In considering its decision on the PJS case, the Supreme Court is likely to be mindful of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which provides that “everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy…” (emphasis added).

The European Court of Human Rights looked closely at whether the United Kingdom had “measures in place to ensure protection of Article 8 rights” in 2011 in Mosley v the United Kingdom.

At that time it declined to find that anything was rotten in the state of the UK after what can only be described as intense and relentless media lobbying. We have a system of self regulation by the press, it said; the ability to commence civil proceedings in respect of a breach of our rights; the right to seek an interim injunction preventing publication if we are aware of a pending publication relating to our private life and the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA").

A key question is whether each of these would stand up to rigorous scrutiny in 2016? New data protection legislation coming out of Europe - far more powerful than the DPA - will give individuals far greater rights over their information in 2018 but there are many who have grave doubts about whether this quartet of domestic remedies is giving individuals what they need today.