Supermodel on back foot in fight over drugs story

By CAHAL MILMO

It was a classic Naomi Campbell performance - pouting lips, immaculate dress and barely concealed petulance.

Only yesterday, it was not the spotlights of Milan or New York that the supermodel was under but the ruthless cross-examination of a barrister in London's High Court.

The Streatham-born fashion diva entered Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice determined to set a legal precedent by establishing a right to privacy to protect her from media intrusion.

The Daily Mirror, she said, had left her feeling "shocked, angry, betrayed and violated" by allegedly obtaining details of her plans to attend two Narcotics Anonymous classes to help overcome a long-standing drug addiction.

The paper published a story on February 1 last year headlined "Naomi: I am a drug addict", after a photographer took pictures of her leaving a meeting in the King's Rd, Chelsea, and a reporter attended a second session in a Fulham bookshop to obtain quotes from the model about her addiction.

But rather than discussing tabloid excesses, Campbell, 31, found herself at the wrong end of discussion of her own over-indulgence.

Immaculately clad in a grey trouser suit, shimmering pink tie and white shirt, the model faced a barrage of questions from Desmond Browne QC, representing Mirror Group Newspapers.

Asked if she had had a drug addiction since 1997 and had committed a criminal offence as a result, Campbell paused then said "Yes".

Browne, perhaps sensing an early victory over the model, who was convicted in Canada two years ago of assaulting an assistant by throwing a mobile phone, asked : "Do you accept that your behaviour is notorious? That you have a reputation for tantrums?" The answers, again with pauses, were: "Yes."

In a courtroom packed with journalists, including Mirror editor Piers Morgan on a bench just a few metres from the model, Campbell told how she realised in July 1997 that she was a drug addict and had sought treatment.

In a series of exchanges, Browne accused the fashion icon of lying about never taking drugs.

In a Daily Telegraph in June 1997, after reports that she had overdosed on barbiturates in the Canary Islands, Campbell said: "Maybe I am just a target again because of the stories about other models taking drugs. I am not like that."

Justice Morland heard claims that the model had used her media profile to promote business ventures and given conflicting accounts of the Canary Islands incident which, she told the court, was an allergic reaction to penicillin.

Browne said that by courting publicity, Campbell had laid herself open to legitimate exposure, and the Mirror's publication of her Narcotics Anonymous treatment was the most "trivial and banal" aspect of its story.

The issue was whether celebrities had a right to manipulate their image to their own benefit, he said.

Campbell's lawyers alleged that the Mirror had been leaked details of the model's diary for January 30 last year by someone at NA or one of her assistants.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for Campbell, accused Morgan of concealing the truth when he told the model's London agent, Carole White, that a reporter had chanced upon the model and followed her to the NA meeting, then later claimed that the paper had been tipped off.

Assurances that the story would be sympathetic had been followed by articles attacking Campbell as a "greedy, selfish celebrity".

In one, columnist Sue Carroll accused the model of being no more effective as a charity campaigner than a "chocolate soldier". Campbell had read it as as racist.

Caldecott told the court: "The Mirror's case is that Campbell forfeited all her protection because she discussed her family, her boyfriend and posed for saucy photographs in a Madonna book.

"We say: So what? How can disclosures like that waive forever her right to privacy for her treatment for drug addiction?"

The case continues.

INDEPENDENT