Harassment by Journalists and Photographers.
Harassment by Journalists and Photographers: Legal Protections Against Press Intrusion, Defamation and Misuse of Private Information
Introduction
Harassment by journalists, photographers, and other members of the press remains a serious legal concern in the United Kingdom. Persistent pursuit by paparazzi, intrusive media behaviour, and targeted press campaigns can cause significant distress and may amount to harassment, defamation, or misuse of private information under English law. High-profile scandals and inquiries, including the Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012), exposed a culture of press intrusion and intensified the demand for legal accountability.
In response, the law has developed clear protections against media misconduct. Victims of press harassment may now rely on a combination of civil claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, privacy law, and the tort of misuse of private information, as well as industry codes enforced by IPSO and Ofcom. These legal tools enable individuals, whether celebrities, private citizens, or children, to seek injunctions, damages, and other remedies against unlawful press activity.
Need immediate advice on press harassment or privacy breach?
If you are facing harassment by journalists or photographers, or if your private information has been unlawfully published, we can help. At Carruthers Law, we specialise in legal action against press intrusion, defamation, and the misuse of private information.
Contact our expert solicitors today for confidential legal advice:
0151 541 2040
0203 846 2862
info@carruthers-law.co.uk
Contact Page
Media Industry Codes Prohibiting Harassment
The UK press and broadcasters are expected to follow strict professional standards that forbid harassing conduct. The Editors’ Code of Practice, enforced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which replaced the PCC in 2014, contains a dedicated clause on harassment. It provides that journalists ‘must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit’ and must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave, and must not follow them. Editors are further obliged to ensure journalists identify themselves if requested and to not use material obtained through harassment. Although IPSO can adjudicate complaints and require publications to print corrections or apologies, it cannot impose large fines or damages for individual Code breaches. In practice, those facing press harassment often turn to the courts for more robust remedies.
Broadcast media is similarly constrained. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code includes provisions to prevent unjustified harassment and invasion of privacy in news-gathering. For example, ‘doorstepping’, which involves filming or recording an interview or obtaining footage without prior arrangement, is prohibited unless warranted by an overriding public interest. Broadcasters must also exercise sensitivity when pursuing individuals for information, especially in circumstances of grief or shock, to avoid crossing into harassment or unfair intrusion.
Legal Framework: Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA) is the primary legislation used to curb harassing conduct, including by journalists and paparazzi. The Act makes harassment both a criminal offence and a civil wrong, or tort, giving victims the right to claim damages or seek injunctions, or restraining orders, under Section 3. Harassment is not explicitly defined by the statute in terms of specific acts, but the law stipulates that it includes a “course of conduct”, i.e. at least two incidents, which causes alarm or distress, and which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment. The test of “ought to know” is objective: if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the conduct amounts to harassment, then the perpetrator is deemed to have that knowledge. Crucially, truth or newsworthiness is not a defence to harassment. Even if the information pursued or published by the journalist is factually true, their conduct in obtaining or disseminating it can still be unlawful if it crosses the line into oppressive harassment.
To fall within the Act, the conduct in question must have occurred on two or more occasions, a single incident, however objectionable, will not usually suffice. However, courts have held that different acts can be aggregated into the course of conduct. In the context of paparazzi behaviour, for example, an initial incident of intrusive news-gathering, such as aggressive photography or persistent following, and a subsequent publication of the material obtained could together count as the two requisite incidents. Notably, the victim need not be aware of the harassment at the time of the first incident, for instance, secret surveillance or photography can still form part of a harassment course of conduct even if the target only learns about it later when an article or photo is published. What matters is that a reasonable person would consider the two or more acts, taken together, to be oppressive.
Examples of Harassing Conduct by Press
UK courts and regulators recognise a range of journalistic behaviours that can amount to unlawful harassment if persistently pursued. These include:
Persistent Visiting or Door-stepping:
Repeatedly showing up at someone’s home or workplace uninvited, or refusing to leave private property when asked.
Following and Chasing:
Pursuing an individual by car, motorcycle, or on foot, for example, by paparazzi giving chase or tailing a person in public, can create obvious safety risks and distress; a concern tragically underscored by past incidents like the late Princess Diana’s case, and echoed in warnings about increasingly dangerous paparazzi tactics targeting public figures.
