Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Ministry of Justice and Department for Culture, Media and Sport—Written evidence
Extracts from Hansard – debates on the Human Rights Bill
Jack Straw MP, Home Secretary:
“we have always believed that the Bill (the HRA) would strengthen rather than weaken
freedom of the press…the provision (s.12) is indeed overall to ensure ex parte injunctions
are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Even where both parties are represented, we
expect that injunctions will continue to be rare, as they are at present.”
(Hansard, HC Debates, 2 July 1998, col. 535-6).
“[it] provides an important safeguard by emphasising the right to freedom of expression.
Our intention is that that should underline the consequent need to preserve self-regulation.
That effect is reinforced by highlighting in the amendment the significance of any relevant
privacy code, which plainly includes the code operated by the PCC”
(Hansard, HC Debates, 2 July 1998, col 541).
“[section 12] will send a powerful signal to the United Kingdom courts that they should be
at least as circumspect as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have been
about any action that would give the article 8 rights any supremacy over the freedom of
expression rights in article 10. I hope and believe that an amendment along those lines will
deal satisfactorily with the concerns of the press.”
(Hansard, HC Debates, 16 February 1998, col 775)
Lord Irvine, Lord Chancellor (Hansard, HL Debates, 24 November 1997, Col 784-786):
“I want to tackle the concerns of the press directly. They are essentially twofold. First, will the courts
develop a law of privacy, and, secondly, is the PCC itself to be regarded as a public authority which
should act consistently with the convention? First, as I have often said, the judges are pen-poised,
regardless of incorporation of the convention, to develop a right to privacy to be protected by the
common law. This is not me saying so; they have said so. It must be emphasised that the judges are
free to develop the common law in their own independent judicial sphere. What I say positively is
that it will be a better law if the judges develop it after incorporation because they will have regard
to Articles 8 and 10, giving Article 10 its due high value, which the strenuous efforts of the noble
Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the courts of this country and of elsewhere have contributed to
ensuring that it enjoys. …
In my opinion, the court is not obliged to remedy the failure by legislating via the common law either
where a convention right is infringed by incompatible legislation or where, because of the absence of
legislation--say, privacy legislation--a convention right is left unprotected. In my view, the courts may
not act as legislators and grant new remedies for infringement of convention rights unless the
common law itself enables them to develop new rights or remedies. I believe that the true view is
that the courts will be able to adapt and develop the common law by relying on existing domestic
principles in the laws of trespass, nuisance, copyright, confidence and the like, to fashion a common
law right to privacy. That was more or less what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said in
an important public lecture. They may have regard to the convention in developing the common law,
as they do today and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, says it is right that they
should. …
638