Attorney General's Office

Attorney General addresses House of Commons on privacy injunctions

John Whittingdale MP asked if the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice would make a statement on the granting and enforcement of privacy injunctions in light of the Master of the Rolls' report.

Responding for the Government, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP said:

I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Right Honourable gentleman on an issue which I know is of considerable concern in this House as well as to the public and the media.

The Government believes that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and that it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible. This includes those occasions when freedom of speech is exercised provocatively, as it is supposed to be in a free country. Plainly however, there are also occasions when an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck and this is reflected in our existing legal framework. The government recognises the importance of finding the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other. We also recognise that there are widely differing views on what that balance should be. It is in no one's interest to rush to judgement on this.

The complexity of the issue and the lack of consenus are some of the reasons why the report of the Master of the Rolls' Committee on the procedural aspects of super-injunctions and anonymity injunctions published last Friday is to be welcomed, and why we will want to take on board its carefully thought through recommendations. It reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, and that exceptions to this are only permissible to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice. While such decisions will necessarily be made in each particular case dependent on the facts of that case, it does offer a likelihood of some greater clarity.

The report indicates that, when some degree of secrecy is necessary, the facts of the case and the reason for secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment. It also emphasises that super-injunctions - where the fact that there is an injunction has to be kept secret as well as the substantive issues - are now only being granted for very short periods where secrecy is necessary to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed. We hope that its analysis and recommendations should help to allay concerns that super-injunctions were being granted far too readily and about their potential open-endedness.

Of course a range of wider issues have been raised by the events of the past few months and especially the past weekend. We take seriously the need ensure that we have the correct balance between privacy and freedom of expression. Today the PM is writing to the Chair of the Liaison and Justice Committees and my Rt Hon Friend (Chair of the Culture Media and Sport) recommending that a Joint Committee be established to consider how current arrangements can be improved. Such a Committee will be able to use representation of both Houses and the considerable expertise that Select Committees have to examine whether the current arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes that would make things work better.

In the meantime it is right to emphasise that just as any change to the law is for Parliament, the interpretation of the law is a responsibility placed on the Judiciary. Legal mechanisms exist to review individual decisions which may be mistaken. If we believe in the Rule of Law, it is our duty as Parliamentarians to uphold those principles.