The balance of the general interest of having a vigorous and flourishing newspaper industry did not outweigh the interests of the children in this case. There was no relevant debate of public interest to which the publication of the photographs contributed, the photographs having been published because Mr Weller was well-known. Publishing photographs of the children's faces, and identifying them by surname, was an important engagement of their Article 8 rights, even though such a publication would have been lawful in California. This could be important to ensure proper respect for freedom of speech.ĭingemans J concluded that the balance came down in favour of finding that the Article 8 rights overrode the Article 10 rights engaged. The test also allowed publishers to take account of matters which they did not know, and could not have known about, at the time of publication to show that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. The latter two issues allowed the court to assess what the publishers knew, and what they ought to have known.
![paul weller child paul weller child](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/05/03/00/42491828-0-image-a-91_1619996511040.jpg)
Dingemans J concluded that the law as it had now been developed was as stated in the broad objective test for the "reasonable expectation of privacy" set out in Murray v Express Newspapers EWCA Civ 446 (see Legal update, Court of Appeal allows privacy claim relating to photograph of JK Rowling's son to proceed), which took account of all the circumstances, including the attributes of the claimant the nature of the activity in which the claimant was engaged the place at which it was happening the effect on the claimant the absence of consent and whether it was known or could be inferred and the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher.