David Cameron: press freedom must not be eroded by judges

David Cameron has voiced his concerns that judges are effectively bringing in privacy law by granting super-injunctions.

The PM said law was 'effectively being made by judges' in response to legislation from Europe rather than in the British parliament.

"We don't want statutory regulation of the press," said Mr Cameron on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Mr Cameron called for a debate on whether a new privacy law is needed in the wake of a slew of super-injunctions brought by celebrities.

David Cameron said: "I think we should have a discussion about it. This is an issue that needs further reflection."

Mr Cameron warned that law was effectively being made by judges using the European human rights rulings.

However, praised the Press Complaints Commission saying it had "come on a lot" in recent years. The watchdog has been attacked by some MPs in the wake of the phone hacking scandal for being toothless.

Last week Andrew Marr, the BBC television and radio presenter, went public about a past extramarital affair which had been covered by an injunction.

Mr Marr said he was now embarrassed by the decision to take out the order and said he did not go into journalism to gag the press.

It led to calls for other public figures who had taken out injunctions such as Sir Fred Goodwin to disclose details of his private life covered by the gagging order.

A string of celebrities have recently won the right to suppress information following controversial rulings by judges.

Last month A High Court judge issued an unprecedented gagging order in an attempt to prevent details of a television star's private life being published, even on the internet.

Mr Justice Eady, who has been at the centre of many recent libel and privacy cases, made the injunction "against the world" rather than just against national newspapers and broadcasters.

His order seeks to prevent the publication of "intimate photographs" of a married public figure after a woman tried to sell them for a "large sum of money".

The injunction contra mundum is intended to be never-ending and, as its Latin name suggests, applies to the entire world.

It was the first time that such an order has been granted in a privacy case. They were issued on personal safety grounds in the cases of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who murdered James Bulger; the child killer Mary Bell, and Maxine Carr, the former girlfriend of the Soham killer Ian Huntley.

There were also warnings that judges were creating privacy laws by the back door, and misinterpreting the right to a private life.

Mark Stephens, a solicitor with Finers Stephens Innocent, which represents the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said: "The British courts are in danger of over-reaching themselves.

''Clearly this injunction has no impact on anybody who lives in any other part of the world."

He added: "It isn't a proper interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"That was not about protecting reputations. Effectively, judges are making up laws that Parliament has not scrutinised."

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who used parliamentary privilege to disclose details of a super-injunction obtained by the former banking chief, Sir Fred Goodwin, added: "At the rate the judge is going, I'm surprised he didn't make the order to cover the whole solar system."

The judgement, published by the High Court yesterday, discloses that there will be no trial of the action brought by the claimant, a married television star, as agreement had been reached with both parties.

Despite this, the judge ruled that in view of the "clear risk" of publication of sensitive material in the media, there was no other means to protect his rights than to grant the far-reaching order.

(Published by The Telegraph - May 3, 2011)