Zac Goldsmith calls for privacy law
Tory MP says superinjunctions are an ‘overreaction’, but are inevitable given newspapers’ interest in celebrities’ private lives Zac Goldsmith, the influential backbench Conservative MP, responded to the growing ‘superinjuction’ crisis on Tuesday by calling for parliament to develop a privacy law – because some newspapers are unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. The multimillionaire MP for Richmond Park also took the opportunity to speak about his own decision to take out a gagging order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Despite that revealation, Goldsmith conceded that superinjunctions represented “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing his decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” However, Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to maintained – before going onto to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. High court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of Goldsmith’s emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but, “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into their accounts, agreed to keep that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly as a result of confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. Goldsmith said that he believed that the solution to the superinjunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. Noting that David Cameron had said earlier this month that we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Goldsmith’s remarks come in a week in which some ministers were indicating their support for a privacy law. At least one senior minister is known to be in favour of legislation, but was sceptical about the prospect of getting it through parliament because of the storm that would be created around the issue. “I have always been in favour of a privacy law but see no prospect of getting one. It would take the lid off a Pandora’s box,” the minister said. A second minister, a Liberal Democrat, also indicated in private this week that they were open to the idea. However, Goldsmith conceded that it was a “grotesque flaw in the system” that only rich people could afford to pay the costs of an injunction – estimated at anywhere between £10,000 and £50,000 depending on the case. The MP said it would be fairer if the rules on costs could be changed so that the party who pays the least in an action would be able to set a cap on both sides’ legal fees, and added that it remained necessary for any use of injunctions to “stifle investigative reporting” to be “challenged.” He said instances like “the disgraceful Trafigura case” where a company, Trafigura, used an injunction to conceal the existence of a report into toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, should not be used to attack the principle of injunctions. “It’s not right that the really important examples like this [Trafigura] should be used as a cover by unscrupulous tabloids to demand a blank cheque to write whatever they want about anyone’s private lives.” •
Posted by
on May 10, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Zac Goldsmith calls for privacy law
Tory MP says superinjunctions are an ‘overreaction’, but are inevitable given newspapers’ interest in celebrities’ private lives Zac Goldsmith, the influential backbench Conservative MP, responded to the growing ‘superinjuction’ crisis on Tuesday by calling for parliament to develop a privacy law – because some newspapers are unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. The multimillionaire MP for Richmond Park also took the opportunity to speak about his own decision to take out a gagging order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Despite that revealation, Goldsmith conceded that superinjunctions represented “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing his decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” However, Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to maintained – before going onto to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. High court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of Goldsmith’s emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but, “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into their accounts, agreed to keep that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly as a result of confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. Goldsmith said that he believed that the solution to the superinjunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. Noting that David Cameron had said earlier this month that we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Goldsmith’s remarks come in a week in which some ministers were indicating their support for a privacy law. At least one senior minister is known to be in favour of legislation, but was sceptical about the prospect of getting it through parliament because of the storm that would be created around the issue. “I have always been in favour of a privacy law but see no prospect of getting one. It would take the lid off a Pandora’s box,” the minister said. A second minister, a Liberal Democrat, also indicated in private this week that they were open to the idea. However, Goldsmith conceded that it was a “grotesque flaw in the system” that only rich people could afford to pay the costs of an injunction – estimated at anywhere between £10,000 and £50,000 depending on the case. The MP said it would be fairer if the rules on costs could be changed so that the party who pays the least in an action would be able to set a cap on both sides’ legal fees, and added that it remained necessary for any use of injunctions to “stifle investigative reporting” to be “challenged.” He said instances like “the disgraceful Trafigura case” where a company, Trafigura, used an injunction to conceal the existence of a report into toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, should not be used to attack the principle of injunctions. “It’s not right that the really important examples like this [Trafigura] should be used as a cover by unscrupulous tabloids to demand a blank cheque to write whatever they want about anyone’s private lives.” •
Posted by
on May 10, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.