Sir – While the actions and peccadilloes of philandering football players can hardly be claimed to be in the public interest, I am nonetheless deeply concerned about the growing use of superinjunctions.

I suspect the protestations of tabloid editors are not born from altruism; after all, sleaze sells newspapers. However, as the Trafigura scandal has shown, superinjunctions can be used for darker purposes. They have been used to suppress the reporting of stories which are obviously in the public interest, to instead protect the interests of wealthy individuals or organisations.

British justice is supposed to be open and blind. Superinjunctions being secretive and prohibitively expensive are neither. The balance between privacy and free speech is indeed a delicate task, but the freedom of expression is so fundamental to an open and democratic society that it must always take precedence. It seems that the judiciary are passing laws which do not carry the consent of either Parliament or the public, and furthermore, with the internet they are unenforceable. The judges are treading a dangerous path with their glib interpretation of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. They are challenging the constitution, holding wealth and privilege above freedom of speech and making our legal system an international joke.

Antony McIver, Worcester