Acumen+giving+you+the+edge

Top libel judge Eady makes way for Tugendhat

15 September 2010 | By Katy Dowell

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Related Articles

Mr Justice Eady, the country’s most senior libel judge, has been replaced as the head of the Queen’s Bench jury and non-jury lists by Mr Justice Tugendhat.

The Lawyer first reported in May that Eady J’s future in the role was in doubt after it was revealed that the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger had invited Tugendhat to sit on a committee examining the issues around press injuctions (The Lawyer 3 May http://www.thelawyer.com/media-judges-in-the-spotlight-as-eady-j’s-future-is-thrown-into-doubt/1004296.article).

Eady J has been the source of much controversy in the national press in recent years. In particular he came in for criticism from the Daily Maileditor Paul Dacre who accused thejudge of introducing privacy laws “by the back door”.

Speaking in 2008 to the Society of Editors Dacre said: “The freedom of the press is far too important to be left to the somewhat desiccated values of a single judge, who clearly has an animus against the popular press and the right of people to freedom of expression.”

Eady J refrained from responding publicly until December 2009, when he spoke at the Justice conference.

“It’s become fashionable to label judges not as independent, but rather as unaccountable and as hostile to freedom of speech,” he said.

Tugendhat had been widely tipped to succeed him in the position. The judge was praised in the press when he lifted an injunction preventing allegations about John Terry’s private life from being published.

The changes will come into effect on 1 October with Tugendhat appointed for a three year term.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (4)

  • Anonymous | 15-Sep-2010 4:59 pm

    Long overdue! Good riddance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MR A HILES | 20-Apr-2011 9:19 pm

    We the public have a right to know trhe private lives of the famous celebraties who after all make the fortunes out of our money when we buy there goods and muchandise if we know the truth about them we can choose to stop if there behavior offends us thus depriving them of our hard earned cash other wise they can continue to screw us and it appears everone ells for our money with a superfical image of puraty and honesty and happy marrage while the law protects there imoral living. we also have a right to know what standers the powerfull live by in there private lives so if we disaproove we can choose not to vote for them. it appers to me a mire painter and decorator that judge eady treats us all with contempt when he chooses to hide the actions of these public figurs behind his supper injunctions so we are not in a position to make up our own minds dose he nopt know there is a popular uprising in the middel east against top dow oppresstion and unaccountabal unelect law makers
    had eady made these judgments in the 1950 to protect gay men from exposure much as I might have applouded it at the time he would have set back gay rights decades
    personaly I don't mind if Mossley or Eady for that matter like a bit of S&M sex it dosen't bother me one bit but I do have the right to kow so I can jude the man for what he is not what he protends to be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • james | 24-May-2011 6:03 pm

    It appears to me to be unacceptable that judges have the right to make decisions that are not subject to the scrutiny of the people. A fundamental principle of democratic society is that our law makers are answerable to the people. The judges say that we should respect the law. I say that in a free society, the law has to earn the respect of the people. It is in oppressive dictatorships that this idea is breached.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Incredulous Tick | 25-May-2011 10:21 am

    "It appears to me to be unacceptable that judges have the right to make decisions that are not subject to the scrutiny of the people. "
    Subject judges to the scrutiny of people who vote for Jedward and Wagner? This is meant to improve the quality of justice HOW?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed