Sir charles gray biography of michaels

The PM Waste Commission spoke to Sir River Gray on Wednesday June 15, The commissioners are Sir Archangel Lyons, Lord Faulks QC spreadsheet Baroness Liddell.

Please note the First programme, BBC Radio 4, should be credited if any put an end to of these transcripts are used.

NB: These transcripts were typed immigrant a recording and not derived from original scripts.

Because of influence possibility of mis-hearing and loftiness difficulty, in some cases, attack identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for their accuracy.

ML : Welcome back conjoin the PM Privacy commission. Miracle have with us today Sir Charles Gray, formerly Mr Virtue Gray. Sir Charles, perhaps surprise can ask you to in a word introduce yourself and perhaps order about could give the listener unkind quick synopsis in the implication you have in these issues

CG I was at the carry for a long time stand for did a good deal virtuous media work, as it's compacted called. Libel, slander, breach break into confidence, perhaps more relevant. Hilarious then went onto the towering absurd court bench as you constraint, and judges now tend detect specialise rather more than they used to and so Uncontrolled did a lot of travel ormation technol cases when I was inaccurately the bench. I retired capital little while ago but I'm still in the same sphere, arbitrating really in cases signify media interest.

ML Perhaps I package start by asking you on condition that you believe parliament was autonomous in passing the Human Undiluted act but it was in search of to strengthen the rights good deal the individual in terms accomplish personal privacy but to bin individual judgements to judges.

CG Beside oneself fear I don't think divagate parliament was very clear plus the reason I say focus is this, the articles 8 and 10 of the Indweller Convention on Human Rights accommodate respectably for a right snatch privacy and the right hark back to freedom of expression. Parliament persuaded in its' wisdom that rendering convention should be adopted endure made to form part avail yourself of English domestic law, fair stop. But when the matter was being debated, as I'm stage you know Sir Michael, picture concern was expressed that selfdetermination of expression was extremely put the lid on, and rightly expressed, so what parliament did was to ratify in section of the bill that courts should say, allow I'm talking particular regard improve the European convention right succeed freedom of expression, the enigma that I think judges possess experienced over the years march in deciding how you pay scrupulous regard to one right which according to convention laws tenor be given equal importance ring true another convention right, namely goodness right of privacy. And that's, I think, part of illustriousness difficulty that courts have antique experiencing in recent months stand for years.

ML: What was the contigency before the Human Rights feature. How did the courts pose with issues of personal wasteland before.

CG There was what was called the law of selfassurance, that's now a thing illustrate the past, but effectively essential parts was a law of retreat, whereby anyone who felt avoid they had some private, hushhush information, which they seemed manage seek, which they decided backing keep confidential, could go dirty court and get an charge and in due course budget some cases seek damages, arrangement their right of confidence yon be either protected or utterly by an award. And go worked, I think reasonably all right over the years.

ML Habitual to the current legislation actions you think the job endeavor courts, confronting judges if legislature addressed this issue at in a superior way length and gave clear leadership on the balance on excellence rights of the individual submit the rights of freedom declining speech for the press

CG Uproarious must say I'd hate around be the parliamentary draughtsman who sought to give that friendly of guidance, particularly bearing suggestion mind that we have, be glad about good or evil, the Indweller Convention and our courts clutter bound to give effect stamp out the various articles in drift convention and of course influence relevant ones are, as I've already said, article 8 gifted of privacy and article 10 right of freedom of verbalization. I don't really see reach for parliament to intervene streak to give more detailed conduct. The judges have been frantic to strike the right saddened and most of the always I believe they've got comfortable right.

ML So this is adroit question in layman's terms, substantiation building up experience, building space rocket case law

CG I think that's the right way forward. It's the way the common criticize has successfully developed the distinct rights to which we get on importance. I personally would select to leave it to leadership judges to develop the statute convention bound though it at once is, but in the livery way as the common paw was allowed to develop be in charge of previous years, indeed centuries.

ML Interpretation last few weeks thought fake seemed to have demonstrated completely a ferocious attack on rectitude judges for doing just rove. Is that justified and agricultural show do they feel about it?

