] Franks is a co-producer of the 2015 film Hot Girls Wanted, a documentary produced by the actress Rashida Jones that examines the "professiona ...more...

Member feedback about Mary Anne Franks:

American Rhodes Scholars

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd

topic

MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd

MJN v News Group Newspapers [2011] EWHC 1192 was a 2011 privacy case in English law decided by the High Court of Justice, in which a Premiership footballer obtained an injunction to prevent the publication of the details of an extra-marital affair which the footballer is alleged to have had with the lingerie model Kimberley West.[1] See also 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy References Butterworth, Siobhain; Wolfe-Robinson, Maya (5 August 2011). "Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 27 January 2012. External links Bailii ...more...

Member feedback about MJN v News Group Newspapers Ltd:

Marriage, unions and partnerships in England

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


AMP v Persons Unknown

topic

AMP v Persons Unknown

AMP v. Persons Unknown is a case from the Technology and Construction Court in London. The decision in the case was published on 10 January 2012, and involved a woman who had experienced blackmail and harassment after sexually explicit pictures of her taken on a mobile phone camera were uploaded to BitTorrent file-sharing websites. Background While she was at university in June 2008, the woman, who was referred to in the court documents as AMP, discovered that her mobile phone had been lost or stolen. Previously, around August 2007, the camera on the phone had been used to take photographs "of an explicit sexual nature which were taken for the personal use of her boyfriend at the time." Shortly afterwards, she was contacted on Facebook by a person identifying himself as "Nils Henrik-Derimot", who threatened to expose her identity, post the images widely online and tell her friends about the images if she did not add him as a friend on Facebook. The woman deleted the messages and blocked the sender. Additiona ...more...

Member feedback about AMP v Persons Unknown:

2011 in law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Personality rights

topic

Personality rights

The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction). Classification Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right. A commonly cited justification ...more...

Member feedback about Personality rights:

Personality rights

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


OBG Ltd v Allan

topic

OBG Ltd v Allan

OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 was a combined appeal with Douglas v Hello! Ltd and Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and stands as the leading case on economic torts in English law. Facts Lord Hoffmann in his judgment summarised the facts. “ In OBG Ltd v Allan [2005] QB 762 the defendants were receivers purportedly appointed under a floating charge which is admitted to have been invalid. Acting in good faith, they took control of the claimant company's assets and undertaking. The claimant says that this was not only a trespass to its land and a conversion of its chattels but also the tort of unlawful interference with its contractual relations. It claims that the defendants are liable in damages for the value of the assets and undertaking, including the value of the contractual claims, as at the date of their appointment. Alternatively, it says the defendants are liable for the same damages in conversion. In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! contracted for the exclusive right to publish p ...more...

Member feedback about OBG Ltd v Allan:

2007 in the United Kingdom

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Nuala O'Connor

topic

Nuala O'Connor

Nuala O'Connor is the current President and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology. O'Connor is recognized internationally as an expert on technology policy, privacy, and information governance.[1] From 2003-2005, O'Connor served as the First Chief Privacy Officer for the US Department of Homeland Security. Early life and education Nuala O'Connor was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. In 1985, O'Connor attended Princeton University, where she was a member of the Princeton Tigerlilies, Princeton Triangle Club, and Cloister Inn. O'Connor graduated from Princeton University in 1989 with an AB in American Studies and English. O'Connor has also earned an M.Ed in Administration, Planning & Social Policy from Harvard University and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. Career Civil and digital rights advocacy groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the ACLU praised O'Connor for protecting American's privacy rights as the first Chief Privacy Officer for the US Department of ...more...

