Lawyers unite to condemn “over-personalised” attack on privacy judge
Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre’s attacks on Mr Justice Eady’s privacy rulings and the “wretched” Human Rights Act has received a mixed reaction from lawyers.
Addressing the Society of Editors last Sunday, Dacre lambasted Eady J’s rulings, claiming: “While London boasts scores of eminent judges, one man is given a virtual monopoly of cases against the media enabling him to bring in a privacy law by the back door.”
He singled out Formula One boss Max Mosley’s successful action against the News of the World’s exposé as an example of Eady’s “arrogant and amoral judgments”.
Roger Smith, director of JUSTICE, called Dacre’s attack on Eady “overpersonalised, and misguided as to substance”.
“He seems obsessed with the Max Mosley case, but the real issue with that was a lack of evidence [to prove the News of the Wold’s allegation that] it was a ‘sick Nazi orgy’.”
David Hooper, partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and a libel lawyer, says he is “in favour” of much of Dacre’s speech although he “did not sign up to the attacks on the judge”.
“There is a degree of moral censorship that is creeping into the law in this area, and although it talks about a balancing of rights, the scales aren’t equal.” For all the intrusive cases, there are a lot of decent exposures, he says.
“Like all pendulums, this one has swung too far. We are all over the place, with various decisions made on privacy. A lot of people who sue for privacy tend to have publicity agents and quite aggressive lawyers. The press is paying the penalty for decades of overstepping the mark. Every time the press behave badly, the boundaries of privacy get inexorably expanded and, on the plaintiff ’s side, lawyers have been smart about fighting good cases.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman 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.”
