Always difficult summing up years of legal wrangling in a few paragraphs. Whatever they say, the press normally gets the whole thing wrong and ignore jurisprudence for the sake of a sensational story. I've lost track of the number of times we're told by the newspapers that this or that judge is 'out of touch' etc., but if you look at the case in detail you'll find the judge is very much in touch. They may not hand down the popular judgement, but they are as confined by the law as you and I.
How many times have you read something in the 'Mail' that you actually have first-hand knowledge of, and said to yourself, "They've got that wrong."? Well, imagine that happening with every story they publish and you'll be pretty close to reality.
I'm sure if we looked at this case in greater detail we'll find it's not nearly as clear cut as it appears here. If it was it would have gone away as soon as the suit was filed.
