Naomi Campbell wins potentially landmark privacy case against Daily Mirror

1.00pm - By CAHAL MILMO

Yesterday should have been a normal day in the life of a supermodel for Naomi Campbell. Her sole engagement was a routine press conference in Rome to unveil a new tyre and her trademark pout for motoring giant Pirelli.

Instead, the 33-year-old diva from Streatham, south London found herself ushering in what some hailed as Britain's first privacy law by scoring an important victory in her acrimonious three-year legal battle with the Daily Mirror.

The House of Lords ruled that the newspaper had invaded the millionaire model's privacy when it published a story on 1 February 2001 debunking her denial of a cocaine addiction by revealing her visits to Narcotics Anonymous in London's King's Road.

In a majority ruling by a panel of law lords, the most senior court in the land found that Ms Campbell - described as a "prima donna celebrity" - had a right to attend her therapy sessions without the details appearing in a "celebrity-exploiting tabloid".

Lord Hope, one of the judges, said: "Despite the weight that must be given to the right to freedom of expression that the press needs if it is play its role effectively, I would hold that there was here an infringement of Miss Campbell's right to privacy that cannot be justified."

The ruling was held up by lawyers and senior media figures as creating a de facto privacy law by allowing celebrities to claim that the publication of information which the media knows to be private or confidential - such as medical treatment or employment records - would infringe their human right to a private life.

Critics said the precedent represented a blow to press freedom after the judges ruled by a majority of three to two that the publication of a photograph of Ms Campbell leaving her Narcotics Anonymous meeting on January 30, 2001 to prove the Daily Mirror's story was an invasion of her privacy.

Leading the detractors was Piers Morgan, the embattled editor of the Daily Mirror. After a week of bruising allegations about his judgment over the publication of graphic images alleged torture of an Iraqi prisoner, Mr Morgan insisted his paper had been right to print its story, headlined "Naomi: I am a drug addict".

Mr Morgan said: "This is a very good day for lying, drug-abusing prima donnas who want to have their cake with the media and the right to then shamelessly guzzle it with their Cristal champagne.

"If ever there was a less deserving case for creating what is effectively a back door privacy law it would be Ms Campbell. But that's showbiz."

However, on a day in which the Daily Mirror found itself under scrutiny from several angles, it was not all bad news for Mr Morgan.

A Security Commission report highlighted the paper's scoop by placing a reporter as a footman inside Buckingham Palace and the editor received a vote of confidence from senior executives over the pictures of alleged abuse of prisoner by British soldiers.

The House of Lords judgment, which left the Daily Mirror facing a legal bill estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million, was the latest twist in a legal saga with all the swagger and barely-concealed petulance of a Milan fashion show.

During the original High Court hearing two years ago, Ms Campbell was forced to admit in the witness box that she had been a drug addict since 1997 and that she had a reputation for throwing tantrums.

For her part, the fashion idol said the front-page article, which included quotes gathered by a reporter posing as a fellow recovering addict, had left her feeling "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated".

In his judgment from that case, Mr Justice Morland found that Ms Campbell had perjured herself by insisting that her emergency admission to a Spanish hospital in 1997 was due to an allergy to antibiotics. She had in fact taken an overdose of sleeping pills.

But the judge nonetheless ruled in the model's favour and awarded her damages of £3,500, saying that despite her track record as a self-publicist, she was still entitled to "some space of privacy".

The Court of Appeal later overturned that ruling, saying that the Daily Mirror had been right to expose Ms Campbell's dishonesty.

But yesterday's narrow majority ruling by the Law Lords made it clear that they believed Mr Justice Morland was correct in the first place in finding that there had been a breach of confidence against the model.

Baroness Hale, one of the three judges ruling in favour of Ms Campbell, said even those who spend their time in the august corridors of the House of Lords were not unaware of true nature of modern celebrity.

She said: "Put crudely, it is a prima donna celebrity against a celebrity-exploiting tabloid newspaper. Each in their time has profited from the other. Both are assumed to be grown-ups who know the score."

But the judge said the Daily Mirror had gone too far in detailing treatment which any individual could expect to remain private. She said: "People trying to recover from drug addiction need considerable dedication and commitment, along with constant reinforcement from those around them. Blundering in when matters are acknowledged to be at a fragile stage may do great harm."

Lawyers for the model insisted that the ruling was not a blow to the "so-called freedom of the press".

Keith Schilling, who also represented Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas in their successful £4m claim against Hello! magazine for publishing unauthorised pictures of their wedding, said: "If anything this law underpins the integrity of the media by ensuring the freedom of people in therapy to receive the treatment they need and for them to express themselves openly and in confidence without fear of media intrusion."

Defamation and privacy experts cast doubt on whether the judgment could be interpreted as a privacy law, pointing to the narrowness of the grounds on which it was made.

Rod Dadak, a lawyer who has represented Anna Ford and Lord Bragg in privacy cases, said: "It does not affect freedom of expression. The argument was about the amount of detail that the Daily Mirror revealed. All it means is that tabloid newspapers have to be careful about how far they go."

But other lawyers predicted it would lead to "speculative" claims by public figures trying to conceal wrongdoing. Duncan Lamont, a media lawyer for law firm Charles Russell, said: "Campbell has been trying to make a virtue out of the fact that she admitted that she was a liar and cheat. She is a public figure who has been dishonest but has sued over irrelevancies.

"If politicians are involved in something dishonest, journalists might feel that they have to lay off writing about them because the politician might go to court over one extra-detail in the paper."

The Daily Mirror said last night that it was considering taking its case to the European Court of Justice.

The model herself said she was delighted with the ruling: "This has been a huge strain and now I can get on with my life."

There was, however, little sign that the ordeal had affected her social schedule. Among those Ms Campbell thanked "for all their encouragement over the last few months" were her therapist and Robbie Williams.

- INDEPENDENT