This decision was handed down in the European Court of Human Rights on 8 April 2025 on an application made by Philip Nigel Ross Green (the “Applicant”) against the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (the “Respondent”). The case concerned whether States have a duty to take measures to prevent parliamentary privilege being used to circumvent a court injunction. The Applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the “Convention”).
In 2018, the Applicant sought an injunction to prevent the Telegraph from publishing material disclosed to it relating to employee allegations of sexual harassment and bullying against the Applicant. The Court of Appeal granted the injunction on the grounds that publication would cause immediate and potentially irreversible harm to the Applicant.
A few months after the injunction was granted, a member of the House of Lords, Lord Hain, took to the floor after a parliamentary debate and named the Applicant and outlined the allegations. Lord Hain claimed he had been exercising his parliamentary privilege, and that it was his duty to name the Applicant given the injunction preventing the media from doing so. His comments were subsequently reported by the media and the orders of anonymity became pointless.
While the Court found that there had been an interference with the Applicant’s respect for private life under Article 8, the question in this case was whether Article 8 required the implementation of controls to prevent members of Parliament from revealing information subject to privacy injunctions. The Court held that, for the time being, it should be left to the Respondent State, and the Parliament in particular, to determine whether and to what extent controls might be necessary to prevent its members from revealing information subject to privacy injunctions.
However, given the serious impact that the disclosure of such information might have on the privacy of individuals concerned, not to mention the implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers within the UK constitution of parliamentarians usurping the role of judges, the Court considered that the need for appropriate controls had to be kept under regular review at the domestic level.
The Court therefore determined that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Click here to read the ECtHR judgment.