Hemming welcomes Andrew Marr's turn away from the dark side
John Hemming MP has welcomed Andrew Marr's decision to let his injunction lapse. "Those people who live by the sword", he said
"should be prepared to die by the sword."
"I am pleased that he has shown his commitment to freedom of speech by turning from the dark side of gagging orders."
"I hope that other people who have obtained injunctions will recognise the error of their ways and let the injunctions lapse."
John Hemming MP has welcomed Andrew Marr's decision to let his injunction lapse. "Those people who live by the sword", he said
"should be prepared to die by the sword."
"I am pleased that he has shown his commitment to freedom of speech by turning from the dark side of gagging orders."
"I hope that other people who have obtained injunctions will recognise the error of their ways and let the injunctions lapse."
Comments
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Marr said he felt "uneasy" about the High Court injunction, which he won in January 2008 to suppress reports of an extra-marital affair.
He told the newspaper: "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists. Am I embarrassed by it? Yes. Am I uneasy about it? Yes." But he added: "I also had my own family to think about, and I believed this story was nobody else's business. I still believe there was, under those circumstances, no public interest in it."
But Mr Marr added that the use of injunctions seemed to be "running out of control". He said: "There is a case for privacy in a limited number of difficult situations, but then you have to move on. They shouldn't be forever and a proper sense of proportion is required."
His comments come amid a growing disquiet at the use by celebrities of injunctions and so-called super-injunctions to prevent media reporting of their private lives.
Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges are creating a new law of privacy "rather than Parliament".
Mr Cameron said: "The judges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening."
Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, said he had challenged the injunction last week. He said: "In a sense he led the pack because he was the most respectable of the people putting super-injunctions in. But the principle remains wrong, which he knows, articulated once and should still believe."
Mr Hislop said he thought the super-injunction had been "a touch hypocritical" because Mr Marr had written an article saying that Parliament - not judges - should determine privacy law.
He added: " As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist. I think he knows that and I'm very pleased he's come forward and said 'I can no longer do this'."