Injunctions

The granting last week by Mr Justice Eady of a worldwide gagging order, known as a contra mundum, to protect a certain television personality from publication of details of his private life, after it emerged a woman had attempted to sell intimate photographs of him to the press, has led to disquiet in various quarters.

The latest to join the condemnation of such ‘gagging orders’ is Private Eye editor Mr Ian Hislop after Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, admitted he obtained a High Court order in January 2008 to silence the press following his extra-marital affair, especially as Mr Marr had previously said that Parliament, not judges, should determine privacy law.

Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges, "rather than Parliament", are creating a new law of privacy:
"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".

Although the exact numbers are unknown (with the so-called ‘super injunction’ it is even prohibited to report that the injunction has been granted) what is clear is that a large number of celebrities, television personalities and Premier League footballers have, in recent weeks, been granted injunctions which ban newspapers and television from reporting stories about their behaviour.

Is this something we should be worried about?

Well it is extremely expensive going to the High Court for such an injunction, something simply out of reach of the ordinary citizen and it could, and is, argued that judges are effectively creating a two-tier system where the wealthy and powerful are able to buy a level of privacy not afforded to the rest of us.

Whilst there are factors of American life and jurisprudence that I am wary of one thing is certain, such moves by ‘celebrities’ to protect themselves from the consequences of their own indiscretions would be unsuccessful there.
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably the single most important part of the Constitution, states:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ability to speak one’s mind is a right that Americans take for granted, a right it would seem we are in danger of losing to an un-elected body of judges who seem determined to create a law where one does not exist.