Terry judgement shows that there is absolutely no bias in favour of individual privacy (Diana Wallis MEP)

Diana Wallis MEP <info@dianawallismep.org.uk>

Terry judgement shows that there is absolutely no bias in favour of individual privacy

February 5, 2010 1:25 PM

John Terry Last week in Brussels the European Parliament held a hearing on the problem of libel tourism. The problem arises because of an apparent gap as to the appropriate court and the applicable law to be applied to cross border libel cases; a gap which appears to have caused some claimants to make a bee-line for the UK courts where apparently high levels of damages are on offer. The UK press has become increasingly vocal on this issue claiming it is having a chilling effect on British media.

Speaking in the wake of the Terry judgement, which waived his so-called "super injunction" against press coverage of his affair with a team-mate's partner, Diana Wallis MEP, the Parliament's spokesperson on this issue, said:

"Now we see the reality of what we were told by experts at our hearing: that in fact the British courts are more than reasonable with the media. The Terry judgement shows that there is absolutely no bias in favour of individual privacy, but rather the opposite, that where damages can finally be an appropriate remedy, no injunction will be granted or continued.

"The UK is now subject to the European Convention on Human Rights which means that courts have to balance the conflicting rights of freedom of expression for the media and the right to privacy or reputation of individuals. However, one can wonder what the public interest element really is in Terry's affair, one of our experts suggested that these cases have more to do with a frenetic desperation to sell newspapers. There can be no doubt that the print media is going through a difficult period economically but it is not clear that the privacy and reputation of individuals should be sacrificed for this reason."

Ms. Wallis added, "On a European scale our press perhaps has to be less concerned about privacy than, for example, the French or German press, but more concerned than the US press, where free speech is paramount. However, in most European countries there does not seem to be any appetite for the American model. As for the supposedly high level of damages awarded in the UK, on closer examination, it seems unusual for the top awards ever to be given, so perhaps would-be foreign claimants are being deluded in trying their luck in the British courts.

"We will continue to consider the issue on a European basis, but it would be sad indeed if the UK Government brings in almost emergency legislation by statutory instrument (without parliamentary scrutiny) just to please the press ahead of a General Election."