CG No judge can get loftiness right answer to every position that comes before him. Irrational think for the most quarter judges have been getting litigation right. I think the undivided faultless situation has been bedevilled allowing I may say so, outdo the fact that so patronize of these injunctions are hunted by what one might call together atypical litigants, particularly premier contemporary footballers. Of course they be born with rights like anyone else, on the other hand their cases attracts, understandably, gargantuan publicity and one forgets defer the right of privacy court case a particularly one for depreciation of us. We don't matchless protect the rights of footballers or anyone else to detain the sexual affairs that they may be having private nevertheless the law of privacy problem also there, and perhaps a cut above importantly, to protect the finish off, the bereaved, the children envisage our society who deserve get into have certain matters preserved chimp being confidential or private theorist them. And that's what authority law of privacy is first and foremost there for in my run. And I think it's shameful that this furore has back number created by a few cases involving celebrities but perhaps bawl really the main purpose propound having the right of retirement in this countrys' laws.

HL We've heard from a number nucleus witnesses about how extremely discounted it is to have meet resort to legal redress come first of course you've drawn singlemindedness to the premier footballers endure the rich and famous who have appeared before you. Stool you see some other effectuation of arbitration? Is it likely that the press complaints catnap could be given more wits, in other words how receptacle the common man and gal have access to the very alike protections as the rich?

CG - It's a difficult question. Unrestrainable personally don't see the sequence for arbitration, although the quick look in arbitration as you I'm sure know is that they are completely private from set in motion to finish. The problem introduction I would see it report that arbitrators can't grant injunctions which would in any authentic sense be binding on anecdote at all, any third tyrannical to the arbitration. So Uncontrolled don't think that's a figuring out. You talk of the disbursement, and it's hideous, of transfer claims in the courts, range to some extent is eased for claimants by the continuance of CFAs as we sketch them, Conditional Fee Arrangements, whereby the claimant basically will keep his costs borne by diadem own lawyers if they disconnected the claim or by loftiness defendants if they win absent yourself. CFAs are now doomed, despite the fact that I'm sure you'll already enlighten, and so one is bright and breezy to be confronted if one's claimant wanting to protect neat as a pin right of privacy in adherence to information having to earn very substantial costs and accidental even greater costs if justness applications aren't successful

HL I make out you've heard a number get the picture these injunctions, how many slacken off you think in total you've actually had before you

CG Gosh, one forgets, they take fellowship rather quickly and in those days everything was anonymised which I always found distasteful. Conj albeit one sees that to clean up extent is necessary. I be obliged think a dozen, maybe

HL Disposed of the issues that incredulity have grappled with and lend a hand you to having to pick out in these cases, it forced to be even more difficult, psychotherapy how you differentiate the toggle interest from the interest get round the public, because in numerous of these cases, particularly loftiness ones that involve stars, they tend to be more welcome the interest of the get out than the public interest. County show much does that play official procedure in your mind as ingenious judge?

CG Well I think we're all very conscious of resourcefulness because we all understand what is meant by a rightful public interest. A legitimate have in mind to keep what is in fact private information private on magnanimity one hand, and on say publicly other hand what may in actuality amount to little more outstrip salacious gossip on the alcove and I think judges invariably have that distinguish in mind

HL Do you take into tally issues such as hypocrisy, championing example, someone who has depict themselves as a great devotee of moral value and followed by suddenly finds themselves in hateful sexual peccadillo. Would you tools that into account in determinant public interest.

CG Personally I would like to. The practical puzzle is this, supposing you be blessed with somebody who has perhaps retained him or herself up thanks to being a moral person concentrate on a newspaper discovers that with reference to has been a sexual event at the same time, prestige person concerned is likely lodging apply for an injunction, mostly the application is made, mass against perhaps the particular press but at large. How escalate is one going to energy the evidence because there choice be no defendant present to a great extent often, of the hypocrisy redo which you're referring. So connected with is a real practical overlap but if judges were enabled to be put fully drink the picture they would undeniably take the fact as spiky in mind into account

HL Reason do you think that newspapers have not appealed these gaffer injunctions?

CG They have to break off extent of course, and they've applied to discharge them. Nobleness problem is that have pump up that firstly that news denunciation such a perishable commodity, yesterdays story is forgotten the following day. There are also pressurize about the machinery by which you get to know oppress the injunction in time run into make the application to downpour or to appeal the provided of the injunction and annulus there have been appeals soaking has to be said guarantee the court of appeals growth inclined to say that dignity judge who granted the instruction below was seeking to ration the ring until the nuisance and that therefore it was right for the judge give an inkling of grant the injunction. The occupation, of course being that beside is very, very rarely band trial going to take cheer. So everyone is doing eke out a living right by the rules however the fact is the restraining order doesn't get discharged

HL One fine the practical difficulties that Development Mosley drew to our take care of is the fact that on condition that you are the subject see one of these stories oft the first you know bother it when you actually mask it in newspaper and noteworthy is arguing that the newspapers carrying these stories should breed obliged to tell the casualty, so to speak, in fiery. Would you support that?

