Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

The Rt Hon. Jack Straw MP, The Rt Hon. Lord Wakeham, The Rt Hon. Sir Stephen Sedley,
and Professor Gavin Phillipson—Oral evidence (QQ 1–32)
Chair: We are aiming to finish at half past four, but I have got three last quick
questions.
Q30 Lord Janvrin: Just picking up this last point about apologies and their
prominence, et cetera, surely that is beside the point in privacy cases because it
comes back to Jack Straw’s point that you are dealing with truths? Apologies are fine
if you are dealing with untruths, but if you are talking about a privacy issue, an
apology is far too late and has no effect. It is too late. In that kind of case how does
the PCC have some kind of action or sanction?
Lord Wakeham: The newspapers took the criticisms that were made of them very
seriously. If you criticised them for anything, including a breach of privacy, and you made
sure that it was given due prominence in the newspaper, which I used to do, they took it
very seriously indeed. For it to appear at the bottom of page 14 is not acceptable.
Mr Straw: If I could just add, it is of little comfort to the individual subjects, but a
very prominent apology and recognition that it is a breach of privacy might change behaviour
for the future. Also, of course, they will lose revenue and all sorts of things; it would be
humiliating. It has a purpose, therefore, but much less of a purpose than in the case of
defamatory statements.
Professor Phillipson: I agree very much with Jack Straw that the remedy of a quick
apology and correction for defamation would be the kind of thing that we very much want in
many defamation cases, but in privacy cases I think it is a very poor remedy indeed.
Q31 Lord Hollick: In your letter to The Telegraph, Lord Wakeham, you focus on
unfairness. I think you make a very strong point that the Press Complaints
Commission is likely to give fairer and more ready access to justice on these matters
for those without deep pockets. I think that is a point well made. However, your
main point is the unfairness that you interpret in what the Prime Minister says: that
courts inevitably err on the side of the applicant and not the side of the newspaper.
Is not the thrust of your argument that if the matter could be dealt with by the PCC,
it would be slightly more in favour of the press’s right to freedom of expression
rather than of the individual’s right to privacy?
Lord Wakeham: We have talked a great deal, and I wanted a moment to say this. I
am not so much interested in the right of the press as I am in the right of the public to know
the truth of what is going on. That is what the freedom of the press is about. It is a right in
a democratic society.
What I was worried about—and the experience over that period—was cases where
a judge comes in from his round of golf on a Saturday to a big telephone call about him giving
an injunction against the Sunday papers or something, and he hears the terrible story about
what is going to happen to this poor fellow and his children and so on. Inevitably—I would
be the same—he has a great deal of sympathy with that person. However, there isn’t the
same chance for the newspaper to deploy the fact that this individual—whatever he might
be—is going to be exposed as having been with a prostitute or something, and the fact that a
newspaper can then produce 11 or 12 other highly documented cases where he has also
been with prostitutes, and they think it is time this chap’s way of living—his private life—
1115