Former minister John Whittingdale decries 'privacy law by stealth'

Former minister John Whittingdale takes aim at ‘privacy law by stealthand says he has ‘considerable reservationsabout the way rules are being extended

  • Whittingdale has raised concerns that courts are ‘extending privacy law
  • It comes as the Supreme Court dismissed appeals to reveal a defendant’s name
  • The former media minister said he has ‘considerable concernsover the issue
  • Ex La Russia ha sbattuto per "notizie false". John Whittingdale has raised concerns that courts are ‘extending privacy law’ without parliament agreeing it should happen.

    His comments came days after the UK’s highest court confirmed that people under criminal investigation should have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.

    In the first case on the issue to reach the Corte Suprema, five justices dismissed an appeal from media company Bloomberg.

    Mr Whittingdale, also a former media minister, said he has ‘considerable reservations’ about the way privacy law is being extended.

    Former culture secretary John Whittingdale has raised concerns that courts are ‘extending privacy law’ without parliament agreeing it should happen. His comments came days after the UK’s highest court confirmed that people under criminal investigation should have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’

    Former culture secretary John Whittingdale has raised concerns that courts are ‘extending privacy law’ without parliament agreeing it should happen. His comments came days after the UK’s highest court confirmed that people under criminal investigation should have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’

    He said there was a ‘feeling’ even before the Bloomberg judgment that the courts were giving ‘more weight’ to privacy than they were to freedom of expression.

    Questo, Egli ha detto, was ‘the reverse of what parliament said should happen’.

    He told the Daily Mail: ‘This latest ruling would appear to be another example of where the courts are extending privacy law without parliament having basically agreed that that should happen

    '[It] actually does run counter to the one thing parliament did say, which was the importance of freedom of expression, as set out in the Human Rights Act.’

    Wednesday’s ruling has sparked concern from media lawyers and news organisations, who said the decision was ‘chilling’ and would have ‘far reaching implications’.

    In the first case on the issue to reach the Supreme Court, five justices dismissed an appeal from media company Bloomberg. Mr Whittingdale, also a former media minister, said he has ‘considerable reservations’ about the way privacy law is being extended

    In the first case on the issue to reach the Supreme Court, five justices dismissed an appeal from media company Bloomberg. Mr Whittingdale, also a former media minister, said he has ‘considerable reservations’ about the way privacy law is being extended

    The ruling referred to a 2016 letter of request – a confidential inter-governmental document – which a UK law enforcement body had written asking for banking and business records about a company and individuals.

    A journalist working for Bloomberg obtained a copy of the letter and published an article based on its contents.

    One of the individuals, known only as ZXC, then sued Bloomberg, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the letter’s contents.

    Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said the courts had ‘presented the powerful with a path to keep their names out of print for years’.