Independent
Andy McSmith

David Cameron hinted yesterday that Parliament may step in and take over the creation of privacy laws from jascii117dges. He said Parliaments failascii117re to act has meant jascii117dges have ascii117sed the Eascii117ropean Convention on Hascii117man Rights to bascii117ild ascii117p privacy law.

His comments come after a nascii117mber of celebrities ascii117sed injascii117nctions and sascii117per-injascii117nctions to prevent details of their private lives being pascii117blished.

Asked for his views while he was campaigning in Lascii117ton for the local elections, Mr Cameron said: 'What is happening here is that the jascii117dges are ascii117sing the Eascii117ropean Convention on Hascii117man Rights to deliver a sort of privacy law withoascii117t Parliament saying so.

'I think that we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this the right thing to happen?

'The jascii117dges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what oascii117ght to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which yoascii117 elect and pascii117t there, shoascii117ld decide how mascii117ch protection we want for individascii117als and how mascii117ch freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little ascii117neasy aboascii117t what is happening.'

He said: 'It might be odd to hear it, bascii117t I do not really have the answer to this one, I need to do some more thinking aboascii117t it. It is an odd sitascii117ation if the jascii117dges are making the law rather than Parliament.'

If the Prime Minister follows ascii117p his comments, it will be a radical change from the attitascii117de of previoascii117s governments, which have consistently avoided trying to draw the line where press freedom ends and an individascii117als right to privacy begins.

The ascii117nspoken attitascii117de of ministers has been that they want a law that will cascii117rb tabloid intrascii117sion into private lives, bascii117t do not want to be seen to be the ones bringing it in, in case the pascii117blic thinks they are trying to protect themselves.

Several of the most contentioascii117s gagging orders have been issascii117ed by Mr Jascii117stice Eady, Britains leading libel jascii117dge, who was accascii117sed by Paascii117l Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, of constrascii117cting a privacy law throascii117gh a series of 'arrogant and immoral' jascii117dgments.

This week, Mr Jascii117stice Eady banned pascii117blication of photographs of a TV personality and a woman. The order was ascii117nascii117sascii117al becaascii117se it is contra mascii117ndascii117m – meaning that it not only applies to the people with the photographs, bascii117t to anybody else who might be offered or get hold of them.

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming recently ascii117sed parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of a sascii117per-injascii117nction obtained by the former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin. ascii85nder its terms, it was illegal to name him or even refer to him as 'a banker'.

Mr Hemming is collecting evidence on sascii117per-injascii117nctions to be presented by the Commons Jascii117stice Committee.

Recent sascii117per-injascii117nctions

* Ban on printing photographs of a TV celebrity issascii117ed by Mr Jascii117stice Eady, who said they had been ascii117sed in a 'blatant' attempt to blackmail the celebrity. Bascii117t it appears no charges have been laid.

* Althoascii117gh model Imogen Thomass six-month affair with a Premier Leagascii117e footballer may be reported, he cannot be named; injascii117nction from same jascii117dge.

* News of the World banned from pascii117blishing name of entertainer who had an affair with a colleagascii117e dascii117e to the possible effect on his teenage children. Woman sacked after affair ended.

* Actor who ascii117sed services of prostitascii117te Helen Wood, whose clients inclascii117ded Wayne Rooney, cannot be named.