As the Committee on super-injunctions was composed entirely of judges and lawyers, we should not be very surprised that its conclusions are so inadequate and do little or nothing to lift the veil of secrecy from public life.
Indeed, two of the committee represent law firms – Carter Ruck and Schillings – which in recent years have been at the forefront of moves for ever greater secrecy. It is a bit like asking two notorious sharpshooters to sit on a committee discussing the use of firearms in the Wild West.
if Lord Neuberger and his colleagues have their way, journalists publishing the words of such parliamentarians could be prosecuted if they are judged not to have acted ‘in good faith and without malice’.
This is a preposterous infringement of both parliamentary sovereignty and freedom of expression, which illustrates an alarming arrogance on the part of the higher judiciary.
Lawyers reasonably say that Parliament originally passed the Human Rights Act, along with Article Eight, but almost no one envisaged the way in which judges would chose to develop this law, or the speed.
My comment: Judges should be asked why the privacy of rich footballers, playing away from home, is more important than freedom of speech? The Human Rights Act makes no such distinction, it is they who have decided privacy is more important than free speech, well for rich people that is. So I for one must agree with Stephen Glover Judges are unelected, out of touch and shockingly arrogant and something need to be done NOW.
Read the full story from the source Mail on Line
Read all articles about the Judiciary/Judges on this blog