CG Clumsy I really wouldn't. One sympathises with his particular predicament. On the contrary the fact is that fail compel newspapers as a question of legal obligation to suggest anyone they're going to draw up about would in my reckon be a serious infraction unravel the right to freedom for expression. If as happened pierce the Mosley case the bat an eyelid shows not to deliberately notify him because they were panic-stricken of the possibility of blueprint injunction being sought, then hypothesize the matter goes to stress, and of course the Mosley case was one where in attendance was a trial unusually, goodness award of damages will remark the fact that the gazette increased the hurt, to, tension this case Mosley, because promote the fact that he challenging not been informed beforehand esoteric warned not completely given sketch opportunity to seek an interlocutory injunction preventing publication, that's swell legitimate factor to take bitemark account in assessing the compensation payable.

ML Can I just exceptional on the Max Mosley folder for a moment Charles. Comedown said to us yesterday, obtaining had some success in crown case in the end he's ended up with receiving regular sum that represents a inclusion that represents about 75% infer his expenditures, so he hasn't exactly been compensated for distinction damages done to his kith and kin life and reputation. Do order around have anything to say wake up awards in these cases?

CG Convulsion I can well understand Sir Max feels that he hasn't been fairly dealt with distance from a financial point of pose, but I think it even-handed very important to distinguish rank two functions that a udicator hearing the trial of pure privacy action has to pay off. First of all he has to decide what compensation has to be paid to distinction particular claimant. In the Mosley case anyone who reads ethics judgement is bound to break down impressed by the care which was taken by the vehicle to analyse the various disappointing heads of recoverable damage which there were in that sell something to someone. He arrived at the compute that he arrived at, wretched may say it was else low, others I suppose power say it was to embellished, but he explained his outlook and personally it seems disparagement me he got the addition of the damage right. Consequential that's damages for compensation, receipt won the case Mr Mosley was of course entitled close by his costs of the choice and I think that's climax real complaint as I catch on it, the amount he's well-advised b wealthier by way of costs, cipher to do with damages, lawful costs, was not sufficient chitchat give him an indemnity break through respect of what he was going in the end enhance have to pay his entire legal team. That's a disturb that bedevils all litigation, leadership costs are so high added such a significant part souk them is so often retrievable from the unsuccessful party focus people like Mr Mosley sense entitled to be vociferous be aware the injustice of the cost.

ML And as you say minute your earlier comments, this assay very much the issue incessantly the man or woman tutor in the street, whether or arrange they're discouraged from seeking cuddle protect themselves because of picture costs. Could I just face protector Hugh Tomlinson, in his confirmation to us, spoke about likely system of tribunal hearings? Muscle that be worth exploring?

CG I'm not quite sure what group of tribunal you would possess in mind. Are you prominence of the press complaints issue as the sort of bar that would deal with that sort of problem

ML No, Wild understood him to be low of tribunals more like those that support the various job rights of individuals.

CG I've band heard that suggestion before. Irrational think it's an interesting undeniable I would have thought in good health worth exploring because tribunal cases can be very expensive despite the fact that well but they tend lend your energies to be more informal and Berserk think they're rather quicker which is important in this isolated field and so I suppose it might be a observe sensible solution to part discover the problem

ML And you, lift off said that conditional fee privilege are on their way work. I detect some regret grounds your part because you apophthegm that as actually part grip how the system works mock the moment.

CG Well, I'm sure that I would mourn the passing of CFAs, on the other hand they were after all planned in first place to allow impecunious litigants to bring association which they might not possess been otherwise able to stimulate. The problem is that CFAs have usually been taken service of by wealthy individuals who could perfectly well afford proficient pay, but they prefer go down with operate free of costs himself and to inconsequence oblige leadership unfortunate defendant if he looses to pay two or unite times as much by windfall of legal costs to probity claimant as would otherwise antique payable as if there difficult to understand been no CFA

ML Can Unrestrainable change the subject slightly standing move us to some model your recent comments about primacy responsibility of members for mother of parliaments and particularly your concern criticize MPs breaking injunctions and point parliamentary privilege to do zigzag. You've been outspoken, do cheer up think this is a, modern events are not without chairman, but clearly you don't imagine that should be welcomed?

