Paparazzi Insight

Last night walking across St James Park, the Carlton Steps and up Regent Street to Piccadilly I obtained an insight into the slime ball world of the paparazzi, those hungry photographers who feel anybody is fair game for the “money shots” which appear in newspapers the next day. Here was the coverage and the photos in today’s papers

“LILY Allen was the talk of the GQ 20th anniversary dinner last night at St Alban. She arrived in one outfit, changed before dinner got under way and by the end of the evening had slipped into a third costume. No wonder she laddered her tights in the process. As the Veuve Clicquot flowed, guests, who included Nancy Dell'Olio and David Walliams, were still digesting the results of the American election. Historian Andrew Roberts revealed he had been to five parties on election night cementing his reputation as London's most ubiquitous party goer.”

And here is the panting porno prose description from the restaurant’s web site;

“St Alban is the latest restaurant from Chris Corbin and Jeremy King, owners of The Wolseley and former proprietors of Le Caprice, The Ivy and J. Sheekey. The restaurant's comfortable, contemporary interior has been realised by Stiff & Trevillion in collaboration with Michael Craig-Martin, whose murals decorate the walls and windows and complement the artwork of Damien Hirst. His works are displayed throughout the restaurant and include the gloriously titled 'Jubilation'. The 22ft long painting is made up of hundreds of butterfly wings in a mandala-like pattern, and expands on the iconic motif of the butterfly as a symbol of beauty, love and fragility.”


St. Alban

Well that is the glamorous public image and what appears in the papers but from what I saw last night the reality of paparazzi London which results in these pictures in the papers is very different. Indeed it provoked sympathy for Lily Allen, Amy Winehouse, Naomi Campbell, Sienna Miller and others who are subject to continuous intrusion from that most parasitic of occupations the paparazzi. Indeed I would applaud Sienna Miller who has launched a legal battle against News International and photo agency Big Pictures at the High Court.


Amy Winehouse battling with Paparazzi outside her flat

Law firm Carter-Ruck has served a writ for breach of privacy against the News of the World, the Sun, and the Big Pictures agency relating to a series of articles about the star. It is believed that the writ relates to two articles that appeared in the Sun where Big Pictures contributed photos. The stories and pictures reported on Miller's holiday in Italy and also referred to her friendship with Balthazar Getty, heir to the Getty oil fortune. Miller is taking action over a further two articles that appeared in the News of The World.



In March 2009 year media specialists Carter-Ruck obtained a legal injunction to protect pop star Lily Allen from harassment by Big Pictures and rival agency Matrix Photos. Carter-Ruck also obtained an injunction "restraining further harassment" by other paparazzi photographers in a case which was presented to the high court by barrister David Sherborne, who also represented Winehouse.



Allen's move followed a collision outside her London home between her car and that of a photographer, after which cameramen continued to follow her. Photographers covered by the order have been ordered not to pursue or follow Allen by any means or approach her within 100 metres of her home. They are also forbidden from taking pictures of her at her home or at the homes of any members of her family or friends.


Paparazzi break Lily Allen's car window outside The Groucho Club, Soho

As I walked up the road I was nearly knocked over by a Vauxhall Astra reversing at speed off Regent Street into a side road by a young driver who turned out to be one of the Paps. When I berated him for his dangerous driving he was abusive, as obviously I was interfering with his right to run over pedestrians and park illegally on a corner whilst driving without a seatbelt in pursuit of the “money shot”. At the next corner where there is the entrance to St. Alban there was a scrum of 12 photographers already waiting. The Restaurant keeps its entrance clear with two rope barriers so the photographers blocked the pavement and pedestrians were forced onto the road.


Victoria and David Beckham leaving St Alban

As I crossed to the far side of the road a Mercedes with a driver and a passenger in the back drew up and there was roaring and shouting and an outburst of flashes. A small and rather beautiful young woman got out of the back – it was Lily Allen looking in the flesh somewhat lovelier than she does in photos wearing a beautiful ruffled light pink number. A scooter with a photographer and an “L” plate on it pulled up behind Lily Allen’s car and the guy jumped off leaving his scooter running in the middle of the road – he had obviously been following Lily from her home. The Pack of Paps crowded around her pushing each other out of the way and sticking lenses into her face and flashing away all the time while barking in braying unison “here Lily” “ Smile Lily” “This way Lily”. Lily performed, smiled and eventually they parted slightly as the bouncers led her on a zig zag route into St. Alban. No doubt if Lily had scowled, inadvertently showed some underwear or tripped that would have been the next morning’s “money shot” no doubt with a fabricated heading such as “Lily’s love agony” or “Lily shows the strain” or some such nonsense.



Looking back there were two car parked on double yellow lines on the corner with photographer’s boards on the dash – it occurred to me these were deliberately illegally parked on a corner so drop offs to St. Alban could only take place (also on a double yellow) in front of the Paps lenses. Public space is just that and belongs to us all and should not be stolen from us be it by the Paps or Tesco. Just one block away from St. Alban is the club “Tiger, Tiger” where currently there is a trial underway about two car bombs which were similarly illegally parked. So what are the Metropolitan Police and Westminster Council doing about the danger of public space being abused, telling us that if something else happens in the west End they’ll have good CCTV pictures to show us after the fact?



Singer Amy Winehouse fought back against paparazzi photographers keen to record every aspect of her troubled private life, winning a high court anti-harassment injunction and posting the ruling outside her new home in the London suburbs.
Winehouse, who has been a ubiquitous presence in the tabloids ever since her Mercury-nominated album Frank was released secured the injunction in May 2009 to prevent her being pursued by photographers after her move earlier this year from her central London home to a more sedate neighbourhood.


Paparazzi record the delivery of a sunbed to Amy Winehouse's home in March 2009. The anti-harassment ruling has now been posted outside the house in north London.

The order bans leading paparazzi agency Big Pictures from following Winehouse but also refers to any "persons unknown" seeking to photograph the musician outside her home and in other public places if they have pursued her.

A source close to Winehouse's management team said that the injunction was sought because press attention had made her life "unsafe".

"Every time she got in her car she was chased or was jostled, and it has become unsafe not just for her, but the people around her," the source said. "We don't have the problem with the press doing their job but it has been mayhem a couple of times and Amy had to do something."

So, good luck to Naomi Campbell,Amy Winehouse, Sienna Miller and others who are taking firm action against this appalling intrusion and harassment. As for Lily Allen I truly felt sorry for her having to endure this rubbish everywhere she goes and making a Faustian pact with the Shabby Pap Pack to keep smiling, grit her teeth and hope for the best in next mornings papers. So shame on the toothless and useless Press Complaints Commission and to the supine editors who buy and publish the shoddy goods of the Pap Pack 10 years after they hounded Princess Diana to her death.

Shame on;

Veronica Wadley, Evening Standard
Rebekah Wade, The Sun
Paul Dacre, Daily Mail
Richard Wallace, Daily Mirror
Lloyd Embley, People
Colin Myler, News of the World
Sarah Ivens, OK Magazine
Miranda Priestly, Hello Magazine
Melinda Shaw, Heat Magazine


Rebekah Wade, The Sun

Shame on them all in their plush offices and false respectability whilst financing the Pap Goon Squad and its tawdry trade. And shame on the Paps who have so little respect for themselves and those around them. But there again from what I saw, lack of self respect seems to be a qualification for being a Paparazzi in the first place!

God Speed?

Speedy Anwar

Motoring offences and the accompanying ingenious excuses provide good press fodder and a thriving industry for lawyers none more so than Nick Freeman, dubbed “Mr. Loophole” in the British Press who has built up an impressive Casebook of celebrities over the years and indeed extended case law by providing a number of novel grounds for defending prosecutions under the Road Traffic Act.

It was scary, innit?
In 1999 David Beckham was charged with speeding in his Ferrari. Freeman argued that at the time he was being chased by paparazzi and was forced to drive with excessive speed to avoid death or injury. He lost the case at the magistrates’ court but took it to the crown court. The judge upheld the guilty verdict but because of the circumstances revoked the three penalty points that had been imposed.

“Duress of circumstance can be used in many situations,” says Freeman. “You could be driving on a motorway and someone is driving too close to you; you might be afraid of being carjacked; another driver might be driving like an idiot. The law enables you to put distance between you and them. You can’t deny your driving but you can put forward a reason for it.”


Mr. Loophole

A good run?
Sir Alex Ferguson was charged with driving on the hard shoulder of a motorway — an offence that carries a three-point penalty. Freeman successfully argued that the Manchester United manager had been suffering from diarrhoea and needed to be able to leave the car quickly.
“I said to the court that he had two choices, one of which was particularly unpalatable,” says Freeman. “Once that is raised, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true. The key point with this defence is that you can only argue it if you felt unwell only after you had first joined that particular road and not on the journey as a whole.

“Many conditions are a valid argument for this defence as long as you perceive it subjectively to be an emergency at the time. The defence can also cover things such as dangerous driving.”


Nowhere to run?

A wee problem
Ronnie O’Sullivan, the former world snooker champion, was charged with failure to provide a urine sample for laboratory analysis. Freeman successfully argued that because O’Sullivan had been suffering from depression he was medically unable to do so.

“The newspaper headline was, ‘Too stressed to wee’, but there was a medical reason why he couldn’t. From a legal perspective I don’t have to prove this was true, I have to raise it as an issue,” says Freeman. “Once we raise it — with expert medical evidence — the prosecution have to disprove it with medical evidence.”

I wuz scared!
Ashley Fitton was breathalysed after an evening out with her husband and found to be over the limit. Freeman argued that the former model had been coerced into driving by her husband, who had a history of violence and abuse. “Legally you cannot be found guilty if you have been forced into doing something. The key point is that there has to be a real threat of violence,” says Freeman.

You talking to me?
Failing to prove the accused was behind the wheel is one of Freeman’s most successful tactics. He used it in the case of golfer Colin Montgomerie, who had been caught speeding after a night out.

“In court the policeman didn’t identify the accused, he referred to a Mr Montgomerie, but that could have been anyone. There was no date of birth given, no address given and no dock identification,” says Freeman. This sort of mistake by the prosecution is more of a technicality but it is more common than you think. You should always be identified with name, date of birth, address and ideally a visual ID.”

Scaring Horses?
In Ireland I remember particularly fondly the case of a motorist (who happened to be a Barrister) who was found by the Gardai slumped over the wheel of his car in a field having ploughed off the road through a fence and when tested was three times over the drink drive limit. His defence was that, as he was discovered on private property, there was no evidence that he was driving when drunk in a “public place”. Amazingly he won his case in the lower court and the State appealed it to the Circuit Court in Ireland where it was heard by the venerable President of the Court; Mr Justice O’hUdaigh. I knew O’hUdaigh professionally and he was a small man with a shrill voice which often led people to underestimate him at their peril for he had one of the sharpest legal brains around and when he presided, his skewering of barristers provided an entertaining spectator sport.


He was also a horse owner who had owned a Derby winner. The appeal was going the way of the motorist until the State’s barrister played his trump card “M’lud, if you disallow this appeal it will provide carte blanche for every drunken motorist to drive recklessly on the public highway crashing their cars into field scaring and injuring people AND HORSES!” At the mention of the “H” word O’hUdaigh perked up and within minutes the appeal was allowed and the motorist found himself with a conviction.

So, when it comes to avoiding a ban for speeding, the courts hear every excuse in the book but yesterday (According to the report in the Daily Mail 10/04/2008) one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence. Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties. His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow - he is allowed up to four under his religion - and sleeps with them on alternate nights. He also needed his driving licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

Airdrie Sheriff Court had heard that Anwar was caught driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone in Glasgow, fast enough to qualify for instant disqualification. Anwar admitted the offence, but Sheriff John C. Morris accepted his plea not to be banned and allowed him to keep his licence. Instead, he was fined £200 and given six penalty points. Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity Brake, called the decision "astonishing".

She said: "Regardless of the number of wives or businesses this man drives to, he broke a law which is there to protect everyone. Travelling just a few miles over the limit in a 30mph zone can be the difference between life and death if you hit someone, let alone driving at more than twice the speed limit. Drivers know the law, and they know the punishment they could face when they break it. For the courts to allow someone to keep their licence when they have so blatantly flouted the law and put peoples' lives at risk, on the basis of an excuse such as this, is astonishing."

Anwar, had made no comment during his five-minute court appearance, apart from confirming his identity. But last night, speaking from his restaurant Sanam, he said: "It is true I have two wives. Muslim men are allowed up to four. But I am not a religious leader and it is not my place to comment. As a matter of respect to my wives I would not comment on my home life. The sheriff did not ban me because I need my licence to run my business, although my wives were also part of the decision."


Curry in a Hurry?

The court had heard that Anwar was on his way home from Falkirk to his Glasgow wife on August 21, 2007, when he was caught by city police using a hand-held speed camera. His lawyer, Paul Nicolson, said: "He realises his licence is at risk, but this is an unusual case and is very anxious to keep his driving licence.

"He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one, one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving licence he would be unable to do this on a regular basis. He is also a restaurant owner and has a restaurant in Falkirk, which he has had for the past 30 years. He has had a clean driving licence until now, and on this particular evening was on his way home after a busy evening at his restaurant."

Well bully for Anwar and all those people who have lost their jobs because they have lost their licence when they tripped revenue raising speed cameras but didn’t have slick lawyers to argue their dubious cases will not resent his victory in the slightest. It is a strange precedent as polygamy is expressly forbidden in British Law and Bigamy is an indictable offence but seemingly being married to multiple spouses (at the same time!) can be used as a basis for obtaining Council housing, benefits and here as a valid mitigation in a motoring case. There appears to be very little Common Law on this issue these days.

Sheriff John C. Morris at Airdrie Sheriff Court would have served the Law and victims of speeding drivers better if he had reminded Mohammed Anwar of the saying of his namesake Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Hadith “Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel” and then proceeded in short order to suspend his licence.