It is getting slightly more difficult to trace the identities of various 'celebs' who have won injunctions to prevent news coverage of their adulterous affairs. But it still can be done on the net in matter of seconds.
These stories have been published in the press for longer than I can remember and so long as they are true, it should be just tough luck on the philanderer. His nemesis is his own arrogance not the tabloid press. It is extra-ordinary for a judge to grant a total blanket ban on revealing the identity of the Scottish actor who booked the same escort as Wayne Rooney. Other judges did not accept the defences of Rooney or Terry so why for the actor?
But the issue of injunctions is more serious than a few affairs and children losing all faith in their lovely daddies. The courts' acceptance of the right of privacy over freedom of expression has also included super-injunctions, some obtained by corporations. Here the media are prevented from revealing the existence of the injunction itself let alone the parties involved or any detail of the case. The terms of one hyper-injunction meant the accuser was prevented from even speaking to his MP which is where court rulings can now restrict basic democratic rights.
The slightly eccentric John Hemmings MP has raised the issue in Parliament so has absolute privelege and I have the legal right to report what he said. The case actually goes back five years and revolves around accusations toxic chemicals leaked from paint into ship's water tanks. I have no idea of the validity of the claims but there at least seems to be a fairly strong 'health and safety' public interest here.
I was chatting to a lawyer recently whose firm has sought and been granted injunctions in the past. He said the law was like a pendulum; it was swinging one way at the moment (in favour of privacy) but it was just as likely it would swing back. Let's hope so, I am not often on the same side as the Daily Mail.
The most succinct analysis of the danger of injunctions came from Max Clifford (above) who said," What we've got now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided they want. Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected. But only the rich and famous can afford this, so it is only a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."
Lessons of on democracy and Government from Mr Clifford should tell us we are certainly in a strange place.
