Drafting a privacy bill traditionally provokes a torrent of excuses from senior British politicians
The prospect of drafting a privacy bill traditionally provokes a torrent of excuses from senior British politicians. Determining precisely where to draw the line between freedom of speech and the right to personal secrecy is acknowledged to be fiendishly difficult.
But the vortex of superinjunctions, marital infidelities broadcast over Twitter in defiance of court orders, and former escorts complaining about one-sided justice for the rich is stirring up calls for parliamentary intervention.
The prime minister has been vocal about the need for debate. His comments have been interpreted by some as an opportunistic blast of anti-European sentiment.
"Judges are saying, look, there is a European convention of human rights which we can use," David Cameron told the Sun this week. "And because parliament has not discussed this enough, they feel they are filling a gap … I believe in free speech and a free press. But we need the right balance between privacy and freedom."
The Ministry of Justice says it will consider what to do after Lord Neuberger's report into the use of superinjunctions, due before the end of the month.
In the Commons last Thursday, the leader of the House, Sir George Young, went further, saying after the report, "it may then be appropriate for the House to debate this important issue".
The call by Tory backbencher Zac Goldsmith for a privacy bill is only the latest voice in a swelling chorus of lawyers and human rights groups demanding clarification of where the line between privacy and freedom of speech should be drawn.
Welcoming the Max Mosley ruling in the European court, Index on Censorship said the requirement for prior notification of any story that touches on privacy "would have been very damaging".
A spokesman added: "The European convention has established that there's a right of privacy. How that's interpreted by different countries is a matter for their own governments and constitutions.
"We need clarification and if that comes through parliament, that's probably better. At the moment we have judges setting precedents where no one is sure what is in the public interest. It would help to have law that judges could interpret."
James Welch, the legal director of Liberty, said: "Parliament has accepted that it needs to create a legislative framework governing intrusions on privacy by the state: search warrants, phone taps, etc. But it has ducked legislating to strike the balance between personal privacy and media freedom and left that exceptionally tricky task to the courts.
"Politicians should stop trashing the judges for doing something they are too timid to do themselves. They should put up or shut up. "
Successive government inquiries have opposed the need for privacy legislation. The report by the Commons culture and media committee on press standards, privacy and libel in February 2010 did not support the need for legislation.
Opponents fear that any law on privacy would set out only broad principles; judges would still be left with the job of settting precedents through judgments on the messy details of individual cases. Lord Lester, in his submission to the committee examining the draft defamation bill, said: "A Privacy Act would probably do little more than codify the existing convention … as to how the balance should be struck between free speech and personal privacy."
Baroness Buscombe, the Press Complaints Commission chair, said a privacy law "could not work … in a world where technology is always ahead of the law".