05.06.2013 Views

Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Marcus Partington, Trinity Mirror Plc—Supplementary written evidence<br />

9. The statement by Lord Steyn in Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 at [17] that neither<br />

Article [Articles 8 <strong>and</strong> 10] “has precedence over the other” (which has been taken<br />

repeatedly by the courts to mean that each right is equal) does not accord with the<br />

provisions of section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />

intention behind it <strong>and</strong> should therefore not be followed.<br />

10. In order to ensure that this happens it is important for <strong>Parliament</strong> to give very clear<br />

directions to the courts. These directions need to be even more explicit than the<br />

comments of the Select Committee referred to in paragraph 8 above. Until they do<br />

the courts will, because of the rules of precedent, follow Re S as opposed to the<br />

provisions of section 12(4) <strong>and</strong> the very clear <strong>Parliament</strong>ary intention behind it which<br />

I have explained above.<br />

February 2012<br />

1209

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!