Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Max Mosley, Steve Coogan, Zac Goldsmith MP and Hugh Grant—Oral evidence (QQ 697–
753)
Q750 Chairman: Which in your own case was the defence of the newspapers for
the dummy first edition. They argued that it was not to prevent you from obtaining an
injunction but to prevent another Sunday tabloid stealing the story.
Max Mosley: That was exactly what they said. Needless to say, that fell to pieces in
cross-examination. When the editor came before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
he admitted, as did Dacre, that it was to avoid my injuncting them, as he called it. We all
know that was the reason.
Hugh Grant: I think the business of laundering stories needs to be mentioned once
again. Newspapers would find a way round the law. It may be that an arbitrator, regulator
or indeed a judge says it is against the public interest and they cannot publish it. All they
have to do is slip it to a magazine in America. That magazine publishes it and then they
report on that American magazine. They can do the same with the internet. It is a cunning
common strategy.
Max Mosley: We could stop that.
Q751 George Eustice: I want to turn to the idea of a new independent regulator.
First, is it your view that that would be in addition to other legal remedies, or do you think
we should go the way that people like Hugh Tomlinson have suggested and make it a
requirement that people should go through the arbitration system rather than the courts?
Second, is there a possibility of incentivising newspapers and perhaps blogs to join such a
kitemark-type scheme if it gave them some protection and they would not then be sued
further down the track?
Max Mosley: I think there would be a powerful case for saying that everyone has to
go to it and that defamation or privacy is dealt with in this way, not by the courts. There
would probably have to be some form of appeal on difficult points of law and things of that
kind to make sure there is justice. Fundamentally, that would seem to me to be the way to
go, but that is a very big question and one that I think would be discussed. If it were decided
to go in this direction, there would need to be a lot of discussion about whether that would
be the right way. My personal view is that everybody would sacrifice a degree of certainty in
litigation in return for the entire world being able to use these remedies free of charge.
Q752 Mr Bradshaw: You are people who have put your heads above the parapet.
I would be interested to hear whether you think you have suffered any negative personal
consequences as a result and whether there have been any compensating positive
consequences.
Hugh Grant: Anyone will tell you that it has always been the case that, if you take
legal action against a tabloid newspaper or dare criticise it, it will take a terrible revenge
against you. We have seen a lot of that recently, especially with the Leveson Inquiry coming
up. That is inevitable. For myself, I still think it is worth taking a stand. I emphasise what I
said at the beginning: it is not just me whingeing about my privacy, although if you find a
burglar in your house you are likely to whinge. I really care about the people close to me—
my friends, relatives and people I work with—having their privacy invaded, and I really care
about British citizens, particularly vulnerable ones who perhaps have been victims of trauma
or murder, etc, on a regular basis having their privacy stolen for commercial profit.
Although it is not pleasant to be monstered, I feel this campaign is the right thing to do.
720