Analysis: Eady verdict good for the press

And while the verdict - nearly 30,000 words long - convincingly makes the case in favour of Mosley, it would be wrong to see the judgement as detrimental to the freedom of the British press.

In fact, upon close read, it becomes quite clear that Justice Eady's verdict completely advocates the freedom of newspapers - he's just not supportive of bad ones.

Put simply: the verdict rips to shreds the News of the World's primary story, that Max Mosley - son of WWII fascist leader Oswald Mosley, and president of one of the most powerful bodies in the world, the FIA - had arranged and was engaged in a Nazi-style orgy.

That was the crux of the News of the World's story - and Justice Eady makes it clear that, as far as he is concerned, were that story true, there would be reason for such an intrusion of privacy, and in all likelihood Mosley would not have won his case against the newspaper.

"The principal argument on public interest related to the Nazi theme," Eady writes. "I have come to the conclusion (although others might disagree) that if it really were the case, as the newspaper alleged, that [Mosley] had for entertainment and sexual gratification been 'mocking the humiliating way the Jews were treated', or 'parodying Holocaust horrors', there could be a public interest in that being revealed at least to those in the FIA to whom he is accountable.

"He has to deal with many people of all races and religions, and has spoken out against racism in the sport. If he really were behaving in the way I have just described, that would, for many people, call seriously into question his suitability for his FIA role. It would be information which people arguably should have the opportunity to know and evaluate.

"[...] On the other hand, since I have concluded that there was no such mocking behaviour and not even, on the material I have viewed, any evidence of imitating, adopting or approving Nazi behaviour, I am unable to identify any legitimate public interest to justify either the intrusion of secret filming or the subsequent publication."

Justice Eady therefore makes it clear that News of the World simply had no story. Worse still, whatever the newspaper published, was unsubstantiated and unreliable.

Eady is highly critical of the newspaper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, who - it emerges from the verdict - changed his version of the events all too often while on the stand, tried to blackmail some of the girls involved in the story, had absolutely no written notes or recordings of his investigative work prior to publication - and in general, comes off this case appearing at best to be irresponsible.

"The real problem, so far as Mr Thurlbeck is concerned," Justice Eady writes, concluding his analysis of the reporter's behaviour, "is that these inconsistencies demonstrate that [Thurlbeck's] 'best recollection' is so erratic and changeable that it would not be safe to place unqualified reliance on his evidence as to what took place..."

That being the case, why would it be in the public interest to allow such journalism to be free?

After the verdict was handed out yesterday, the News of the World's editor Colin Myler stated that "Unfortunately our press is less free today."

But the truth is, it's never been given a clearer pass to freedom.

Had the 'Nazi' story been accurate, says Justice Eady, the newspaper and its reporter would have been justified in publishing their story - and in declaring so, Justice Eady provides the press more freedom to invade a public figure's privacy than was ever explicitly given before.

In that respect, the press need not worry about its freedom - it simply needs to be more accurate.