skip to nav

that when his informant, a dominatrix referred to in court as Woman E, first came to him with news of an S&M booking with Mosley, Thurlbeck identified an angle that would heighten the profile of the story he wanted to write. And so he set about making sure it was there.

'Max Mosley being whipped by five hookers' would still have made a front page splash for the News of the World, but 'Max Mosley in sick Nazi orgy' would make an even better one.

Thurlbeck equipped Woman E with a video camera, showed her how to operate it and told her to make sure she got in close to get a 'Sieg Heil' salute from Mosley. When she brought the video back, he was so disappointed that he gave her only half the money he'd promised.

In court, although it was comprehensively shown that there was no 'Nazi' element to the S&M sessions, Mosley did not deny that he had taken part in them.

Nevertheless, the judge declared that "the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit

While bondage and beating might be distasteful to some, they do not justify intrusion

unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property." He also found that there was no evidence that the gathering on March 28 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes.

He acknowledged that "there was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S&M behaviour. But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website ­ all of this on a massive scale."

He added that while this sort of activity is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence it didn't justify the intrusion on Mosley's personal privacy.

Judge Eady, who has presided over and found in favour of the claimants in a number of similar actions in the past few years, was at pains to point out that he was not handing down a 'landmark' judgment. No doubt