The Andrew Marr Show

Andrew Marr has admitted to having obtained, in 2008, a 'super-injunction' regarding an affair with a fellow journalist.

A super-injunction means that not only the name of the journalist but even the existence of the injunction may not be disclosed. The potential penalties for breaching these terms can include imprisonment.

After being pursued by Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye, Mr Marr admitted to having secured his 'gagging order'.

Some argue that Mr Marr, as a journalist, should not be stifling those who work in his chosen trade — should he not be standing up for free speech and against the ability of a wealthy minority to secure a level of privacy that is not available to the majority?

Others say that his injunction was justified — did it not shelter his family from a gawping public at a time when they needed space to sort out their problems?

A bigger question still, relates to the way in which the applications for these injunctions are determined. They are granted by High Court judges and decided with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR'). The two most relevant sections are Article 8 which addresses the right to privacy and Article 10 which addresses freedom of expression.

It is the push and pull between these competing rights that drive the arguments upon which the judges determine whether an injunction should be granted.

I fully accept that judges should determine each individual case but my view is that it should be our Parliament that determines the terms of reference upon which they make their decisions – and that means our own British Bill of Rights. The Government has set up a commission to consider giving us just this and I will be following their deliberations with great interest.