Supermodel Wins Tabloid Suit

A tabloid newspaper had the right to counter supermodel Naomi Campbell's untrue public claims that she had never abused drugs, but The Mirror went too far when it published a picture of her leaving a group therapy meeting, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Justice Sir Michael Morland — who said the model had misrepresented herself to the press in the past and lied under oath — ruled that even celebrities who use the media to buff their own images are entitled to some privacy. He awarded the 31-year-old, London-born model $5,000 in damages and told The Mirror newspaper to pay her court costs, reportedly about $285,000.

Campbell, who was not in London's High Court for the ruling, had sued MGN Ltd., publisher of The Mirror, for breach of confidence and unlawful invasion of privacy after the tabloid published a photo of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in London a year ago.

She had told the court she felt "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated" by the story.

Her lawyer, Keith Schilling, said he had discussed the verdict with the model, who was in Los Angeles.

"She is naturally delighted with the decision," he said. "This is a landmark case — it establishes that anyone in the public eye, whether through choice or inadvertently, is entitled to protection for their private lives."

Schilling said Campbell planned to donate the damages to charity.

Mirror Editor Piers Morgan said the ruling was ridiculous and mocked the size of the damages.

"Supermodels don't even get out of bed for less than 10,000 pounds ($14,000), so she doesn't even have enough to pull back the covers," he said outside court.

"She's won on a very small technical point of law in relation to confidence," he said. "I'm at a loss to understand what her case was."

Courts have been struggling to establish a consistent approach to privacy cases since the European Convention on Human Rights — which says individuals' private lives must be respected — became law in Britain last year.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said the Campbell verdict did not set any precedent, adding: "Supermodels ... and pop stars and other powerful people have to expect more attention from the media than ordinary people.

Britain's aggressive tabloids are the frequent targets of celebrity lawsuits, but the damages awarded are often too low to have much of an impact.

Morgan had told the court the newspaper took a sympathetic approach to Campbell's problem and said she was not entitled to the same privacy as ordinary people because she used the media to promote her image as a model and to discuss intimate details of her private life.

Defense lawyer Desmond Brown argued that Campbell's drug treatment would not expose her to any stigma or damage her career.

But Morland ruled Campbell had succeeded in establishing the newspaper broke confidentiality and violated the Data Protection Act, a British law that guards personal information.

Because the model had publicly denied drug addiction, he said, it would have been acceptable for The Mirror to report that she had been addicted and was undergoing therapy.

But the details of her treatment, including its location, "bear the badge or mark of confidentiality," the judge said.

"Although many aspects of the private lives of celebrities and public figures will inevitably enter the public domain, in my judgment it does not follow that even with self-publicists every aspect and detail of their private lives are legitimate quarry for the journalist," he said. "They are entitled to some space of privacy."

While Morland concluded Campbell had suffered distress after the photo was published, he said he had considered her testimony about the picture's impact with caution.

"She has shown herself to be, over the years, lacking in frankness and veracity with the media, and manipulative and selective in what she has chosen to reveal about herself," he said.

The judge also said Campbell had lied to him when testifying about the reason for her 1997 hospitalization in the Canary Islands, which she said was because of an allergic reaction.

Morland denied The Mirror permission to appeal his ruling, although the newspaper can petition the Court of Appeal for permission, which Morgan said it was considering.