MODEL TOLD BY JUDGE: DON'T EXPECT BIG PAYOUT

Naomi Campbell, the model, will have to wait at least six weeks for the
result of her invasion of privacy claim after judgment was reserved at the
end of a five-day hearing.

But Mr Justice Morland warned her that any award of damages was likely to
be modest. He said that a possible date for his ruling in Miss Campbell's
claim against MGN, publishers of the Mirror newspaper, would be at the end
of the current legal term on March 27.

The judge first wants to consider a forthcoming decision from the Court of
Appeal on privacy law. That case, also argued during the past week, was
brought by a married footballer who wants to stop details of his affairs
with two women appearing in the People, also published by MGN.

Mr Justice Morland will also wish to study a ruling handed down by another
High Court judge on Thursday, explaining why he had rejected a privacy
claim brought against MGN by Jamie Theakston, the television presenter, who
had tried to prevent the People writing about his visit to a Mayfair brothel.

During the final day of legal submissions, Miss Campbell's counsel, Andrew
Caldecott, QC, told the judge that she was not a dishonest witness. The
model had been accused in cross-examination of telling "whoppers".

On the issue of the model's "unreliability" in some of her evidence about
her drug-taking, Mr Caldecott said the court had to look at the issue in a
"humane and pragmatic way".

The judge remarked that he found "particularly unreliable" evidence given
by Miss Campbell about when she was rushed into hospital in the Canary
Islands in June 1997, supposedly as the result of a penicillin allergy.

Mr Caldecott accepted that there were "prime inconsistencies", but added:
"The question is how relevant they are to this action and the question is
what allowance should one make, given what was happening at that time in
her life.

"Miss Campbell, 31, seeks compensation for an article in the Mirror a year
ago about her drug addiction and accompanying photographs showing her
leaving a meeting of Narcotics Anonymous, a self-help group.

In his closing speech, Mr Caldecott said he was not asking for "anything
like casino damages or vast sums".

The judge said: "Any award of damages is likely to be modest. Any damages
awarded . . . would be entirely compensatory in nature and there would be
no punitive element.

"Referring to evidence given by Piers Morgan, editor of the Mirror, Mr
Caldecott said that he had made many allegations against others of lying,
so was entitled to have "strict standards" applied to himself.

Counsel claimed that Mr Morgan had showed "a touch of the Bill Clintons".
He rejected Mr Morgan's assertion that the "chocolate soldier" reference to
the model, in a piece by a Mirror columnist, was a "commonplace" phrase.