Cameron 'uneasy' about privacy law for the rich and famous

Published on Thursday 21 April 2011 17:53

DAVID Cameron has admitted he is "uneasy" about judges writing new privacy laws, with superinjunctions creating one rule for the rich and another for everyone else.

The Prime Minister said he was concerned that it was not parliament deciding on the balance between protection of individuals and freedom of the press.

His comments follow the first permanent gagging order relating to an adult, which was awarded by the High Court in London to a "family man" and household name, preventing the media from ever publishing intimate photographs of him and a woman.

Mr Justice Eady issued a final "contra mundum" order - one against "the whole world" - banning publication if what he said was confidential material about his private life.

Ryder Cup captain Colin Montgomery and the disgraced banker Sir Fred Goodwin have obtained superinjunctions, but former England football captain John Terry had his revoked, allowing the media to publish details of an affair with team-mate Wayne Bridge's former girlfriend, Vanessa Perroncel.

A world-famous actor obtained a superinjunction after having sex with Helen Wood, a prostitute who also slept with footballer Wayne Rooney. Max Mosley, the former Formula One chief, won 60,000 from a tabloid newspaper after taking a privacy action relating to allegations of sadomasochism.

Most orders relate to individuals and sex, but one exception was the Trafigura oil company, in London, which tried to stop the media publishing details of toxic waste dumping in Africa, only for details to emerge in the House of Commons.

Mr Cameron said "the judges are using the European Convention on Human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so".

"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. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."

Law firm Carter Ruck, which represented Trafigura, denied it was just a way for wealthy celebrities to avoid scandal.

Its managing partner, Cameron Doley, said the majority of those appealing for media blackouts were "probably people you and I have never heard of". He said: "It's not just the rich and famous. The protection of privacy is perhaps more important to genuinely private people."

However, he admitted the cost can run into tens of thousands of pounds and are "not something that the man on the street can do without any thought".

PR guru Max Clifford, who is representing Big Brother's Imogen Thomas, who reportedly had an affair with an English Premier League footballer who has an order preventing him from being named, welcomed the Prime Minister's comments.

He said: ""Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected, but only the rich can afford this, so it's purely a law to protect the rich, and in a democracy that's not right."