Harry Styles Secures Paparazzi Injunction
One Direction's Harry Styles is no stranger to the tabloids. However, this week he has hit the headlines for a different reason.
The One Direction singer has succeed in obtaining what is seen as a rare Court Order banning some unnamed members of the paparazzi from pursuing him. But what exactly does this mean?
The injunction is against a group of paparazzo (of which four are currently still being formally identified using the DVLA) referred to in the proceedings only as "paparazzi AAA and others". As a result of the injunction, the group are now prevented from pursuing Harry by car or motorbike, placing him under surveillance and loitering or waiting within 50 metres of his place of residence to monitor his movements or take photographs of him in such circumstances. Apparently, Harry had tried to reason with the group and asked them to stop to no avail and he was forced to seek assistance from the Courts.
Harry's lawyers have been keen to point out that the injunction was "not a privacy injunction" and that Harry was "not trying to prevent fans approaching him in the street and taking photos". Apparently, he doesn't mind this. What he does mind are the methods and underhand tactics that the paparazzi have been using to try and gain that elusive headline grabbing photo.
Whilst injunctions of this nature are deemed rare, they do not seem that rare for the celebrity. In 2011, Cheryl Cole successfully obtained a restraining order against the paparazzi when they began camping outside her home as, in her own words; the experience was "intense and very annoying", and in 2009, Amy Winehouse obtained a similar injunction to Harry forbidding the paparazzi from taking pictures within 100 metres of her, her place of residence or the home of any of her family members.
Some may argue that the use of an injunction in this way is an abuse of the system. Are these celebrities not inviting the attention by being in the public eye? Should they just shut up and put up? Would Joe Public successfully obtain an injunction in similar circumstances? This particular case could be seen as a 'cautionary tale' however, the price for that career-breaking shot is just too tempting for the paparazzi, and I doubt this will be the last we hear of the celebrity paparazzi injunction.
This article is for general guidance only. It provides useful information in a concise form. Action should not be taken without obtaining specific legal advice.