News: Joshua Rozenberg Interviews Mr Justice Eady

14 June 2011 by

The latest issue of the Index on Censorship magazine is entitled “Privacy is Dead! Long live privacy” and includes an interview with Mr Justice Eady, conducted by the veteran legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg entitled “Balancing Acts“.  

This is a rare example of an interview with a serving judge.  It was conducted on 11 April 2011 – before heat was turned up in the “Superinjunction Spring”.   Despite the worst efforts of the “Sunday Times” – of which more in a moment – the interview contains few surprises for those who have taken the trouble to read Mr Justice Eady’s judgments (and lectures) on the subject of privacy.

The interview covers a range of familiar topics caught by the sub-headings in the article: “Privacy law by the back door?”, “”Mosley, privacy, the public interest — how things might have been different”  ”The frenzy of superinjunctions”.

Mr Justice Eady points out that “It’s clear from Strasbourg jurisprudence that anything sexual — anything concerned with personal relationships — attracts protection under Article 8,” going on to say that this is “normally the subject matter we’re concerned with“. because this is what the press is normally interested in.  However, the important question is the balancing of Articles 8 and 10.  He says that this is  “not a precise art and you can’t legislate for a precise outcome.”

In relation to his own involvement in developing privacy law, Mr Justice Eady says, “It so happened that I was judge in charge of the list for several years and the practice was in those days that I never did anything else but the Queen’s Bench list.”  He goes on to observe

There’s an increasing tendency towards specialisation among the judiciary and the ‘customers’ like to get in front of a specialist judge if they can.  That tends to be the fashion of the day.”

He accepts that ill-informed media comment is something that goes with the territory.

I think it’s inevitable because the press are interested in the press’s own affairs. So privacy and libel get much more coverage than personal injury, commercial cases or even public law, all of which are just as important if not more important.  There are lots of judgments that have been criticised where it’s quite apparent that people haven’t read them. But there’s nothing you can do about that: the press office aren’t going to give them a spoonful of sugar to make it easier. And if they want to criticise the judgment, they will – whatever it says. But I don’t really bother to read that stuff.

The “controversial” part of the interview concerns “extremism”.  Joshua Rozenberg notes that sex and health are clearly areas that the law will protect in the absence of any over-riding public interest in disclosure. So are personal financial affairs. But he asks, what about other areas that an individual in a responsible position may wish to keep private, such as extreme political or religious views? Would the law prevent such views from being made public by a spouse?  Mr Justice Eady’s unsurprising reply is

That’s quite a difficult question to answer There may be no evidence that the individual’s private views had ever affected the holder’s public position. On the other hand, you might say that it’s difficult to envisage how somebody who holds those views can be rational.

There is a discussion about what would happen in the case of a strict Muslim who might not let his wife appear in public unless she wears a full veil – but, presumably, wishes to keep this domestic discussion private.  In relation to this somewhat implausible hypothetical situation (bearing in mind the wearing of the veil in public might be thought to be a “public act”), Mr Justice Eady offers the cautious reply.

Does that necessarily mean that the person shouldn’t be allowed to be a judge, or a teacher or whatever it might be? To what extent has he allowed those views to intrude on his decisions or conduct? It all depends on the circumstances.

He goes on to say that, at some point, someone’s views may become so irrational that his judgment cannot be trusted on anything. “I’d have considerable doubts about a flat-earther being a teacher, or a judge or a doctor.”

The interview also contains some interesting reflections on the relationship between libel and privacy. Mr Justice Eady comments

There is a close comparison between privacy and libel.  They interlink because they’re both part of the human personality — or, as they tend to call it in Strasbourg, human integrity. So one can see why Article 8 would have them both under its umbrella — although originally, of course, it didn’t. It’s a very recent development that libel has been brought in under Article 8 – not in the convention, obviously, but in case law.

He goes on to point out that

Since Strasbourg now regards both privacy and libel as coming under the Article 8 umbrella, the question arises: is it any longer feasible, or sensible, or justifiable, in principle for having separate tests for interlocutory injunctions, depending on whether it’s privacy or libel?

A final point is worth noting following the “May privacy madness”.  Mr Justice Eady comments that it is “surprising how many injunctions do hold and how many are settled on private terms, fairly quickly.”  He points out that this includes cases where the press are defendants — “because they recognise, on mature reflection, that there’s no public interest argument and they’re happy to get out of it”.

As we have mentioned, the interview was picked up in the “Sunday Times” in an article (entitled “Top judge admits injunctions may protect extremists” (behind paywall).  This headline bears no rational connection to the content of the article.

The same journalistic standards are maintained by the sub-heading.  It tells us that “Mr Justice Eady has defended the use of injunctions to protect the rich and famous” – although the interview contains no reference to the “rich and famous”, much less a defence of their use of injunctions.

The article goes on to highlight Mr Justice Eady’s “admission” of  the “possibility” that the law could protect those with “extreme political or religious views”.  We have already set out the relevant remarks and it is difficult to understand how it could sensibly be said that they are “likely to reopen the debate about the growth of judge-made privacy law”.   They illustrate, rather, the basic point that “it all depends on the circumstances”.

It is a sad, though perhaps predictable, reflection on the level of media “privacy” discussion that this distorted and partial account by the “Sunday Times” is the only place where the interview is reported in the press (there is a short informative comment on the Meeja Law Blog).  Ill-informed media comment does, indeed, “go with the territory”.

Nevertheless it seems to us important that interviews of this kind are given by Judges, from time to time.   It will be read by those who are engaged in more serious reflection on these issues and will, we think, assist in guiding the “privacy debate” in a more considered and thoughtful direction.

This post first appeared on Inforrm’s Blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

1 comment;

  1. Tara Davison says:

    May I thank Mr Justice Eady for giving this interview and helping to inform us all of the current position concerning defamation, privacy and Human Rights.

    Not all litigants with defamation and privacy claims are rich or famous or indeed represented by Solicitors and Barristers. Reputation is more important to ordinary people than to the rich and famous who seem to come through dirt relatively untouched.

    The press are less keen to publish defamation and privacy stories involving the non-famous or indeed the balanced and professional views of Mr Justice Eady. This could be because the press are disinterested in justice but have a strong interest in selling newspapers.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: