The public does have a right to know about Boris Johnson’s philandering past, the Appeal Court confirmed.
It rejected claims by Helen Macintyre, with whom the married Mayor of London had an affair, that the birth of their daughter Stephanie must remain secret.
Speculation over the paternity of Stephanie, who has a wild mop of flaxen hair and instantly recognisable features, surfaced the summer after her birth in November 2009.
Decision: The court decided that the public does have the right to know about Boris's secret child
Mother: Helen MacIntyre compromised the child's right to privacy by hinting at the identity of the father Her father was not identified on her birth certificate.
But Mr Johnson’s wife Marina, mother of their four children, threw him out of the house ‘like a tom cat’ after claims that Stephanie was the result of an affair between the mayor and art consultant Miss Macintyre, who worked for him in an unpaid capacity.
More... David Cameron should not have promoted tennis crony to Tory party chairman says David Mellor as row over 'swivel-eyed loons' comment engulfs Conservatives Gay marriage takes step closer to becoming law after plans survive Tory backlashWhen the scandal broke a source close to Mr Johnson, who had a previous affair resulting in a pregnancy, said: ‘Is Boris the father of this child? It’s quite likely he hasn’t the faintest idea.’
Art consultant Ms Macintyre first met Mr Johnson when she was a student and he was a journalistMiss Macintyre, 39, moved out of the £5million London home of her cuckolded partner, property developer Pierre Rolin, after Stephanie was born. Neither she nor Mr Johnson, 47, has ever confirmed – or denied – that he was the father.
Last July, in a significant victory for Press freedom, High Court judge Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said the Daily Mail was justified in publishing stories about the illegitimate child because the politician’s ‘recklessness’ in conducting extramarital affairs resulting in the conception of a child on two occasions called into question his fitness for public office.
After a six-day private hearing in London – in which Stephanie was identified only as AAA – the judge ruled that her mother had compromised the child’s right to privacy by hinting at the identity of the father.
She ordered the Mail’s publishers, Associated Newspapers, to pay £15,000 in privacy damages for publishing photographs of Stephanie but ordered the legal backers of the baby to pay 80 per cent of the Mail’s legal costs, an estimated £200,000.
Miss Macintyre appealed against the decision not to award her damages for details about the affair and resulting child being published, and the refusal to grant an injunction preventing the Mail from reprinting the information.
Affair: Marina threw Bopris out like a 'Tom cat' after claims that Stephanie was the result of infidelityBut the Court of Appeal rejected her application.
Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Dyson said: ‘It is not in dispute that the legitimate public interest in the father’s character is an important factor to be weighed in the balance against the child’s expectation of privacy.
'AMBIVALENT APPROACH'Helen Macintyre displayed an ‘ambivalent approach’ to keeping her daughter’s paternity secret, the Appeal Court judges said in their ruling.
They pointed out that at a weekend house party Miss Macintyre had told a senior magazine executive, whom she had not met before, that Mr Johnson was Stephanie’s father.
The judges also referred to an interview and photoshoot she did with Tatler magazine which contained references to her affair with Mr Johnson and the fact that he was alleged to be Stephanie’s father.
In emails to the magazine, she said she had been advised by her lawyers against agreeing to photographs of her daughter being published, adding that this was ‘quite disappointing’.
‘The core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother’s partner, and that the child, born about nine months later, was likely to be the father’s child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office.’
Dismissing the application for an injunction, the court said ‘much that has been published... in relation to the baby’s paternity remains available online’.
The Master of the Rolls added: ‘It is fanciful to expect the public to forget the fact that a man who is said to be the baby’s father, and who is a major public figure, has fathered a child after a brief adulterous affair (not for the first time).
‘The mother accepted in cross-examination that any woman who embarked on an affair with the father was “playing with fire” and that such an affair was bound to attract “very considerable media attention”.’
