Do MPs Have a Right to Privacy?

Do MPs keep their right to privacy when they are elected?

The simple answer is yes. Members of Parliament do not surrender their fundamental right to privacy upon election. They remain entitled to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a right incorporated into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. Politicians are not public property, and neither are their spouses, children nor wider family members.

However, the position is rarely straightforward. Privacy rights exist alongside the equally important right to freedom of expression under Article 10, and the media’s role in reporting matters of legitimate public concern. Courts are regularly required to balance these competing rights under the exercise the House of Lords set out in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 and which the courts have refined ever since. However, when the subject of reporting is an elected politician, that balancing exercise can have a rather different outcome.

Whilst all MPs have a right to privacy, that right is curtailed to some extent on being elected, because a role in public life makes it more likely that higher standards of conduct are expected and an MP’s actions can be more closely scrutinised. The court considers that such scrutiny is essential, even where it risks the publication of private information.

Why are politicians open to closer scrutiny?

The reason may be obvious. MPs hold positions of power and influence. They shape legislation, spend public money and make decisions that affect millions of people. The public is therefore entitled to scrutinise their conduct more closely than that of an ordinary individual.

That principle has long been recognised by the courts, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Public office inevitably attracts public examination and those in public office are considered to be less thin skinned in terms of intrusion. In Von Hannover v Germany, the European Court of Human Rights drew a clear line between reporting that contributes to a debate of general interest in a democratic society and reporting that serves only to satisfy public curiosity. Information that might ordinarily be considered private can become reportable where it bears upon a politician’s integrity, honesty, judgment or fitness for office.

Does a public interest story justify any method of reporting?

Public interest grounds do not give journalists a free pass. The fact that a politician is in government or even under investigation, or facing questions about their conduct, does not automatically justify intrusive newsgathering methods. There remains a critical distinction between reporting on a matter of public interest and intruding into a person’s private or family life. The Supreme Court confirmed in Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 that a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in relation to a criminal investigation up until the point of being charged with an offence.

Even where the underlying story is legitimate, the way it is pursued still matters. The courts carefully distinguish between a story that can be told, the methods used to gather information and the way in which it is told.

Are the homes of politicians protected by privacy law?

The home and family life remain one of the strongest areas of legal privacy protection. English courts have repeatedly recognised that individuals are entitled to expect a significant degree of privacy within and around their homes. The point was underlined in Richard v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch), where coverage centred on the search of a public figure’s home and was found to breach his privacy rights. That protection does not evaporate merely because the occupier is well known, politically controversial or holds elected office.

Hanna’s Experience

If a journalist approaches you at your home, you are under no obligation to answer the door or respond to their questions. IPSO, the UK’s main press regulator, advises that journalists should identify themselves and the publication or organisation they represent when asked. They should also leave your property when asked.

Where possible, obtain the journalist’s contact details and continue any communication by email or through your legal representatives. Remember that you may be being recorded in your interaction with the journalist.

What about the privacy of an MP’s family and children?

More importantly, the privacy rights of family members deserve separate consideration and protection. The courts consider that children and relatives who have not chosen public life should not automatically become collateral participants in media reporting. The courts have been especially protective of children: in Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 the Court of Appeal recognised that the child of a well-known parent still has their own reasonable expectation of privacy. Even where a politician’s conduct is a legitimate subject of investigation, the involvement of family members may be difficult to justify unless there is a direct connection to the story being reported.

The law offers privacy protection to all individuals, regardless of their public profile. That principle presumably extends even to Count Binface. If elected MPs have a right to privacy, it would be difficult to argue that bins with faces do not, although there could be some issues around recognisability.

This is perhaps where the Farage dispute has generated particular interest. While there may be a legitimate public interest in questions about an MP’s financial affairs, donations or compliance with parliamentary rules, a separate question arises as to whether approaching family members at a private address is a proportionate way of pursuing that story. That will always depend on the specific facts, but the inquiry cannot begin and end with the words “public interest”.

Hanna’s Experience

Family members are likely to have stronger privacy rights than MPs and may attract greater sympathy from the media. However, they should be aware that their relationship with an MP will increase media interest and scrutiny. It is therefore worth considering what personal information is publicly available, whether on social media or elsewhere, that could be used as political collateral. Family members should consider their public profile and positioning during periods when the MP is likely to be under particular scrutiny, especially in relation to political issues. Media attention directed at a politician can quickly extend to those closest to them. For example, while Rishi Sunak was Prime Minister, reporting on his wife’s tax affairs generated significant media interest, leading not only to the publication of details about her financial affairs but also an investigation into whether Sunak had made the proper declarations.

Public interest or public curiosity: where is the line?

Contrary to popular belief, public interest is not the same as public curiosity. The courts have consistently drawn a distinction between information that genuinely contributes to a matter of public debate and information published merely because the public may find it interesting. The Supreme Court made the point plainly in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26: there is a difference between what is in the public interest and what the public happens to be interested in. The fact that readers or viewers may find something interesting does not, on its own, create a legal justification for intrusion, although there is an public interest in newspapers remaining viable which can sometimes cut across the debate

Can politicians weaken their own privacy rights?

Politicians themselves can also influence where the balance is struck. A public position carries the risk of private information being published. Put simply, making statements from public platforms can give the media the justification to intrude into a politician’s private life.

Those who actively publicise aspects of their personal lives may find it harder to argue that they retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the same matters. Modern political communication increasingly blurs the line between the personal and the political. Social media has encouraged many politicians to promote themselves not just as policymakers but as media personalities trying to engage with their audience on a more human level, often in real-time as they are carrying out their work. Once private life becomes part of a political brand or private information is otherwise voluntarily made public, controlling the boundaries of media scrutiny or public awareness of sensitive matters becomes considerably more difficult.

Hanna’s Experience

MPs often take the view that information can always be published even where it relates to their private lives because of the public office they hold. As a result, when approached by the media, they may choose to provide a comment or issue a ‘no comment’ response. However, this can be seen by the media as a green light that they can publish without significant challenge.

If the information is genuinely private and publication would be of concern, the possibility of preventing publication altogether should not be dismissed. Depending on the circumstances, there may be legal and regulatory grounds to challenge publication. It is worth considering engaging with the media organisation to explain why the information is private, why there is no genuine public interest in its disclosure, and the harm that publication could cause. Engagement before publication can lead to concerns being addressed, additional context being considered, or publication being reconsidered entirely.

So where should the line be drawn?

There are limits. The law does not require MPs to accept unlimited intrusion simply because they seek elected office. Nor does democratic accountability demand that their families become fair game for journalists. The public interest in robust political reporting remains vital, but it must be pursued responsibly and proportionately.

The Farage and Sky News dispute is a useful reminder that privacy and press freedom are not opposing absolutes. They are competing rights that require careful intense scrutiny and balancing. Sometimes the scales will favour publication and investigation. Sometimes they will favour privacy and restraint.

The challenge for politicians, journalists and lawyers alike is knowing precisely where that line falls and dealing with matters strategically and discretely. At Payne Hicks Beach, our Media and Privacy team advises people in public life, and their families, on exactly that question, from pre-publication concerns to injunctions and crisis and reputation management in an age of ever more aggressive and intrusive political reporting.