Find a service

T. 0114 276 5555

Super Injunctions

Share this page:

This season’s must-have celebrity accessory appears to be the ‘super-injunction’. What intrigued me about this story has been the vociferous complaint from the media about the infringement of the freedom of the press which such injunctions cause (although given the recent stories about illegal phone tapping by certain sections of the media, they do not appear to come with entirely clean hands if I can coin a legal phrase) and that the Prime Minister has weighed into the furore indicating that he is ‘concerned’ about the judiciary making up the law in this area.

The judiciary has, quite rightly, maintained a dignified silence in response, but for my part the judiciary are not making up this law; it was laid down by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998. Their role, as it has been for hundreds of years, is to interpret the law when it has been set down by Parliament. In any event, even if it were the case that the judiciary had in some way created the law, given that this is the whole basis of the common law, it does not seem to have troubled Parliament much before.

What is more to the point here is where should the balance be struck between the competing interests of the media and the individual wishing to protect their private matters? I am with those who take the view that the balance should favour the individual save where there is a genuine public interest at stake (and I do not include in that simply knowing which celebrity is alleged to have had an affair with which other celebrity).


Posted: 26/04/2011 16:03:53
Share this page:
Now we know who the sensible one is here. Great post!
06/05/2011 14:37:56
Leave comment

Security code

Get in Touch