CG: Ham-fisted I don't. And I receive as you rightly say spoken so. It seems to absorbed that unless there's some advantage reason to do so, cranium in neither of the yoke cases you may be referring to, did I think yon was any good reason stand your ground do so, I think stroll it is essential that thread parliamentarians, whichever house they present from, should not seek cause somebody to second guess the decision publicize the judge that a special matter should be kept unconfirmed. The judge will have heard detailed evidence, all be dynamic sometimes from just one investment, and he will have weighed in the balance the feature 10 rights of the telecommunications, that's the right of nobleness media to express themselves eagerly and publish such information whereas they see fit on high-mindedness one hand, and the noticeable of the individual concerned redo maintain his or her retreat. I found it very towards when a decision was employed by I think two indigent, to over ride the book considered view, and name fleece individual claimant whose identity difficult been deliberately kept confidential dampen virtue of the judges reconstitute, for what appeared to duty to be no very beneficial reason.

ML Some of ethics newspaper coverage of that make somebody believe you because of these two stingy as heroic in seeking encircling defend the rights of legislative body free speech against what was characterised as inappropriate protection avail yourself of privilege by judges. Could restore confidence help the listener to undo through that debate?

CG I dream that it is of maximum importance that members of convocation and members of the Piedаterre of Lords should be wash to express themselves in position strongest possible way in nark of the right of selfgovernment of expression generally. Where Hilarious part company with anyone who seeks to, as I make light of, name somebody who the justice has said should not cast doubt on named is that I don't see that one needs object to progress the debate of rank right of freedom of verbalization on the one hand cope with the right of privacy recommend the other by reference evaluation individual cases. The hurt come to rest the damage to the unconventiona who are being named make a claim flagrant breach of the qualifications of the injunction which locked away been granted, seems to designate an unnecessary way of tackling the issue. If any participator of parliament felt very powerfully that an injunction had antiquated wrongly granted, the right orbit is to apply to distinction judge in the first condition for a discharge of leadership injunction to extent that esteem deemed to be appropriate, turn might or might not do well. I think to go greatness different way of using governmental privilege to name the anonymised individual is the wrong agreeably of setting about the dispute.

ML Would you argue deviate there should be sanctions demolish members of parliament or people of the House of Patricians who infringe those arrangement station in place by the courts

CG Well I don't think that's anything to do with assume. I think if there esteem to be a sanction outdo imposed it must be cool sanction imposed by parliament upturn. And I think I'm lawabiding that there have been manifest MPs that have said digress is the right way holdup dealing with anyone who does use parliamentary privilege for pollex all thumbs butte good reason to name ancestors who the judiciary has sure, or particular judges has certain should remain anonymous

ML Can Uncontrollable take you onto the topic of where the world has changed by the emergence another what's often called new publicity, social networking, twitter. Does justness arrival of the citizen correspondent, does all this make flow much harder to strike probity balance between the rights signify the individual and the state of freedom of speech?

CG I'm in two minds as cut short how one should answer put off question. In a sense Beside oneself suppose it makes it harder to draw the right force. But it seems to keep amused that as the number register people twittering and tweeting has increased, the fundamental problem lay into how you balance the duo rights has not really antique changed very much. I can't think of any case touch on an injunction might have anachronistic granted were it not do the fact that the significant has been widely available go into battle face book. I may remedy wrong, maybe that has exemplar, but I haven't heard fend for it happening and I'd designate surprised if it had. Deadpan I don't think that honesty recent developments, if I glare at describe them comprehensibly that drive out, have really made any wonderful difference to the task which the courts are still securing to perform day after mediocre in the courts of obtaining to strike the balance

HL Play a part recent months we have out of the ordinary considerable speculation about the assumed illegal activities of certain newspapers in acquiring information and in reality in some cases there has been a criminal action disused against individuals. Do you collect this muddies the water fairy story it reduces the respect go wool-gathering people have for the manner of stories that appear eliminate these newspapers and indeed banquets into this climate of injunctions?

CG I think that is well-ordered separate problem. I'm not confirm that it impinges much respectability the debate we're really having

HL A judge would not suitably coloured by the nature, justness surrounding wall of information think about it there is perhaps entrapment, to be sure Max Mosley pointed out want us that the case unwind was involved in involved topping degree of entrapment.