Member feedback about Nuala O'Connor:

Women in technology

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Pirate Parties International

topic

Pirate Parties International

  Elected in EU Parliament   Elected nationally   Elected locally   Registered for elections   Registered in some states   Unregistered but active   Status unknown   Ordinary members   Observer members in some states   Resigned   Removed due to dissolution or disbanding Pirate Parties International (PPI) is a not-for-profit international non-governmental organisation with its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.[1] Formed in 2010, it serves as a worldwide organization for Pirate Parties, currently representing members from 42 countries. The Pirate Parties are political incarnations of the freedom of expression movement, trying to achieve their goals by the means of the established political system rather than through activism. AimsEdit The PPI statutes[2] give its purposes as: to help establish, to support and promote, and to maintain communication and co-operation between pirate parties around the world. The PPI advocate on the international level for the promotion of the goals its Mem ...more...

Member feedback about Pirate Parties International:

Intellectual property activism

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


DFT v TFD

topic

DFT v TFD

DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB) is an English privacy case which concerned an attempt by a woman to blackmail an individual by revealing details of a sexual relationship the couple had had unless a substantial bribe was paid. A super-injunction was initially granted in the case but later discontinued.[1] References Case Information Media Law and Freedom of Expression External links Judgment in this case ...more...

Member feedback about DFT v TFD:

2010 in case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Index of articles related to terms of service and privacy policies

topic

Index of articles related to terms of service and privacy policies

This is a list of articles about terms of service and privacy policies. These are also called terms of use, and are rules one must agree to, in order to use a service. The articles fall in two main categories: descriptions of terms used for specific companies or products, and descriptions of different kinds of terms in general. Articles on companies vary widely in the amount of detail they give on terms of service. Annotations show what is available in the article on each company, and need to be updated as those articles are improved. Terms of service are regularly the subject of news articles throughout the English-language press, such as in the US,[1][2][3][4] UK,[5][6][7] Africa,[8][9] India,[10] Singapore,[11] and Australia.[12][13] Terms of service are also addressed in a widely reviewed documentary,[14] academic research,[15][16][17][18] and legal research.[19][20] Articles which describe specific companies' terms of serviceSocial media Comparison: Privacy concerns with social networking services – ...more...

Member feedback about Index of articles related to terms of service and privacy policies:

Software licenses

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Revenge porn

topic

Revenge porn

Revenge porn or revenge pornography is the distribution of sexually explicit images or video of individuals without their consent.[1] The sexually explicit images or video may be made by a partner of an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject, or it may be made without his or her knowledge. The possession of the material may be used by the perpetrators to blackmail the subjects into performing other sex acts, to coerce them into continuing the relationship, or to punish them for ending the relationship. In the wake of civil lawsuits and the increasing numbers of reported incidents, legislation has been passed in a number of countries and jurisdictions to outlaw the practice, though approaches have varied. The practice has also been described as a form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, as well as a form of sexual abuse.[2] The term "revenge porn" generally refers to the uploading of this sexually explicit material to humiliate and intimidate the subject, who has broken ...more...

Member feedback about Revenge porn:

Human rights abuses

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


MNB v News Group Newspapers

topic

MNB v News Group Newspapers

MNB v News Group Newspapers also known as Goodwin v News Group Newspapers is an English privacy law case in which then banker Fred Goodwin successfully applied for a temporary injunction to prevent The Sun from publishing details about his private life. The injunction was breached by John Hemming MP in the House of Commons where the case was inaccurately referred to as a super-injunction. Breach of injunction On 10 March 2011, John Hemming, a backbench Liberal Democrat MP, referred in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) to the supposed existence of "a superinjunction preventing [Goodwin] from being identified as a banker". As matters discussed in Parliament can be freely reported by the press, newspapers including The Guardian, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph, reported that Goodwin had obtained such an injunction, while still remaining unable to explain what information the injunction restricted the publication of. On 19 May 2011, Lord Stoneham, speaking in the House of Lords, asked the Gove ...more...

