Judges have their role to play, and Parliamentarians theirs, and “it is for the public to judge whether what I have done is right or wrong”, says Lord Peter Hain. Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Paul Wragg (Page 3 of 4)
This critique follows on from my previous post, in which I responded to Paul Wragg’s criticism of the manner in which the judge in Richard v BBC dealt with the first stage of the claim – whether Richard had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in respect of the information broadcast about him. Continue reading
In a recent post on Inforrm, my good friend Dr Paul Wragg sets out a detailed argument critiquing the High Court’s recent decision in Cliff Richard’s successful privacy claim against the BBC (Richard v BBC). Wragg takes the view that the reasoning of Mann J in the case is deficient in a number of respects, and that his disposal of the case is unsatisfactory. Continue reading
There are three reasons why I think the case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC is wrongly decided. Firstly, it seems to me that whilst a wrong has been done to Sir Cliff, this was committed by the police when it, or someone within it, disclosed information to the BBC that Sir Cliff was being investigated as part of Operation Yewtree (it must be stressed that the CPS announced on 16 June 2016 that no charges would be made against Sir Cliff and that, as was said in court, ‘he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law’). Continue reading
The BBC and the Guardian are being sued for breach of confidence for their part in the ‘Paradise Papers’ affair in which some 6.8 million documents were stolen (but not by the defendants) from Appleby Global Group LLC, a law firm operating outside the UK. Continue reading
Something incredible is happening in modern politics. The shackles of propriety, diplomacy, and discretion have been released. Politicians are speaking their minds. This has not resulted, as so many commentators tell us it has, in statesmen ‘telling it like it is’. Instead, political debate is awash with vacuous, bewildering, abrasive guff. Continue reading
This post follows Paul Wragg’s piece on this blog discussing the recent Supreme Court decision determining that the applicant had no right to anonymity after being named in open court by a witness in a high profile criminal case in Oxford. Continue reading
The long-awaited judgment in Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Limited is the right decision. But it was not unanimously decided. It is on the dissenting judgments of Lords Kerr and Wilson that this post focuses. Continue reading
Anyone interested in journalism who has been reading the UK’s national press over the past week or two could be forgiven for thinking press freedom is in serious jeopardy. It’s one of those rare occasions when Fleet Street seems to speak as one. Continue reading
Press regulation is changing. On 29 October 2016, IMPRESS was officially recognised as the UK’s first ‘Leveson-compliant’ regulator. This is a momentous occasion. But recognition has been met with uniform hostility from the mainstream press. The Daily Mail was not alone in decrying the event as ‘an end to 300 years of press freedom’. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