Surveillance and Monitoring:
Placing someone under prolonged surveillance, staking out their residence, or using telephoto lenses and recording devices to track their movements. Continual camping outside a person’s home or trailing them can qualify as harassment, especially once the person has made clear they wish to be left alone.
Excessive Communications:
Repeatedly phoning, texting, or emailing a private individual after being asked to stop. In one case, the mother of a celebrity’s child received unsolicited phone calls, voicemails and messages from journalists, including one call so frightening that she changed her number, contributing to a finding of harassment. Persistent questioning in person can likewise become harassment if the journalist refuses to desist.
Aggressive Photography and Videography:
Photographing or filming someone in an intrusive manner, particularly in private or sensitive settings. For example, ambush photography, which involves snapping images of individuals at home, with their family, or in other private spaces using long lenses and continuing to do so after objections, is plainly harassing. Even in public places, taking photos in a way that causes alarm or distress, such as cornering someone or pursuing them at close range, can cross the line. British courts have noted that surreptitious or relentless photography can be as intrusive as physical surveillance, blurring the once-rigid distinction between private places and public streets.
Any combination of the above behaviours, if repeated and targeted, may be found to breach the 1997 Act. Harassment is punishable by criminal penalties, such as imprisonment or fines, and can be addressed preventively by the civil courts through injunctions. A court may issue an injunction under Section 3 of the PFHA restraining a journalist or photographer, or anyone acting on their behalf, from continuing the harassing conduct. Breach of such an injunction is a serious matter: it can be enforced by the court as a contempt, and it is also a criminal offence for the harasser to disobey the order. This dual enforcement mechanism gives the injunction teeth, deterring would-be offenders with the threat of arrest if they persist.
Court Injunctions to Restrain Press Harassment
Over the past two decades, numerous individuals, often celebrities or people thrust into the public eye, have sought relief from the High Court to stop aggressive press harassment. Courts are willing to act swiftly in appropriate cases. In fact, it has become standard for victims of press stalking or intimidation to apply for anti-harassment injunctions under the PFHA, sometimes on an emergency basis, to get paparazzi or reporters to stop their pursuit.
One of the earliest cases was Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 (Court of Appeal). In that case, a newspaper, The Sun, had published a series of articles that identified a police civilian employee, the claimant, in negative terms, leading to the claimant being vilified and even receiving hate mail from the paper’s readers. The claimant sued the publisher for harassment, arguing that the Sun’s course of conduct, which included the articles, follow-ups, and readers’ letters incited by the coverage, foreseeably caused her distress and went beyond acceptable press criticism.
The Court of Appeal held that ordinarily press criticism, even if robust, does not constitute unreasonable conduct for purposes of harassment; in general, news outlets have latitude to publish stories that may upset or embarrass someone. However, Thomas established that there are limits. A deliberate media campaign targeting an individual, especially one that is oppressive and unreasonable such as to amount to an abuse of press freedom, can potentially be harassment. In Thomas, it was deemed arguable that the newspaper crossed the line, for example, by emphasising the claimant’s race, which had the effect encouraging public hostility against her. The case was significant as the first ruling that a series of press publications could amount to harassment, although the court cautioned that only “serious and unacceptable” press conduct would meet the threshold. This set a high bar, reflecting a balance between free expression and protection of individuals.
Following Thomas, other cases continued to delineate the boundaries of press harassment. In Howlett v Holding [2006] EWHC 41 (QB), a former local councillor obtained a permanent injunction against a man who had waged a long-running campaign of harassment against her, which included flying insulting banners over her town and putting her under surveillance. Mr Justice Eady, as he then was, reaffirmed that exercise of free speech can constitute harassment if pursued obsessively and unreasonably.
Even though the defendant claimed a right to continue his tirade, the court found his conduct objectionable because of the impact it had on the claimant’s privacy and psychological wellbeing. Balancing the rights at stake under the Human Rights Act, namely the defendant’s expression versus the claimant’s privacy and freedom from harassment, the court held that the claimant’s rights prevailed on the facts. The Howlett case is notable for extending protection not just against paparazzi or media companies but also against individuals harassing someone under the guise of public commentary. It underscored that harassing surveillance, literally watching or stalking someone, would not be shielded by free speech rights.
