Stephen Pollard

of all is in a free press.” We pride ourselves on our democracy and our freedom. But what kind of freedom is it when someone is able to use their vast wealth to prevent newspapers (and the rest of the media) from reporting information that the public has a right to know?

Sir Philip is far from the first wealthy public figure who has tried to use that wealth to stop the press from reporting such information. Fred Goodwin, the now-disgraced former head of Royal Bank of Scotland, succeeded in banning publication of a story about an alleged relationship with a colleague. The ban was lifted only when an MP disclosed its existence parliamentary privilege.

There are any number of celebrities who want to keep their indiscretions quiet – such as Ryan Giggs, who used an injunction until he also was named in parliament.

Other injunctions remain in place – so I cannot tell you about the married celebrity who allegedly had a three-way sexual encounter in 2011, or the married actor who allegedly had a series of encounters with an escort in 2010. The key issue here is, of course, whether we have a right to know.

If Mrs Jones down the road – a private citizen who has never sought the limelight and never using used fame and reputation to her advantage – is having an affair with her neighbour, that is clearly none of our business.

But if footballers or actors have traded on their fame, have used their names and reputations to build careers and fortunes, then we do have a right to know if they are hypocrites. And if a politician or business person has behaved in a reprehensible way, we need to know.

You might argue that this is all irrelevant. The rise of social media has led to such names leaking – and parliamentary privilege did ensure that Sir Philip’s attempt to keep his name out of the media failed.

BUT these are just a tiny number of cases. There are many injunctions that are still in use that prevent anyone reporting on, for example, allegations about the behaviour of some well-known companies.

In the case of Sir Philip Green, the issue is that the alleged victims of his racial and sexual abuse signed NonDisclosure Agreements. The Court of Appeal held that their agreement to the NDAs superseded any right for the rest of us to know about his alleged behaviour. But none of the rest of us signed an NDA. The Daily Telegraph signed no NDA. No one else was party to Sir Philip’s alleged attempts to cover up their stories.

And it is surely a possibility that the people who did sign NDAs felt they had no choice, given their relative status, wealth and power. In other words, the Court of Appeal sided with the wealthy and powerful over the needs of a free press – and thus over democracy itself.

But while NDAs are the issue in this instance, the greater threat to press freedom comes from Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to privacy – but which is now used in thousands of cases to muzzle reporting.

As an editor myself, a large part of my time is spent dealing with legal letters attempting to prevent publication of a story on the grounds of privacy.

The balance is now completely wrong. The law should protect the weak against the powerful. As it now stands, by muzzling the press the law protects the powerful against the weak. That is an outrage.

‘Other injunctions remain in place’