The issue of super injunctions and privacy law has been rumbling on for a while now, since hitting the headlines with the WayneBridge/John Terry fiasco, as well as other footballer’s extra marital affairs. However, it is the less glamourous case of the BBC’s former Political Editor Anderw Marr that really seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons. Marr has declared to the Daily Mail that he will no longer seek to prevent publication of details of the affair he had in 2003, ending the injunction that has been in place since 2008, which he says he is now ‘embarrassed’ about.
Earlier this week the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said he was ‘uneasy’ about privacy law being made by the courts not parliament:
“What’s happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so. … we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen?
The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is parliament – which you elect and put there – should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening.”
Before I take a closer look at this it is worth pointing out that I have absolutely no legal background at all. My opinion on this issue is just that, opinion, and is from the perspective of a member of the general public who also happens to be engaged in online media and interested in these issues. It is not based on in-depth knowledge of legal theory, as I am sure will become quite apparent when you continue reading!
The Prime Minister is absolutely right that it is our MPs that create law that Judges use their expertise to implement, uphold and enforce. However, Parliament has already accepted the European Convention on Human Rights that he mentions, and it seems to me that the Judges in these cases are simply implementing it in British courts. It would be perfectly legitimate to introduce legislation on this issue should MPs consider there to be loopholes that need tightening or to clarify matters, but it would still have to be guided by the ECHR, because that law has already been passed.
The next issue is of course the matter of principle – should footballers and other celebrities be able to use the law to hide their personal indiscretions from the public? Frankly I couldn’t be less interested in most celebrity dalliances. I am a football fan, and only care what the players do for an hour and a half on a Saturday afternoon. Similarly I enjoy and admire Andew Marr’s broadcasting, and am frankly not bothered about what he gets up to off-air, (although there is an issue of hypocrisy with Marr as he is a journalist). However, I am inclined to think that it is for me to decide whether or not I want to read about the infidelity of such people, not them.
Conservative MP Louise Bagahsawe, who’s super injunction joke on Have I got News For You was bleeped and black boxed out by the BBC last week, says she believes that men are buying justice that the women in the cases cannot afford. I actually don’t believe that rich people buying justice is the issue here. Were the subjects not rich and famous there would be no public interest in their affair, and therefore they would not feel the need for such legal action.
In the case of footballers, the main reason for getting a superinjunction is to maintain sponsorship revenue and avoid the abuse of opposition fans, as suffered by Ashely ‘where’s your Cheryl gone’ Cole. Marr says he wanted to give his family space to work through the problems, but the story not breaking in a conventional manner undoubtedly also protected his public reputation, even if lots of people in Westminster new about his affair.
Often a justification for taking out an injunction is preventing hurt to partners and family, but, bluntly, if these well known, powerful men wanted to protect their wives and children from the hurt affairs can cause they wouldn’t have them in the first place.
Ultimately it is for the public to decide which bits of public figures lives are in the public interest. The law has no place in preventing public embarrassment to famous people who have made mistakes.