Celebrity Anti-Paparazzi Injunctions
Starting in the late 2000s, a number of celebrities have successfully used the PFHA to restrain persistent paparazzi. Courts have been willing to grant wide-ranging injunctions to protect individuals (and sometimes their families, including children) from intrusive photographers. For example:
Sienna Miller (2008): The actress sued a photo agency, Big Pictures, over relentless paparazzi pursuit, including being spat on and having her car run off the road by photographers. The case settled before trial; the agency agreed to pay £37,000 in damages and legal costs, and gave formal undertakings, or promises to the court, not to doorstep or pursue her, her family, or her friends. This effectively functioned as a harassment injunction by consent. Miller’s case was one of the early instances highlighting paparazzi excesses and resulted in an acknowledged invasion of privacy as well.
Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse (2009): Both singers obtained High Court injunctions to stop paparazzi agencies from harassing them. Lily Allen’s order was directed at specific photo agencies, Big Pictures and Matrix Photos, and even an individual photographer, and it extended to restrain further harassment by other paparazzi who might try to take their place. Amy Winehouse’s injunction was similarly aimed at Big Pictures and persons unknown, a category used to cover any other paparazzi who pursued her, preventing them from following or photographing her in the vicinity of her home or in public places in a harassing manner. Using the persons unknown device is significant: it allowed the injunction to be served on any new photographer who started harassing the celebrity, even if that person was not originally named. In both cases, the courts clearly signalled that paparazzi swarming outside someone’s house or giving chase in public would not be tolerated when it causes alarm or distress.
Cheryl Cole (2011): The pop singer, obtained an ex parte interim injunction to shield herself from paparazzi after intense media attention upon her return from the US. Notices of the court order were famously attached to lampposts outside her home to warn off photographers. The Daily Star characterised the order as bizarre, claiming it even threatened loyal fans with jail for taking photos, but in reality the terms were aimed squarely at paparazzi tactics, not ordinary fans. The standard terms of Cheryl Cole’s injunction, which were quite typical for these kinds of cases, prohibited anyone from: pursuing or following her by any means; placing her under surveillance; approaching within 100 metres of her home; photographing her in her home or other private premises, or even as she entered or left her home, i.e. door-stepping; or otherwise harassing or intimidating her. In short, it created a zone of safety around the singer and barred the common methods paparazzi use to hound targets.
Tinglan Hong & Infant (2011): Tinglan Hong, a private individual who had a child with actor Hugh Grant, was granted a sweeping injunction to protect herself and her newborn baby from paparazzi harassment. Ms Hong had complained of intimidating and threatening behaviour by photographers who she felt staked her, following her relentlessly, waiting outside her home day and night, to the point of causing car accidents and sleepless nights from camera flashes, and even harassing her family members. Despite lodging a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission, the predecessor to IPSO, some photographers persisted.
Mr Justice Tugendhat found it necessary and proportionate to issue an injunction under the PFHA, recognising that Ms Hong and her child were entitled to be left in peace. The court’s order forbade anyone from “pursuing, harassing, or photographing” Ms Hong or her daughter, on pain of arrest or asset seizure for violators. It also imposed a buffer zone, reportedly 100 metres around her home, within which paparazzi could not approach. Hugh Grant’s lawyer stated that the measures some photographers had used were “utterly appalling,” and the injunction’s severity reflected the severity of the harassment. This case illustrated that even non-celebrities connected to famous figures can invoke the law to guard against media harassment, and it was one of several incidents fueling calls for stronger press regulation at the time.
Harry Styles (2013 to 2014): The One Direction singer Harry Styles took legal action to halt what his lawyers called the crazy pursuit by certain paparazzi. Styles first obtained an interim High Court injunction in December 2013 against several unnamed photographers, which barred them from following him by car or motorcycle, placing him under surveillance, loitering within 50 metres of his home, or taking photos of him in such circumstances. The injunction was deliberately worded to apply to anyone behaving in that harassing manner, and at least four individuals were identified and served with it. By early 2014, the High Court made Styles’ injunction permanent, continuing to restrain those photographers from their paparazzi tactics.
