Kaye v Robertson— a reply
| Author | Peter Prescott |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb00897.x |
| Date | 01 May 1991 |
| Published date | 01 May 1991 |
May
19911
Kaye
v
Robertson
-
A
Reply
pending a decision on the substantive issue; the Spanish vessel owners would be
compensated for
loss
if refused registration. If legislation provided
UK
fishing vessel
owners and others who suffer from the unlawful taking of fish in breach of the
common fisheries policy with compensation from the owners of the vessels concerned,
then their interests too would be protected. Instead, under the law as it stands, the
local
fishing industries of member states, which the quota system
is
supposed to
protect, suffer the
loss.
In Community law the position seems to be extremely complex and no attempt
will be made here
to
deal with it. That would make another article. But if, as seems
likely, there is no right for the
UK
government or its fishing communities or vessel
owners to be compensated either by the Spanish government, or by the Spanish
fishing vessels, or by the Commission for the
loss
that arises from the interim
injunction or the fishing by the Spanish against the
UK
quota, the common fisheries
policy looks pretty empty. Quite apart from any compensation point if the Spanish
vessel owners win, they will have driven a coach and horses through this, and indeed
any, quota system and this must raise issues as to how fish stocks can be effectively
conserved and fishing communities protected at the same time.
Kaye
v
Robertson
-
a
reply
Peter Prescott
*
It will be recalled that Mr Gordon Kaye was lying in his private hospital room
recovering from very serious injuries when two journalists from the
Sunday Sport,
in what was ‘a monstrous invasion
of
his privacy’,’ came in and photographed him
despite notices prohibiting entry;
it
required the efforts of the hospital security staff
to
eject them. The Court
of
Appeal refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the
newspaper from publishing the photograph. Bingham
LJ
said. ‘This case
. . .
highlights, yet again, the failure of both the common law
of
England and statute
to protect in an effective way the personal privacy of individual citizens’.
In
Our Patchy
Law
of
Privacy
-
Time to
do
Something about
It2
Professor
Markesinis, after echoing the Court of Appeal’s call for reforming legislation,
suggested (quite correctly) that no real difficulty stands
in
the way of enacting a
workable
(ie
comprehensive) privacy law save the opposition of the Press. This
is
very true; but
it
is rather like saying that there was no obstacle to the abolition
of child labour in eighteenth century coalmines except the opposition of the mine
owncrs. MPs in marginal seats fear and avoid unnecessary unpopularity. The press
has the means of making them unpopular, or seeming to be
so.
There are not ten
votcs to bc got by promoting or supporting privacy law reform; there is every chance
of offending the media. The present writer is willing to entertain a moderate wager
that no effective legislation will follow along currently proposed lines. There will
always be reasons for putting
it
off.
*
QC.
Francis
Taylor
Building,
Temple.
I
2
53
MLR
802.
Per
Bingharn
LJ
1199
I1
FSR
62,
70.
45
I
To continue reading
Request your trial