03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) [26] I turn now to the specific private information in respect of which the plaintiff argues he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not accept that he had such reasonable expectation in respect of the photographs to which I have referred. Equally I reject his argument that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in respect of his image, his name and the reference to Lower Shankill. His name, age and actual address became matters of public record in the context of his conviction after the protest involving the Lord Mayor. He was of course perfectly entitled to engage in a lawful protest but the point is that these protests were public and in the public domain. [27] In dealing with a person's identity and appearance I adopt the words of McCloskey J in McGaughey v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2010] NICH 7 – "… a person's identity and appearance are unlikely to be capable of misuse in the context of this tort, since, in the vast majority of cases, these are obvious to and are relatively ascertainable by the public at large." [28] I turn now to the question of the references to the plaintiff's children which are set out in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. [29] The defendant argues that the fact of the plaintiff having children is not something in respect of which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reference to their religion might give rise to an expectation of privacy but this is something in respect of which the children have an expectation of privacy and not the plaintiff. [30] This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case King v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2011] NICA. That case involved a newspaper printing a series of articles about the plaintiff alleging involvement in serious criminal activity, including Loyalist activities and the murder of a journalist. The articles about which the plaintiff complained identified him and his partner by name, stating that she and their child were Catholics, identifying the family's address and printing photographs taken on a private occasion. [31] In relation to the reference to the child the Judge concluded that that did engage the plaintiff's Article 8 rights. At first instance the trial Judge held that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the child's details including his identification, his religion and details of the christening. The Judge went on to hold that there was no justification for publishing the information about the child's identity, its religion or details about the christening and he granted an injunction accordingly. [32] Lord Justice Girvan's judgment contains both a lucid exposition of the general principles concerning misuse of private information and a particularly helpful analysis of the relevant law. [33] At paragraph [18] of the judgment he states as follows – "In the context of a dispute between individuals as opposed to a dispute between an individual and a public authority, a plaintiff's claim is not per se a claim for a breach of a Convention right. It is a tortious claim, that tort claim being sometimes called an action for breach of personal confidence, an action for breach of privacy or in the nomenclature adopted by Sir Anthony Clarke in Murray v Big Pictures UK Ltd [2008] EWCA 446 [2009] Ch 481, an action for misuse of private information. As the Master of the Rolls also pointed out in Murray the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention are now part of the action and should be treated as of general application and as being as much applicable to disputes between individuals as between disputes between individuals and public authorities." He goes on to say – "(19) An individual normally has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to his private, intimate and family relationships. The private and family life of an individual is multifaceted. It is of the nature of any relationship between two or more persons that the relationship has effects on each of the parties to the relationship. The rights arising under Article 8 include the right to establish and develop www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 7/17