Journalism in Crisis 09: Kelvin MacKenzie on Eady's 'one-man' privacy campaign
Nick Davies and MacKenzie joined lawyers on a lively panel at the Journalism in Crisis event
– 2 min read
This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!
Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of the Sun, attacked Mr Justice Eady's 'one-man' campaign to protect privacy during a panel session at a media conference at Westminster University .
Speaking at the two-day Journalism in Crisis event, MacKenzie criticised an earlier 'ridiculous injunction' ruled by Mr Justice Eady that prohibited the reporting of the sexual activities of an unnamed footballer.
According to MacKenzie (who discussed the case without disclosing names or dates) a newspaper wanted to publish details of the footballer's infidelities. The footballer, MacKenzie said, was due to be married and had sold the coverage of his wedding to a celebrity magazine.
An injunction was placed. Had 'the young man learned his lesson'? MacKenzie asked:
"No, just a few months after the marriage he had yet another one-night stand and another newspaper wanted to publish the goings-on," Mackenzie said. Again, there was the threat of court action, so the newspaper did not publish.
"The only person who doesn't know is the bride to be," MacKenzie said. "Is ignorance bliss, or is ignorance dangerous?"
But, in the debate afterwards, Jonathan Coad from Swan Turton solicitors argued that MacKenzie was missing the point. It was about 'collateral damage' he said.
"The issue is not really whether she finds out," Coad said, adding that, in his view, it is about 'third parties' and the impact caused by three million people reading the story.
MacKenzie continued his argument against Eady's rulings on privacy by questioning Eady's own personal history.
"Since Eady is fighting a one-man campaign I am rather interested in his private life."
Normally one would assume 'that the judge is neither a murderer nor a bank robber', he said.
"In civil cases, and especially when new law is involved, since it is often dealing with sexual matters, I can't be sure.
"Somebody's sexual proclivities are unlikely to debated openly, except unless you are a judge.
"I ask these questions: I don't make the allegations because clearly I don't know. I think Mr Eady should tell us: have you been involved in sadomasochism? (...) Are you involved in a wife swapping ring in the Cotswolds?
"These are issues which matter particularly for somebody who is setting up new [privacy] law which seems to be aimed at the sexual secrets of others.
"So, I don't know what his answers are going to be (...) but I think we should be told, don't you?"
When panel chair Robin Lustig asked if MacKenzie had ever considered the question of 'harm' for the subjects of stories during his years at a newspaper. 'No,' he answered.
MacKenzie also criticised the handling of the Max Mosley case during the debate: "They [the court] tried to make it sound like a walk in the park with a nun who turned out to be a fella," he said.
He later added that fellow panelist Nick Davies, who had argued to protect the privacy of individuals, was living in a 'different world' with different 'interests'.