Member feedback about MNB v News Group Newspapers:

English privacy case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Ixquick

topic

Ixquick

Ixquick (styled "ixquick") was a metasearch engine based in Zeist and New York,[3] which highlights privacy as its distinguishing feature.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Ixquick now redirects users to startpage.com. Founded by David Bodnick in 1998, Ixquick is owned by Surfboard Holding BV of the Netherlands, which acquired the internet company in 2000.[11] Ixquick and its sibling project Startpage.com reached their latest record (28-day average) daily direct queries of 5.7 million on 2 February 2015.[12] The company also provides the stand-alone proxy service, Ixquick Proxy, which has also been incorporated into both its Ixquick and Startpage search engines, allowing users the option to open all search results via proxy. The company developed a privacy protecting email service, called StartMail.[13] This service was released to the public in 2014.[14] History Ixquick was re-launched on 23 March 2005, with new features including a redesigned metasearch algorithm, an international phone, and lowest-price directory. ...more...

Member feedback about Ixquick:

Internet properties started in 1998

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Robert Ellis Smith

topic

Robert Ellis Smith

Robert Ellis Smith (born September 6, 1940) is an American attorney, author, and a publisher/journalist whose focus is mainly privacy rights. Robert began his career in journalism during high school and while attending Harvard.[1] He was president of The Harvard Crimson. After college, he wrote for newspapers such as the Detroit Free Press, Newsday in New York City, and The Southern Courier. He also worked for the American Civil Liberties Union.[2] Since 1974, he has published Privacy Journal newsletter, as well as several books, such as Ben Franklin’s Website: Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock to the Internet (2000/2004). From the book: "Just what is privacy? It is the desire of each of us for physical space where we can be free of interruption, intrusion, embarrassment, or accountability and the attempt to control the time and manner of disclosures of personal information about ourselves." [3] [4] He has written Workrights (1983, E.P. Dutton),The Law of Privacy Explained (1993, Privacy Journal), a ...more...

Member feedback about Robert Ellis Smith:

The Harvard Crimson people

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


English land law

topic

English land law

The area of land in England and Wales is 151,174 km2 (58,368 mi2), while the United Kingdom is 243,610 km2. By 2017, 84.3 per cent was formally registered at HM Land Registry.[1] As at 2010 about a third of the underlying land (much of which subject to agricultural tenancies or other leases) was owned by 1,200 family branches through direct descent from aristocracy,[2] while 15,354 km2 was owned by the top three land owners, the Forestry Commission, National Trust and Defence Estates. The Crown Estate held around 1,448 km2.[3] English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the Anglo-Saxon system of Bookland and in the Anglo-Saxon multiple estate, a feudal system transformed by William the Conqueror and his influx of many new chief landlords after 1066. The modern law's sources derive from the old courts of common law and equ ...more...

Member feedback about English land law:

Land law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

Trust

(TrulyBlessed)

Revolvy User


Tort

topic

Tort

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The person who commits the act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action in civil torts is not necessarily the result of criminal action; the harm in civil torts may be due to negligence, which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imp ...more...

Member feedback about Tort:

Tort law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

ECO 321 (501) LAW & ECONOMICS

(epabst2)

Revolvy User

law

(StephiG)

Revolvy User


The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law

topic

The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law

The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law is a law review published by a student group at the John Marshall Law School (Chicago). it covers international information technology and privacy law. The journal was cited by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. History The journal was originally established as the Software Law Journal by Michael D. Scott. In 1987, Scott invited the John Marshall Law School to assume editorial control of the journal, because of the school's commitment to education in the area of information technology law. In 1994, Scott then invited the school to merge the Software Law Journal with the Computer Law Journal, and to assume editorial control and publishing rights of the new journal. External links Official website Journal sample Chicago law firms ...more...

