Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Richard Caseby, Group Managing Editor, News Group Newspapers, Dominic Mohan, editor,
The Sun, and Justin Walford, Editorial Legal Counsel, News Group Newspapers—Oral
evidence (QQ 1511–1593)
hearing, and at that point the story or moment has largely gone. The news has a particular
value at that time, and it is not so valuable nine months or a year later.
Q1524 Lord Gold: But it helps you establish the principle for other cases. The
Ferdinand case will help you in the future. There is no doubt about that.
Justin Walford: Yes.
Q1525 George Eustice: I want to come back to the point that Philip Davies made,
which I think is key, because the lawyers would tell us, “Don’t worry. We have a statute
now. There is a privacy statute. It is the Human Rights Act. It has all these sections
hardwired into law, and the judges have got it about right, so don’t worry.” However, the
position that Dominic Mohan described was a kind of—for want of a better phrase—
continental drift in the way that some of these cases were being interpreted. If we were to
abolish the Human Rights Act, which is on the agenda of the current Government, and
replace it with a British bill of rights, could we do a better job of defining what privacy
means, rooted in British cultural traditions? It seems that, as with so many areas, we are
halfway between America and continental Europe. We do not go quite as far as they do in
terms of the wild west and freedom of expression and all these things, but we have a much
more robust media than in continental Europe. Could we not get a better definition that
would protect you and also give some clarity as to what privacy means in the British legal
system?
Dominic Mohan: Clearly, there is friction between the two articles, which we are
wrestling with on a daily basis. So, yes, if it was rewritten, clearly there could be a clause that
really emphasised how sacred freedom of expression is.
Q1526 George Eustice: That is in the Human Rights Act in section 12.
Dominic Mohan: But it could probably be better defined.
Q1527 George Eustice: In which case, do you think we could do a better job of
defining the privacy law beyond what is already in the Human Rights Act?
Richard Caseby: We would like to have a go.
Q1528 George Eustice: I get the impression that the media feel slightly on the
ropes at the moment. Having pushed this point quite hard a year ago, they now fear that any
change would be for the worse, rather than for the better, and so you have sort of backed
off from the idea of trying to do something.
Richard Caseby: There is a lot going on in the media at the moment.
George Eustice: Clearly.
776