MIRROR WINS CAMPBELL CASE APPEAL

Three appeal court judges today upheld the Daily Mirror's challenge to a
High Court ruling in favour of supermodel Naomi Campbell's breach of
confidentiality claim. The newspaper had contested the AUKP3,500 damages
award and the decision that it must pay Miss Campbell's legal costs.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, giving the judgment at the Court of
Appeal, said the February 2001 report about the model's drug addiction was
justified in the public interest. The Streatham "born beauty had claimed
that she felt "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated" by the article which
included a photograph of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in the
King's Road, Chelsea.

Lord Phillips, who said the appeal raised the issue of how far the law
provides protection against the media publishing details of an individual's
private life, described Miss Campbell as an internationally famous fashion
model.

He said that she courted, rather than shunned, publicity and had gone out
of her way to tell the media that in contrast to other models, she did not
take drugs, stimulants or tranquillisers.

"This was untrue; she had, in fact, become addicted to drugs."

On one occasion it became known that Miss Campbell had entered a clinic "
the Cottonwood de Tucson, Arizona. The explanation she gave was that she
was having therapy aimed at dealing with behaviour and anger problems. The
reality is that she was also being treated for drug abuse.

"Lord Phillips, together with Lords Justices Chadwick and Keene, refused
Miss Campbell permission to appeal to the House of Lords, although her
lawyers said later they would petition the Law Lords for a hearing.

Her legal team estimated that she was facing a total costs bill of
AUKP650,000 although Mirror lawyers put the figure AUKP100,000 higher.

Mirror Group solicitor Marcus Partington said later: "Today's judgment
represents a complete vindication of the sympathetic way the Mirror
presented its story of Naomi Campbell being a drug addict and receiving
treatment at Narcotics Anonymous."

He said the ruling established that "if you lie to the public through the
media, particularly if you lie for commercial advantage, then the media
will be entitled to correct that false impression and will be given
considerable latitude by the courts in how they do that".