DAVID CAMERON sounded a warning yesterday about the way judges are creating a new law of privacy, “rather than Parliament”.
The Prime Minister said that in a Parliamentary democracy it should be up to Parliament, not the courts, to decide how much privacy individuals were entitled to.
His intervention came amid growing disquiet at the use by celebrities of injunctions and so-called super-injunctions to prevent media reporting of their private lives.
Speaking on the campaign trail in Luton, Mr Cameron said that there was a need to think about the way the law was developing.
“I think there is a question here about privacy and the way our system works.
“What’s happening here is that the judges are using the European Convention on Human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without Parliament saying so,” he said.
“That’s what’s happening and I think that we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen?
“The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a Parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening.”
He added: “It might be odd to hear it, but I don’t really have the answer to this one; I need to do some more thinking about it. It is an odd situation if the judges are making the law, rather than Parliament.”
Mr Cameron's comments came after High Court judge Mr Justice Eady yesterday issued what is thought to be the first order permanently blocking publication of material relating to an individual's private life.
The Prime Minister’s concerns were echoed by the Law Society, which represents solicitors. Mark Stobbs, the society’s director of legal policy, said: “This is a new development and it is something which needs to be watched very closely.
“There is a huge debate between the right to privacy and the right to public knowledge.
“This is something that we are looking at quite closely.”
A working party has been set up to look at defamation laws and related issues, Mr Stobbs said.
“We support open justice and transparency as a basic principle but there must be occasional cases where there is a public interest in privacy,” he said.
“You might get it sometimes in the context of terrorist trials where there are real national security implications.”
