Tabloid-Whore Sienna Miller sues UK papers and wins for "an invasion of privacy"

[Novice]

Sienna Miller paid £35,000 in damages by Sun and News of the World

• Ben Dowell
• Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk, Monday November 10 2008 13.18 GMT
• Article history

Sienna Miller: News Group Newspapers will pay the actor £35,000 plus costs. Photograph: AP



Sienna Miller has reached an out of court settlement for an invasion of privacy action against the Sun and the News of the World over a series of articles published by the papers in June and July.
The high court today approved a settlement in which the papers' publisher, News International subsidiary News Group Newspapers, paid £35,000 damages to Miller and agreed to pay her legal costs.
A series of articles and pictures were published in both papers that included coverage of the actor's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty soon after breaking off a relationship with Welsh actor Rhys Ifans.
Tom Crone, the senior lawyer for News Group Newspapers has written to Miller on behalf of the two titles saying they accepted that "we should not have published such information or photographs".
"I refer to your legal claim against News Group Newspapers, the publishers of the Sun and the News of the World, that was issued in July of this year," Crone wrote.
"We have now had an opportunity to look into this matter. We acknowledge that on the specific facts and circumstances of this case you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information and the photographs that we published in the Sun and the News of the World. We also accept that we should not have published such information or photographs."
Miller is also pursuing what her lawyers Carter-Ruck describe as "various claims" against the photo agency Big Pictures over alleged harassment and invasion of privacy.
The ruling comes on the same day that the Daily Mail editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, claimed that a privacy law was being "imposed" on the British press by the rulings of high court judge Mr Justice Eady.
Dacre said that Eady was harming the British press by imposing a privacy law, with "arrogant and amoral judgments".
In September, Miller secured an apology and £15,000 in damages from the Daily Star an another out of court settlement of a privacy action.



Sienna Miller paid £35,000 in damages by Sun and News of the World | Media | guardian.co.uk



*n.b. Tabloid-Whore in this case denotes that she is happy to use the press for her own ends when she feels like it, not about her sexuality or morals in any way.


Also, now we know why she drove 20 miles from Malibu to BH police station..... I have no doubt that she was setting up this action.

Sienna Miller sues paparazzi for harassment

• Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent
• Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk, Friday October 31 2008 00.01 GMT
• The Guardian, Friday October 31 2008
• Article history

Sienna Miller's life was made intolerable by a "campaign of harassment" by paparazzi photographers, her lawyer told the high court yesterday.
Details of the alleged campaign emerged during a preliminary hearing as the actor launched legal proceedings against the Big Pictures photography agency, claiming harassment and invasion of privacy.
Miller's counsel, David Sherborne, said the agency had made her life "intolerable," and pursuit by photographers and the publication of intrusive images had caused her "substantial alarm, fear and enormous distress".

Last month Miller accepted £15,000 in damages from the Daily Star for photos published in the paper. The paper, which settled the matter out of court, admitted in a public apology that "Ms Miller was extremely harassed and distressed by persistent pursuit and intimidating tactics adopted by numerous paparazzi".
In February Miller gave evidence at the criminal trial of her ex-boyfriend's brother, Otis Ferry, in which she described photographers pursuing her like "lunatics".
The case forms part of a growing trend in which celebrities have used the Human Rights Act to claim protection from the media, according to lawyers.
At the end of yesterday's hearing the judge, Mr Justice Eady, ruled that the case should go to trial in January.
Sienna Miller sues paparazzi for harassment | Media | The Guardian

[aabbcc]

She cavorts around in public with a married man and then expects to be compensated when the tabs write about it ... I don't think I agree with that.

[sputnik]

i'll get lambasted for this but i'm glad she won.
i don't care what people think of women that sleep with married men but that doesn't give the press the right to hound and harass someone the way they did her.

[Lily]

She cavorts around in public with a married man and then expects to be compensated when the tabs write about it ... I don't think I agree with that.

Yeah, no. That's pretty ridiculous.

[Novice]

i'll get lambasted for this but i'm glad she won.
i don't care what people think of women that sleep with married men but that doesn't give the press the right to hound and harass someone the way they did her.

I agree that its not right that the paps hound people - having seen what happens in LA, I'm not sure that that happens in Europe; however, its the turning on and off of the press coverage when it suits them that annoys me (e.g. talking about every aspect of their life but not wanting to be photographed when out topless in a public place). I also wonder how much some celebrities get paid to set these things up sometimes.

The god thing that has come out of this and other cases is that the paps over here might learn from it and hopefully some of it will be applied to the US, as those convoys, etc are really dangerous and eventually someone is going to get killed.

I'm not impressed that such a serious piece of legislation (i.e. the Human Rights Act) is being used to this end tho.....

[sputnik]

i don't have a problem with them 'using' the press. it's normal that everyone should have some measure of control over their image, even if they are famous. it's normal that with fame will come the public's curiosity about their private lives, but the fact that they make money and are famous doesn't give people the right to invade their privacy and harass them. if you had someone wanting to dig up dirt about you and going through your trash or climbing on top of your car when you're trying to drive away, you would expect the law to be on your side. it's no different if someone is famous, and if they're a goody two-shoes or a 'scarlet woman'.