Actors' parts which are private

by Paul R McGregor. Miller Hendry Solicitors

Hello, Catherine and Michael,

I have to salute you both in that your nuptial celebrations may provide us with what I hope will be a welcome introduction of 'a right of privacy' into our law. Your case may not be successful but that would not prevent the Judge, Mr Justice Lindsay, creating, in effect, as part of his Judgement, a right of privacy and the conditions under which it may exist.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was the one article I felt Lunch with a President (continued)needed inclusion in our law. Those who quote the Convention usually seem to miss out the 'Fundamental Freedoms' part. A right of privacy and respect to one's private and family life and correspondence should be fundamental freedoms in our society. The difficulty is, of course, when this right is balanced with other rights such as the freedom of association and of the Press.

I would plead that I have had enough balancing of public and private with you, Michael, and feel you should be given the benefit of the doubt and some real privacy for a change.

I first witnessed you, Michael, as a spectator within the Gymnastics Stadium at the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 when I was sitting a few seats behind you. As I, along with a Social Security Appeal Tribunal Chairman, watched the wonderful skills of the world's best female gymnasts I privately wished I could be a few hundred yards to my left to watch the final of the men's 100m, in the Olympic Stadium, won, as I found about later, by Britain's own Linford Christie. At an interval your difficulty in purchasing and consuming a soft drink in private without a swarm of Japanese enthusiasts buzzing around you to take uninvited photographs was an interference to behold. You, Michael, did seem to take it in your enigmatic stride and eventually you nested back in the spectator gallery along with the entertaining Jack Nicolson who rested cuckoldly beside you. The Social Security Chairman ruled you out of his jurisdiction due to income ineligibility.

A whole decade flew by before the next public/private dilemma with you, Michael, occurred. My fellow Miller Hendry Partner, Richard Frenz, son of a Perth Butcher, had cut his way to within a thread of Chris Tarrant's chair in 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' but was second out of 10 when asked to name 4 'Michael Douglas films' in the order in which they were made. Michael's films had their public airing as indeed did Richard but I was left as a lonely 'phone a friend' at home in Balhousie Street waiting in vain with agonising private patience for the telephone call from Chris.

You are now litigating in London over photographs taken by a paparazzo working for Hello magazine at the Plaza Hotel in New York where your wedding took place. You, Zeta Jones and Douglas, agreed on a £1million deal with OK magazine for exclusive picture rights to the wedding. Hello managed to beat the security, take pictures of its own and publicise without your consent. The Judge has already made comments that according to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer weddings are meant to be public events where it should be possible for uninvited guests to spring to their feet and lodge objections to the union. The 'show is not over yet' as most judicial questions are directed to test the strength or weakness of arguments and do not necessarily give a clue as to a final conclusion.

Publicity of an intended marriage used to be given by 'banns' in Church and is now given in our law under our Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 by 14 days public notice of the marriage, after a notice has been completed by the couple, to a public registrar of any reason why couples should not be united.

On what basis or grounds could someone suddenly appear at The Plaza Hotel and raise a valid objection? On the grounds you were not of sufficient age to be married? Catherine, at 33 you are still a 'chick' compared to me and at 58 years of age you, Michael, might like that thought but it's hardly applicable. On the grounds that you are related by blood and the marriage is therefore forbidden? I don't think so. On the grounds that one of you has been forced through fear to marry? You can both stick up for yourselves and I have seen you, Catherine, in The Mask of Zorro and would not wish to cross swords with you – not in public anyway! We need two witnesses to the marriage but otherwise it can be private. It can still be constituted partly privately and partly publicly by 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' - the so-called common law marriage).

Perhaps you should have followed Madonna's example and married in Scotland (and perhaps it could have been in our beautiful Perthshire), which would have boosted our Tourist industry.

I implore that there be no undue interference with the private lives of yourselves and your family and give you my blessing especially for any part you may play in your court roles to bring us 'The Right of Privacy'.

O.K?

Yours sincerely,

PAUL R MCGREGOR, MILLER HENDRY SOLICITORS