Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General—Oral evidence (QQ 1070–1102)
an individual—particularly life or serious welfare considerations—might not enjoy
protection if I did not intervene.
Q1072 Chair: The identity of the individual who consorted with Helen Wood and
who was the subject of a super-injunction is very widely known through the internet. A
number of national newspapers, both broadsheets and tabloids, regularly run stories about
him which are clearly motivated by the fact he is the person who has that super-injunction;
there is no other reason. They talk about how unusual it is that he has been seen out last
night with his wife. Does it cause you concern that there is, if not widespread breach of the
super-injunction, certainly something getting pretty close to that?
Mr Grieve: As a matter of policy, as the rule of law is important, including respect
for both the letter and spirit of court injunctions—which are brought only to protect
individual rights after careful consideration by a judge—the sense that these may be the
object of almost constant sniping is a matter about which I would have some concern, but
that does not mean to say I should intervene or run around as some sort of policeman
intervening in such cases, particularly where these are what I would call ordinary civil
litigation issues. It might be a different matter if it was the welfare interests of a child, for
example, or I thought the individuals concerned might have difficulty asserting their private
rights, and I was very concerned that the judge’s order had been made to protect the life of
an individual, for instance. In those circumstances I might take a different view, but
otherwise no. I am not in a position to act as a sort of policemen, nor do I think it would
be proper for me to do so. Civil litigation is about inter-partes litigation between
individuals, generally speaking, with disputes over their legal rights, and it is for them to
exercise those in the courts. Unless I thought there was a systematic attempt to undermine
the ability of the courts to do their job, I do not think it would be my role to intervene.
Q1073 The Lord Bishop of Chester: We have talked a lot about the public
interest, perhaps without making huge progress. How do you define your role as Guardian
of the Public Interest, to the use of the term “public interest” in civil litigation balanced with
the law of privacy? Do you see a direct connection between the way the public interest is
handled in the press codes et cetera and used by the courts and your own role as GPI?
Mr Grieve: Parliament has enacted legislation that has had the consequence of telling
the courts that one of the things required of them is to balance the right to freedom of
expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights with the right to
privacy under article 8. As a result of that, it has given the power to individuals to bring
proceedings for the infringement of their privacy. The public interest is that the judiciary
should be able to interpret and rule upon the law. There is not some other public interest
that really kicks in, but once a judge has carried out that balancing exercise—if the judge has
concluded that the interests of justice are that an injunction should be granted—the
principles of the rule of law and the public interest must be that that injunction should be up
upheld until discharged.
Q1074 The Lord Bishop of Chester: But when you are acting in your role as
the Guardian of the Public Interest you must have some conception of what the public
interest is. From where do you derive that in your own mind?
12