Importantly, Styles’ counsel emphasised that he was not seeking a general privacy injunction forbidding publication of his image, nor trying to stop genuine fans from approaching him, the order targeted only the unsafe and intrusive methods of certain paparazzi. This distinction resonated with the court. The Styles case demonstrates that Britain’s courts can and will step in quickly to protect individuals from persistent media harassment, even using innovative approaches like suing “persons unknown” to ensure new offenders can be brought within the order. It also suggests that such injunctions have become relatively commonplace for celebrities facing paparazzi ordeals.
Typical Scope of Anti-Harassment Orders
As seen above, injunctions granted under the PFHA to stop press harassment tend to include a range of specific restrictions. For illustration, a typical High Court order in favour of a harassed individual, such as a celebrity or their family, will prohibit named photographers and persons unknown from doing any of the following:
- Pursuing or following the person by any means, whether by car, motorbike, or on foot. This covers chasing them in public places or stalking their movements.
Placing the person under surveillance or besieging their home, for example, waiting outside for extended periods. - Approaching within a certain distance of the person’s home or other private locations, often a defined radius like 50m or 100m, without consent. This creates a safety perimeter to prevent door-stepping and unwanted monitoring near the person’s residence.
- Photographing or recording the person in private or distressing circumstances. This typically includes taking any pictures of them at their home, in the homes of family or friends, in other places where they have an expectation of privacy, or when they are being actively pursued or appear distressed. In short, it bans the publication’s most invasive photography tactics.
- Intimidating or harassing the person in any other manner. A catch-all clause ensures that even novel forms of harassment, or attempts to circumvent the specific terms, are forbidden.
- Violation of any such term can lead to the photographer or journalist being found in contempt of court or prosecuted under the PFHA. These orders, once served, have proven quite effective. For example, after receiving injunctions, many paparazzi back off to avoid imprisonment or fines.
Harassment via Published Articles and Media Campaigns
Most harassment claims against the press have arisen from newsgathering conduct, pursuit, surveillance, etc., as discussed, But can the very content of published articles, absent overt stalking, ever amount to harassment? As noted, the Thomas case opened the door to such claims in principle, though it set a high threshold.
In recent years, cases have tested the boundary further:
Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB); [2018] EWCA Civ 1470 involved a private individual who became a media target after painting her London house with red and white candy stripes in a planning dispute. She alleged that Daily Mail reporters had harassed her through a series of unwanted contacts and a barrage of sensational articles portraying her negatively. Part of her claim was that the Mail’s coverage, nine articles within a few months, was not genuine news reporting but a campaign to discredit her for public amusement, which, combined with the journalists’ repeated approaches to her and her advisers, amounted to harassment. The High Court (Judge Moloney QC) struck out the portion of the claim based on the journalists’ contacts, finding that the level and manner of contact, an email, a visit to her home, etc. were within acceptable bounds of journalism in the circumstances. He stated that some degree of persistence is normal when reporters investigate a story, especially one the claimant herself had helped draw attention to. However, the court allowed the claim based on the articles to go forward, remarking that it was well arguable, the series of publications had crossed the line. The judge could not say at an early stage that such article based harassment was impossible in law, especially since some articles had already been found defamatory in separate proceedings.
Wei and Others v Long and Others (No 2) [2025] EWHC 912 (KB) the High Court awarded significant damages for harassment and libel arising from an international campaign of online abuse and targeted personal intrusion. The first defendant, D1, was found liable in default after failing to engage with proceedings. The claimants, three of whom were resident in England, were subjected to a concerted pattern of defamatory publications, cyber-harassment, and surveillance over a period of months.
Mrs Justice Hill held that D1’s conduct amounted to a deliberate and malicious course of harassment, aggravated by anonymity, repetition, and international reach. More than 800 online posts were made about the claimants, many alleging criminal conduct such as corruption and money laundering. The court found the conduct plainly crossed the line between unpleasant commentary and unlawful harassment, citing Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34.
Notably, damages were assessed separately for harassment and libel to reflect both emotional harm and reputational damage. General damages for harassment were awarded at £45,000 each to C1 and C2, and £32,000 to C3, all including an element for aggravated features. C1 received a further £10,000 for libel; C2 and C3 were each awarded £500 in vindicatory libel damages. Additional awards included £6,636.78 for C2’s psychiatric injury and £9,849.21 in special damages.