Member feedback about The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law:

American law journals

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy concerns regarding Google

topic

Privacy concerns regarding Google

Regarding privacy concerns with the technology corporation Google, Google's privacy change (March 1, 2012) enables the company to share data across a wide variety of services.[1] These embedded services include millions of third-party websites that use Adsense and Analytics. The policy was widely criticized for creating an environment that discourages Internet-innovation by making Internet users more fearful and wary of what they put online.[2] Around December 2009, after privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt declared: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."[3] Privacy International has raised concerns re ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy concerns regarding Google:

Google

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

web/trends/seo

(ananda)

Revolvy User


Necessity in English criminal law

topic

Necessity in English criminal law

In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person (which would fall under either duress or self-defence) and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger. For the most part crimes that could be justified as necessary are minor in nature, such as driving over the speed limit to reach medical care, or damaging property to escape a fire. In almost all cases where a serious crime has taken place, necessity is unlikely to be a successful defence as courts have mostly taken the view that directly harming another person could not be justified even by extreme circumstances unless it directly prevented immediate ...more...

Member feedback about Necessity in English criminal law:

English criminal law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


BBC v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd

topic

BBC v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd

BBC v Harper Collins (2010) EWHC 2424 was a 2010 case in English law, in which the British Broadcasting Corporation applied for an injunction to prevent HarperCollins publishing a book by Ben Collins, which was to reveal his identity as the racing driver known as 'The Stig' on the BBC's Top Gear programme. Judgement The BBC was not granted the injunction. HarperCollins thus released the book in September 2010. See also BBC v Johns R (ProLife Alliance) v. BBC References Butterworth, Siobhain (5 August 2011). "Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list | Siobhain Butterworth & Maya Wolfe-Robinson | Law | guardian.co.uk". Guardian. Retrieved 15 January 2012. External links Bailii BBC v Harper Collins (2010) EWHC 2424 was a 2010 case in English law, in which the British Broadcasting Corporation applied for an injunction to prevent HarperCollins publishing a book by Ben Collins, which was to reveal his identity as the racing driver known as 'The Stig' on the BBC's Top G ...more...

Member feedback about BBC v HarperCollins Publishers Ltd:

HarperCollins books

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Digitalcourage

topic

Digitalcourage

Digitalcourage – known until November 2012 as FoeBuD (Verein zur Förderung des öffentlichen bewegten und unbewegten Datenverkehrs) – is a German privacy and digital rights organisation. Under the motif of preserving "a world worth living in the digital age",[1] Digitalcourage campaigns for civil and human rights, consumer protection, privacy, freedom of information and related issues. The group has links with organisations such as the German Working Group against Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) and the Chaos Computer Club, and it is a member of the umbrella organisation European Digital Rights.[2] Campaigns The group is known for organising the German Big Brother Awards. These negative awards recognise “companies, institutions and persons who act in a prominent and sustained way to invade people's privacy or leak (personal) data to third parties”. An annual award ceremony featuring “winners” in various categories is organised by Digitalcourage.[3] To highlight the privacy implications ...more...

Member feedback about Digitalcourage:

Intellectual property activism

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Data retention

topic

Data retention

Data retention defines the policies of persistent data and records management for meeting legal and business data archival requirements; although sometimes interchangeable, not to be confused with the Data Protection Act 1998. The different data retention policies weigh legal and privacy concerns against economics and need-to-know concerns to determine the retention time, archival rules, data formats, and the permissible means of storage, access, and encryption. In the field of telecommunications, data retention generally refers to the storage of call detail records (CDRs) of telephony and internet traffic and transaction data (IPDRs) by governments and commercial organisations. In the case of government data retention, the data that is stored is usually of telephone calls made and received, emails sent and received, and websites visited. Location data is also collected. The primary objective in government data retention is traffic analysis and mass surveillance. By analysing the retained data, governments ...more...

Member feedback about Data retention:

Data laws

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd

topic

Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd

Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 5 was an important case on privacy law in New Zealand that was decided in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Besides reinforcing the principle that a person can receive general damages for breaches of privacy for humiliation and injury of feelings, it set the precedent of increasing such an award from the then $7,500 to $10,000, and was prominent enough to be included on the Privacy Commission's June 2012 newsletter. Background The Lochead-MacMillan's house in Waiuku was insured with AMI Insurance. When their house later burnt down, they made an insurance claim with AMI. AMI in assessing the claim, got an investigator to interview the claimants. Two interviews were conducted, both of which were recorded by the investigator. On 4 February 2010, the claimants requested AMI for a copy of audio files and transcripts, which under the Privacy Act they had the legal right to obtain. Only the transcript for the second interview was provided on 22 February, which wa ...more...

