View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Archive content
July 10, 2003updated 17 May 2007 11:30am

Lady Archer ‘obviously’ entitled to gag order

By Press Gazette

The High Court decision that Mary Archer was entitled to an order gagging her former secretary from talking about life with the Archers focused on interactivity between articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the criteria used by courts to decide whether a person is entitled to privacy.

In addition to the gag on her former personal assistant, Jane Williams, Archer also received £2,500

damages from Williams, for breach of confidence.

Mr Justice Jackson had been told that Williams had been a “trusted member of staff” who had been intimately acquainted with Archer’s work and home life, and that she had owed Archer a duty of confidence was “obvious” both prior to and following her dismissal in November 2001.

He also rejected claims that Williams, Archer’s assistant of 13 years, should be allowed to make the disclosures under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

He said she was entitled to an injunction banning Williams from breaching the confidentiality she had agreed to in the terms of her employment as Archer’s secretary and personal assistant.

Content from our partners
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it

Ruling that Archer was entitled to the gagging order, he rejected claims that to impose an order would

breach Williams’s rights to freedom of expression.

He said that in cases such as this the freedom of expression rights had to be weighed against privacy rights and that in doing this it was necessary to look at the person involved.

He also emphasised the fact that Archer was not a public role model and said: “I have come to the conclusion the claimant is not a person who has, by her way of life or her activities, generated legitimate public interest in any of the matters the defendant is seeking to publicise.”

He said she was not a person whose professional and other activities had made her life a matter of “legitimate interest to the public”.

by Roger Pearson

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network