Paul Weller’s children win privacy case over Daily Mail photos

British musician Paul Weller has won over €12,000 (£10,000) privacy damages for three of his children whose faces were "plastered" on The Daily Mail's website.

Weller (55) sued Associated Newspapers for misuse of private information on behalf of daughter Dylan, who was 16 when the seven unpixellated pictures appeared on MailOnline in October 2012, and twin sons John Paul and Bowie, who were 10 months old.

The one-time frontman of The Jam and the Style Council was not at the high court in London to hear the ruling by Mr Justice Dingemans.

The pictures were published after a paparazzo followed Weller and the children on a shopping trip through the streets of Santa Monica, California, taking photos without their consent, despite being asked to stop.

Associated Newspapers argued that they were entirely innocuous and inoffensive images taken in public places and that the Wellers had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a significant degree.

Ruling that there was a misuse of private information and a breach of the Data Protection Act, the judge awarded £5,000 to Dylan and £2,500 each to John Paul and Bowie.

He said the Wellers, whose lawyers had asked for at least £15,000 for each child, would have refused to give consent for the photos showing the faces of the children if asked and this was their consistent approach to dealings with the media.

The judge said: “I accept that Paul Weller and Hannah Weller had general concerns about security in relation to their children, but had no specific evidence for those concerns.

“They had the normal concerns of any parent for the safety and security of their children, heightened by the fact that Paul Weller was well known. I accept that the main purpose of Paul and Hannah Weller in bringing the action was to attempt to ensure that the children were left alone as they grew up.

“In my judgment, the photographs were published in circumstances where Dylan, Bowie and John Paul had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was because the photographs showed their faces, one of the chief attributes of their respective personalities, as they were on a family trip out with their father going shopping and to a cafe and they were identified by surname.

“The photographs were different in nature from crowd shots of the street showing unknown children. The photographs showed how Dylan, Bowie and John Paul looked, as children of Paul Weller. The photographs also showed how Dylan, Bowie and John Paul looked on a family day out with their father.”

The balance came down in favour of finding that the right to respect for private and family life overrode the right to freedom of expression.

“These were photographs showing the expressions on faces of children, on a family afternoon out with their father.

“Publishing photographs of the children’s faces, and the range of emotions that were displayed, 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.

“There was no relevant debate of public interest to which the publication of the photographs contributed. The balance of the general interest of having a vigorous and flourishing newspaper industry does not outweigh the interests of the children in this case.

“I consider that, although the interpretation of the Editors’ Code is not for me, this conclusion is consistent with the approach set out in the Editors’ Code, which recognises that private activities can take place in public, and that editors should not use a parent’s position as sole justification for the publication of details of a child’s private life.”

A spokesman for MailOnline said: “We are deeply disappointed by this judgment. At the outset, when concerns were first raised, we made it clear to Mr and Mrs Weller that MailOnline would not re-publish these photos.

We offered to discuss how we could further reassure them to avoid litigation but their response was to issue proceedings against us on a no-win no-fee.

“The photographs showed nothing more than Paul Weller and three of his children out and about in public places. There was no claim and no finding that we had followed, harassed or targeted Mr Weller or his children and no request had ever been made to pixellate the children’s faces.

“Our publication of the images was entirely in line with the law in California where they were taken by a freelance photographer.

“The suggestion that children have an expectation of privacy in relation to publication by the media of images of their faces when one child (now nearly 18) has modelled for Teen Vogue, images of the babies’ naked bottoms have been tweeted by their mother, and their father has discussed the children in promotional interviews is a worrying development in our law, as it has conferred unfettered image rights on all the children.

“MailOnline is now a global business competing with other US-based websites who operate under the freedom of the First Amendment.

“Two-thirds of MailOnline’s audience are now resident outside of the UK where readers will be baffled if they are denied material freely available on dozens of other sites around the world. “This judgment has wide-ranging and serious consequences not only for local, national and international digital journalism but for anyone posting pictures of children on social networks. We intend to appeal.”

PA