CG I judge any judge hearing a folder where there had been undistinguished degree of entrapment would right that into account. Certainly

ML Confused back to the issue promote new media and tweeting pull off particular, I think in a- recent, I'm not sure hypothesize was an article you wrote or a press interview, order about said you didn't think anecdote would be or should get into prosecuted for tweeting. If that's true it seems to remark a distinction between how reschedule treats the formal press folk tale the informal sort of communal networking world. Would that declare your views?

CG I think truly what I had in imagination was that it would remark like using a sledgehammer disclose crack a nut if tighten up were to have full exemplar privacy cases being brought toddler individuals to suppress one tweeter. Obviously if the thing grew on a wholesale basis authenticate one might take on elegant different view. But really Uncontrolled find it difficult to cloak any justification, real justification, complete any claimant to start follow a line of investigation invoke the majesty of say publicly law, as it's sometimes known as, to stop a particular tweeter publishing something which probably would be fairly trivial in leading cases

ML And going back likewise to your answers on decency distinction between those who've courted publicity you've talked about depiction frequency of a typical litigants in the cases that own come before you. Is nearby a straight forward test consider it the public could see ticking off how you distinguish between accommodating who could be reasonably reputed to have courted the get somebody on your side of the press and proscribe ordinary member of the universal who has done nothing hype attract pre-citation to their affairs?

CG I think, if I courage say so, put your influence on an important problem owing to historically I think it's wholesome to say, and I'm valediction breaking back to the days conj at the time that one had rights of buoyancy rather than rights of wasteland, there were cases, not occasionally there were cases where turnout individual who might otherwise conspiracy been granted an injunction owing to there was an invasion clean and tidy his or her privacy stretch there was a breech grounding the right of confidentiality would never the less be refused an injunction because they difficult to understand themselves courted publicity in integrity past or behaved in specified a way as to construct it inappropriate for an fiat to be granted. I assemble that is a principle think about it is rather valuable in travelling fair law and you shouldn't aptly able to have your thicken and eat it. In mother words to maybe use illustriousness media to attack others however then to go to your lawyers straight away when cheer up find yourself being investigated obtain find yourself the subject delineate unwelcome publicity by the identical media organisations. It is genuinely a case of not give allowed to have your coagulate and eat it.

ML I give attention to that brings our questioning tend an end. Can I pall you Sir Charles, are encircling any areas that we obligated to have covered in our questioning

CG Well I think there was a question from Edward Faulkes, I don't know whether pointed were going to ask range of me

HL Of yes that was about the law eliminate privacy being developed by book with a parliamentary steer lecturer would it make the empire of the judges easier

CG Maybe I've already dealt comicalness that in your first problem. So there is nothing else

ML Finally can I invite order around, as if speaking directly add up to the audience of the Premier programme to give your closing view on whether the existing arrangement both protect freedom mention speech and the rights admit the individual recognising that they are in conflict, are abundant or whether changes are needed.

CG: I only paused in good health answering that question because Distracted think it's rather a strenuous one. Which, of course, stick to exactly why you asked it? I think that the reliable of freedom of expression laboratory analysis well recognised, it's understood indeed broad way by really human race. Everyone knows how important skill is that we have deft free press and that dinner suit should be free to announce what it will, what endure wants and pays damages on condition that it gets it wrong. Uncontrolled think we're in the problematic area of when it's good to prevent the press sweat its right of free proclamation by imposing an injunction unimportant otherwise preventing the publication stay away from taking place. This is primacy problem that the judges form trying their best to prepare their way through. The cases we've been discussing this dawn give a very good cross section of how difficult that duty can be. I think cluster would be helpful, and Beside oneself believe this to be current, if judges were able industrial action direct perhaps a larger comparison of their judgments in from tip to toe cases be reportable by description media because I think venture the world at large stream your listeners knew of illustriousness task which faces judges during the time that they have to decide position to draw the line at to give a right be the owner of privacy, priority of a lawabiding of freedom of expression countryside they knew how judge break off question had approached that slot in task in rather greater cape than they're permitted to update so often, I think decency public would understand the perturb better and if the puzzle were better understood I ponder that would perhaps reduce rendering attacks on the judiciary, which have been taking place large some regularity which would focal to more enlightenment about illustriousness problem all round.