In a bit of professional solidarity, four leading QCs have stepped in to defend Justice Eady following the attack by Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail, over the judge’s ’singlehanded’ creation of a privacy law. In a letter to The Times , the QCs reject claims that Mr Justice Eady is on a one-man mission to introduce a privacy law by the backdoor. The judge will no doubt be relieved to have some heavy hitting lawyers fighting his corner as he is unable to respond publicly to the criticisms himself.

The letter is understood to have been signed by Desmond Browne, QC (chairman-elect of the Bar Council), Adrienne Page, QC, Andrew Caldecott, QC, and Richard Rampton, QC.

In an attack which is being seen by many as a case of sour grapes by the papers over recent cases, Mr Dacre said that Justice Eady’s “arrogant and amoral” judgments were “inexorably and insidiously” imposing a privacy law on British newspapers and, in a statement that smacks of twisting the facts, Dacre stated that the judge had “effectively ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the multi-millionaire head of a multibillion-sport followed by countless young people to pay five women £2,500 to take part in acts of unimaginable sexual depravity.

Is that right Paul? Well if you really want to argue the toss with lawyers over interpretation of the law…

Dacre continued, “Most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard. Not Justice Eady. To him such behaviour was merely ‘unconventional’.”

However, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the architects of the Human Rights Act 1998, said: “The judge is unquestionably applying the law as it comes from Parliament, as interpreted by the senior courts, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

“Do we want things that are legitimately private to be made public? I don’t think we do.”

Lord Pannick added: “I am sure that he will continue to do so without fear of ill-informed comments by newspaper editors who favour journalists being immune from the right to privacy protected by that Act.”

Ouch.

Ronald Thwaites, QC, a media silk, said: “As usual, with certain organs of the press, they hand-pick the facts that suit them, select a convenient hate-figure and attach to him all their woes about the privacy law.”

He added: "But it’s a pity that Paul Dacre couldn’t get his facts right before making a personal attack on judge who is not permitted to defend himself. Mr Justice Eady has not had ‘a virtual monopoly’ on privacy cases and was not, for example involved in three of the main cases that contributed to the development of the privacy law, namely, Naomi Campbell, JK Rowling’s child or the Prince of Wales.”

Never, an editor of a high quality paper getting their facts wrong…

Got a story? Contact team solicitr