Daily Mail chief slams judge
Mr Justice Eady has come under attack from the Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre for bringing privacy laws in by the back door.
Dacre, speaking at the Society of Editors’ annual conference in Bristol, criticised Eady J’s ruling that the News of the World (NotW) had breached Formula 1 chief Max Mosley’s privacy after secretly filming him taking part in a sex orgy (The Lawyer, 4 August ).
The Mail chief said the “arrogant and amoral” judgments of Eady J were “inexorably and insidiously” imposing a privacy law on the British Press.
“If Gordon Brown wanted to force a privacy law, he would have to set out a bill, arguing his case in both Houses of Parliament, withstand public scrutiny and win a series of votes,” said Dacre. “Now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen.”
Many in the legal profession, however, have come out in support of Eady J’s judgment.
Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, senior counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said it was not always acceptable for public figures’ private lives to be reported and Mosley’s situation was on such case.
“Of course, if I’m acting hypocritically or I’m accountable, or there’s something that may affect what I do in my public life which emerges from my private life, then that should be published,” said Falconer.
The Guardian News & Media director of editorial legal services, Nuala Cosgrove, also put her weight behind Eady.
“Paul Dacre's speech was unfairly biased against Mr Justice Eady,” said Cosgrove. “It's true that he reserves the majority of the interesting cases to himself but surely a privacy law built up through judicial precedence is preferable to one legislated for by MPs whose self interest might outweigh public interest and freedom of expression.”
A spokesman from Judicial Communications Office said: “Judges determine privacy cases in accordance with the law and the particular evidence presented by both parties. Any High Court judgment can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.” Read the our feature on the tension between the UK press and the judiciary here.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (18)
Anonymous | 11-Nov-2008 5:49 pm
it was probably an eady judgment to reach
well done Judge!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ColinGavaghan, Glasgow | 11-Nov-2008 6:17 pm
Libel/privacy
John, leaving aside the too-obvious observation that Private Eye opposing libel actions is akin to turkeys voting to ban Christmas, the Mosley case was a privacy action, not one in defamation (though I suspect he'd have won that too).
As for free speech being strangled, can you think of any example of a successful privacy action where the 'free speech' in question was about anything of any possible public interest? If the only thing being strangled is the freedom to rake through the dustbins of B-list 'celebrities', then good riddance!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Nov-2008 6:42 pm
Humbug
It is particularly galling that it is the Mail's editor, of all editors on all papers, who feels qualified to make this speech, bearing in mind that of all national newspapers the Mail's and the Mail on Sunday's reporters are the ones pressed by their respective editors to weasle their way into people's private lives more intrusively than any other paper.
In some 20 years of dealing professionally with the media on behalf of many different clients with different issues, it has only been journalists and photographers on the Mail and the Mail on Sunday about whom I have been compelled to complain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dr,F.W.Knox | 11-Nov-2008 7:07 pm
Dacre report
Ian, Several hundred million people follow F1. The FAI is now being led by a pervert. Paul Dacre got it absolutely right. Good for him.
Incidentally, whatever happened to the law that solicitation of prostitutes is illegal?.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bullbuster | 12-Nov-2008 7:18 am
Daily Maul grudge slams judge
Of course, for many years now, the Daily Maul has been the beacon of truth in a sea of lies, a veritable paragon of balanced and accurate journalism in a time of sloppy standards and non-adherence to facts ... Excuse me a moment while I take my medication and, in the meantime, pass the sickbag, Alice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Craterbaiter | 13-Nov-2008 5:21 pm
It must be true
As the judge of good taste for the Mail, we should defer to Dacre.
The working girls reported to the mail, so where was the prostitution?
Damn it , if it's in the mail it must be true.
BSBD
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Flood | 14-Nov-2008 4:34 pm
Eady come, Eady go
Colin, Private Eye and turkeys might seem a good match, but that magazine has done more to expose corruption and malice in public life than any other that I'm aware of. Check out their Paul Foot 2008 awards. The problem with Eady and the English courts in this area is that they are prepared to pander to the wealthy and lawyers like Carter-Ruck. If you are a public figure and Mosley is, then you should expect to have your life investigated. As I said before, this will throttle free speech and make the UK the laughing stock of the world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mike north yorks | 16-Dec-2008 12:36 pm
laughable
judging by the comments on this page, its amazing how many ardent Socialists are in the Legal Industry! And you guys call yourselves impartial! Laughable!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment