来源：《卫报》
原文刊登日期：2022年2月18日
On Wednesday, in a landmark privacy case, the UK supreme court ruled that suspects in a criminal investigation have the right not to be named in the media, prior to charges being brought against them. On that basis, it rejected an appeal against a previous high court judgment by Bloomberg News, which was found to have breached the privacy rights of a US business executive by naming him as the subject of a criminal inquiry.
周三，在一起具有里程碑意义的隐私案中，英国最高法院裁定，在刑事调查中的嫌疑人在受到指控之前，有权不被媒体披露姓名。在此基础上，它驳回了彭博新闻社对此前高等法院判决的上诉。彭博新闻社将一名美国企业高管列为刑事调查对象，高等法院认为这侵犯了他的隐私权。
In one sense, this was nothing new. The judgment merely confirmed a direction of travel that began a decade ago with the Leveson inquiry. The phone-hacking scandal that led to Leveson came to symbolise the excesses of intrusive reporting by the tabloid press in particular. In its wake, the concept of privacy has been interpreted ever more broadly and generously by courts. The right to free expression – and the freedom of the press to report – has correspondingly taken a back seat. In 2018, in the most high-profile case of this type, the high court ruled that the BBC broke privacy law by identifying Sir Cliff Richard as being under investigation over allegations of sexual abuse. He was never arrested or charged.
从某种意义上说，这并不是什么新鲜事。该判决只是确认了一种始于10年前莱韦森调查的前进方向。导致莱韦森案的电话窃听丑闻，成为小报媒体过分侵入性报道的象征。在此之后，法庭对隐私概念的解释变得更加广泛。言论自由——以及新闻报道自由——相应地被置于次要地位。2018年，在这类案件中最受瞩目的一起，英国高等法院裁定BBC违反了隐私法，因为BBC认定克利夫·理查德爵士因性侵指控接受调查，而他从未被逮捕或被指控。
The potential harm to named suspects who are never charged was always capable of being recognised through a defamation claim. But in the way they choose to balance the competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression, these legal judgments reflect the changed perspectives and priorities of the post-Leveson decade.
对那些从未被起诉的被指名的嫌疑人的潜在伤害，总是能够通过诽谤诉讼被意识到。但从他们选择平衡隐私和言论自由这两项相互冲突的权利的方式来看，这些司法判决反映了莱韦森案之后十年的视角和优先事项的变化。
Wednesday’s ruling was a sign that the pendulum has swung too far towards the suppression of information which is of legitimate public interest. The Bloomberg case concerned a criminal investigation into the business activities of an executive in a large public company with investors, customers and shareholders. As the news organisation’s editor-in-chief pointed out in a written response, extending the scope of privacy law to this extent will hobble investigative journalism into corporate wrongdoing. From the Libor banking scandal to the exposure of accounting fraud at Wirecard, the public value of such reporting has been repeatedly demonstrated. Nor is it advisable to throw a cloak of secrecy over police investigations, shielding them from the public gaze and accountability. Perhaps most importantly, an excessive legal presumption in favour of privacy removes the possibility of publicity leading to new testimony, as members of the public come forward.
周三的裁决是一个迹象，表明钟摆已经向压制符合正当公共利益的信息倾斜得太远了。彭博案涉及对一家大型上市公司高管与投资者、客户和股东的商业活动进行刑事调查。正如这家新闻机构的总编辑在一份书面回复中指出的那样，将隐私法的范围扩大到这种程度，将阻碍新闻调查对企业不法行为的调查。从伦敦银行同业拆借利率(Libor)丑闻到Wirecard会计欺诈丑闻曝光，此类报道的公共价值一再得到证明。也不建议给警方调查披上神秘的外衣，使其免受公众的关注和问责。也许最重要的是，当公众站出来的时候，过分支持隐私的法律推定消除了公众关注带来新证词的可能性。
The Bloomberg verdict made clear that there may be cases in which the naming of suspects is in the public interest. But this judgment sends an unequivocal message that the threshold of justification will be intimidatingly, prohibitively high. The right to privacy and protection from reputational damage is in danger of becoming a catch-all instrument with which the powerful and wealthy can erect a screen around the entirety of their lives and shut down scrutiny. A healthy democracy requires a better balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy.
彭博社的判决表明，在某些案件中，披露嫌疑人的名字可能符合公众利益。但英国最高法院的判决发出了一个明确的信息，即披露姓名理由的门槛将高得吓人，令人望而却步。隐私权和保护名誉免受损害的权利有可能成为一个包罗万象的工具，权贵们可以借此在自己的整个生活周围竖起屏障，阻止审查。健康的民主制度要求在新闻自由和隐私权之间取得更好的平衡。