Defendant also claimed that publication of memorandum was in public interest, and that this defence had to be interpreted in light of ECHR Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
Held:
Definition of public interest defence in Hyde Park Residence was TOO NARROW.
I.e. in that it confined test to where there had been serious wrongdoing on behalf of Claimant
Rather the circumstances are “not capable of precise categorisation or definition”
Public interest defence should be interpreted broadly in light of Article 10 ECHR.
Thus public interest in right to freedom of expression may trump copyright
However such instances will be “rare”.
Also read further on Freedom of Expression (Article 10 ECHR)