THERE are confusing messages arising from our courts over privacy.

Model Naomi Campbell was branded a liar by a judge who also said that the Mirror newspaper was "fully entitled to put the record straight and publish that her denials of drug addiction were deliberately misleading" because "she seems to be a self-appointed role model to young, black women".

Yet while The Mirror was allowed to publish details that Naomi Campbell was a drug addict because it was in the public interest, details of how she was being treated were confidential.

Earlier this month a different judge ruled that Jamie Theakston's dealings with a prostitute were a matter of public interest. As a TV personality who actively encouraged self publicity, the public was interested in him, the judge ruled.

Celebrities who turn publicity on and off like a tap (wedding pictures sold to Hello, divorce proceedings an intrusion into privacy) arouse little sympathy and the courts seem to accept such.

Attempts by lawyers to establish a law of privacy on the basis of article eight of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private life, diametrically oppose the same act's right to freedom of expression, article 10.

It is regrettable that the test cases are fought out over sordid tales of tawdry people famous for nothing other than the fact that they are on the telly.

The fear is that privacy laws will be formed which prevent newspapers gaining and publishing information which may be of greater significance and truly in the public interest. Much investigative journalism relies on information from insiders, but crooked businessmen and fraudulent politicians may use a strong confidentiality law to prevent their activities being reported.

The judges appear to want to keep the door open for such journalism - alas the public has an insatiable appetite for invading the private lives of TV "stars".