The reasoning behind Eady's refusal to allow an injunction preventing the publication of police blogger Nightjack's identity was (paraphrased): "He might not have been a real police officer, so we had a right to know and if he was breaching the disciplinary code he should be stopped." Which he was so we didn't and he wasn't and shouldn't have been.
In the recent cases of hyper-injunctions protecting celebrities from "naming and shaming", however, Mr Justice Eady appears to take a different view. Apparently publishing stories about celebrities and their sexual misdemeanours might upset their families, and therefore in this case the media is the bad guy.
The cases aren't the same: on the one hand you have a police officer serving his country, getting on with his job, whilst at the same time doing a wider public service by exposing hypocrisy and waste in the system. Both of which could have been effectively stopped by Eady's ruling. On the other hand, you have someone prancing around on television pretending to be something they're not, while the victims of their antics are forbidden from talking about it. Any commonsense member of the public could make a fair distinction between the two, surely.
Conveniently, both of Eady's rulings would appear to protect certain people in certain situations. For example, should a High Court judge happen to start a scandalous affair in private whilst publicly contributing to an inefficient, wasteful and hypocritical legal system, he could both seek a hyper-injunction to protect himself in both arenas, whilst refusing one for any person seeking to expose him.
Interesting. Oh, er, and purely hypothetical, of course.
Still... anyone at the News of the World got the number for Mr Justice Eady's answerphone?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.