I'M BEATING DRUGS, SAYS NAOMI

Naomi Campbell, the model, felt "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated" by
a newspaper article last year headlined "Naomi: I am a drug addict", she
told the High Court yesterday.

"For the first time in a long while, I doubted myself and my resolve to go
on," she said.

Miss Campbell, 31, who is seeking damages from the Mirror for breach of
confidence and invading her privacy, denied allegations that she had set
out to mislead the public by denying that she had been a drug addict.

However, Desmond Browne, QC, for MGN, the newspaper's publishers, asked her
about an American television interview in which she said that she had never
touched drugs, unlike others in the modelling world.

"I did say that, and that was misleading and untrue," Miss Campbell replied.

In written evidence, she said that she had recognised some time ago that
she had a problem with unidentified "illegal drugs".

She started attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous, a self-help group
whose meetings are never advertised.

"The recognition I was addicted and the decision to seek professional help
was the best decision I ever made in my life," she said.

"I attended Alcoholics Anonymous [which also assists drug addicts] and
Narcotics Anonymous meetings . . . It is not an easy thing to do, to go to
meetings of NA to admit you are an addict and to discuss very personal
matters about yourself in front of people, some of whom are complete strangers.

"She had been attending the group's meetings for more than a year when, in
January last year, the Mirror photographed her leaving a meeting in
Chelsea, one of three such meetings she had attended that day.

"I was very distressed to read the article," she said. "I felt very
uncomfortable at the thought that someone close to me was disclosing
private information about me.

"Miss Campbell said she felt she was being harassed by the media. "I was
panicking and worried. I did not want to leave the house any longer.

"I began to think Narcotics Anonymous was not worthwhile and I questioned
what was the point in trying to fight the addiction if this was the reaction.

"I felt judged and branded. I felt myself begin to shut down and withdraw.

"She explained that after her solicitors had complained to the Mirror, the
newspaper went on to publish a series of "vindictive articles" about her
over the following week.

One of the articles had referred to her as a "chocolate soldier", which she
considered racist.

Opening his cross-examination, Mr Browne asked her if it was true that as
far back as 1997, Miss Campbell, who was born in Streatham, south London,
"had made a practice of abusing illegal drugs".

Speaking in a soft voice, Miss Campbell replied: "Yes".

Mr Browne: "A criminal offence with heavy penalties including imprisonment."

Miss Campbell: "Yes."

Mr Browne: "As you might expect, that abuse of illegal drugs caused you
medical problems."

Miss Campbell: "Yes."

Mr Browne: "And it must surely have affected your behaviour."

Miss Campbell: "Yes."

Mr Browne: "Would it be fair to say that your behaviour is notorious?"

After a long pause, Miss Campbell replied: "Yes."

Mr Browne: "By which I mean you have a reputation for tantrums?"

After another long pause, she again replied: "Yes."

Earlier, Miss Campbell's counsel, Andrew Caldecott QC, had told the judge
that someone in a position of trust had clearly betrayed her to the Mirror.

He said: "It's also her case that this must have been clear as day to the
newspaper."

Mr Caldecott said that the day after the photos were taken, Piers Morgan,
the Mirror's editor, said the newspaper had "stumbled" upon the story by a
stroke of luck after a reporter had seen her leaving a shop and followed her.

Mr Caldecott said that what actually happened was that a source close to
Miss Campbell, whom she could not identify and the newspaper refused to
name, had tipped off the paper in a telephone call.

Mr Caldecott argued that a leading appeal judge had been right to suggest a
year ago that the law now recognised and would protect a right of personal
privacy.

However, Mr Caldecott told Mr Justice Morland that this issue might not
need to be resolved as his client could rely on the existing law of confidence.

Outlining the newspaper's legal arguments, Mr Browne insisted that there
was no absolute law of privacy in this country.

"This is a case of breach of confidence or it is nothing," he argued. "This
case is about whether the equitable right of confidentiality permits
celebrities to manipulate their public image to their own advantage."

He said that over a number of years, Miss Campbell had deceived the public
by making public statements that she had avoided illegal drugs when others
in the modelling world had succumbed.

"That deceit is an additional ground for depriving her of any right to be
heard to complain about disclosure of her drug addiction," said Mr Browne.

He said she had first lied in a number of interviews in June 1997 at the
time of her emergency admission to hospital in the Canaries.

Interviewed in The Telegraph by Hilary Alexander, she said: "Maybe I am
just a target again because of all the other stories about models taking
drugs, but I am not like that."

Mr Browne also argued that Miss Campbell had "compromised the privacy of
her personal life".

He said: "For over a decade, she has courted publicity by trading
interviews in which she provides glimpses of her private life - normally
about her current boyfriend - in exchange for the opportunity to promote
her latest commercial venture.

"Those ventures have included a ghost-written novel, a rock album, a line
of jeans, a chain of cafes which went into liquidation, and more recently a
scent named after her."

In the light of that, he said that her attendance of Narcotics Anonymous
meetings was no more private than being treated by BUPA or the NHS.

The hearing continues.