Member feedback about Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd:

2012 in case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond

topic

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901 (1976), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which gave summary affirmation of a lower court ruling which upheld the U.S. state of Virginia's ban on homosexual sodomy. About the caseBackground The first permanent English colony was established in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia. Three years later in 1610, Virginia adopted England's sodomy laws, making sodomy punishable by death. The first person punished under a sodomy law in the English colonies was a women, Elizabeth Johnson, in 1642 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.[1] Gay men were not singled out by sodomy laws until the late 1800s, when gay subcultures developed in the growing cities. Police frequently raided restaurants and bars with gay and lesbian clientele throughout the 20th century.[2] By the 1950s, all 50 states had sodomy laws, and sodomy was considered a felony in all but two states.[3] In the spring of 1969, several Richmond, Virginia, bars were forced to close for violatin ...more...

Member feedback about Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond:

Right to Privacy under the United States Consti...

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

topic

Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

Ngatikaura Ngati was a New Zealand-Tongan toddler who died of child abuse in January 2006. The deliberate judicial release of official autopsy photographs after the trial of his killers, for the subsequent distribution of those images on the Internet and for the subsequent debate about the images among government figures, including three successive Children's Commissioners caused controversy that was the result of the tension between the desire for privacy and respect for victims of family violence and the need for publicity to motivate changes in public attitudes to family violence. Life and death Ngati had been fostered to a cousin of his birth mother and was being raised in a Tongan language environment until shortly after his third birthday when he was returned to his birth mother, at her request. Maine Annabella Ngati, her partner, Teusila Fa'asisila, and their other children only spoke English. Within three months, Ngati was dead. Photos taken during the autopsy showed bruises from repeated beatings an ...more...

Member feedback about Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati:

Adoptees adopted by relations

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Tort law in Australia

topic

Tort law in Australia

Tort law in Australia consists of both common law and, to a lesser extent, legislation. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract. Torts may be sued upon by private individuals against other private individuals (or the state) to correct a form of conduct or wrong. A large number of torts exist, and they generally derive their legal status from the common law. Since a court can define an existing tort or even recognise new ones through the common law, tort law is sometimes regarded as limitless and adaptable to modern circumstances. Australian perspective Generally, torts are not defined within specific statutes or legislation and have evolved through judge-made law, or common law. However, each state has also created statutes to override the common law, especially in the areas of negligence, personal injuries and defamation, where that has proven necessary.[1] Australian tort law is heavily influenced by the common law in other countries, principally the United Kingdom, by virtue of Australia ...more...

Member feedback about Tort law in Australia:

Tort law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Global Privacy Enforcement Network

topic

Global Privacy Enforcement Network

The Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) is a group of privacy regulators whose mission is to improve cooperation in enforcement of cross-border laws affecting privacy.[1] Overview The Global Privacy Enforcement Network was formed in 2010 in response to an OECD Recommendation on Cross-border Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy. That document recommended cooperation among privacy authorities in areas such as education and enforcement.[2] Members include privacy authorities from Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia Macau SAR (China), Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Guernsey, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.[3] Activities In March 2013 GPEN announced that, with the cooperation of other local privacy authorities, it would conduct a survey of smartphone applications to determine how their developers were addressing user pr ...more...

Member feedback about Global Privacy Enforcement Network:

Privacy organizations

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Gross negligence

topic

Gross negligence

Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party."[1] In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss.[2] Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person". By extension, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross". Gross negligence may thus be described as reflecting "the want of even slight or scant care", falling below the level of care that even a careless person would be expected to follow.[3] While some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most differentiate it from simple negligence in i ...more...

Member feedback about Gross negligence:

Legal terms

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User



Next Page
Javascript Version
Revolvy Server https://www.revolvy.com
Revolvy Site Map