The judgment also includes an injunction restraining further harassment and publication, and an order under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring the defendant to publish a court approved summary of the judgment on the websites where the posts were originally made, using his known usernames. Mrs Justice Hill endorsed this as a proportionate means of securing reputational vindication and deterring further abuse.
In general, English courts have been cautious about equating publication with harassment, except where the publication is part of a broader pattern of unjustified intimidation or abuse. The bar for liability is high: the conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable enough to go beyond the ordinary disagreements of life, reaching a criminal level of seriousness.
Privacy and Intrusion by the Press
Harassment law often operates in tandem with privacy law in cases of press misconduct. Intrusive behaviour by journalists frequently not only causes the victim harassment, but also involves the revelation of personal information or unauthorised photographs, engaging the individual’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Misuse of Private Information, a tort developed from breach of confidence, is now a well established cause of action that individuals can use to sue media organisations for publishing private facts or images without consent. A privacy claim does not require a course of conduct, even a single publication can suffice, so it is an appropriate route where, for instance, one set of photographs or one article causes serious intrusion. The courts will ask whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, and if so, whether the media’s interference with that privacy was justified by a sufficient public interest, balancing Article 8 against the media’s Article 10 free expression rights.
Over the last decade, there have been significant judgments providing strong protection for personal privacy against press intrusion. For example, in Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1163 (QB) (upheld [2015] EWCA Civ 1176), the Mail Online was sued for publishing paparazzi photographs of musician Paul Weller’s three young children during a family outing. The pictures were taken in California without consent: a photographer followed the family on the street, continued shooting despite being asked to stop, and the children’s faces were shown unpixellated online. The High Court awarded the Weller children £10,000 in privacy damages, finding that even in a public place, minors have a strong expectation of privacy and the sole motive for publication was the parent’s fame which is no proper justification at all. The court stated that there is a big difference between a parent answering a few questions about family in an interview and someone following you around taking photos of your children and that the intrusive, non-consensual nature of the photography overstepped the line.
Another case was PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26, where the Supreme Court continued an injunction preventing a tabloid from publishing salacious details of a celebrity’s private life. The Court held that privacy rights can justify restraining publication even when some information has leaked online, and underlined that the law of privacy protects not just the secrecy of information but also freedom from intrusive bombardment by the press.
Privacy rights have also led to significant damages awards against media organisations for intrusive newsgathering. In the case of Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 Sir Cliff won a privacy claim against the BBC over its televised coverage of a police raid on his home, when he was a suspect in a criminal inquiry but ultimately never charged. The High Court found that the singer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact and details of the police investigation, and that the BBC’s naming of him and sensational broadcasting of the raid, including helicopter footage of his home, was an unlawful invasion of privacy. Sir Cliff was awarded £210,000 in damages, general and aggravated, against the BBC, one of the largest privacy payouts, reflecting not only the harm to his reputation and dignity but also the aggravated impact of the BBC’s conduct, such as its triumphal submission of the story for an award. Although the BBC decried the judgment as a dramatic shift against press freedom, it did not overturn the principle that individuals are entitled to a private life free from unjustified press intrusion.
Conclusion
As of mid-2025, the law in England and Wales offers protection against harassment by journalists and photographers. Both self-regulatory measures and court-enforced laws work together to curb the excesses of newsgathering. The Editors’ Code and Ofcom rules set clear expectations that the media must not cross the line into intimidation or persistent pursuit. When those standards fail, as they sometimes do, individuals, famous or not, have recourse to the courts. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has proven to be a powerful tool, allowing judges to issue injunctions that impose civil and criminal sanctions on paparazzi and reporters who refuse to heed warnings. At the same time, the evolution of privacy law has strengthened the ability of claimants to seek damages and injunctions for unjustified media intrusion, even in one-off instances, thereby complementing the anti-harassment regime.
Need immediate advice on press harassment or privacy breach?
If you are facing harassment by journalists or photographers, or if your private information has been unlawfully published, we can help. At Carruthers Law, we specialise in legal action against press intrusion, defamation, and the misuse of private information.
Contact our expert solicitors today for confidential legal advice:
0151 541 2040
0203 846 2862
info@carruthers-law.co.uk
Contact Page