Judges rather than tweeters will continue to be the arbiters of what should and should not be published about people’s private lives, according to the Solicitor General.

While Edward Garnier, deputy to the Attorney General, acknowledges the recent super injunction row has highlighted problems, he believes the issue needs to be dealt with effectively by both Parliament and the judiciary, rather than simply being ignored in the hope it will go away.

And as a former media lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended newspapers in high profile defamation cases, Mr Garnier is perhaps better placed than most to offer an opinion worth listening to.

Backing announcements by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger and the Attorney General Dominic Grieve that a parliamentary committee will be set up to look into the issue, he also pointed out such confrontations between high profile individuals and the media are nothing new.

“It is not a new issue – there has always been a tension – the tension between people’s right to protect their reputation and to provide information and the democratic right to have the fullest freedom of expression and opinion,” said Mr Garnier during a visit to the Crown Prosecution Service’s Birmingham office.

“It has been there for years. You can look back to the libel cases of the 18th century – it’s the same issue but just described in different language.

“It has been put into particularly strong focus by what I call these footballer cases and I think we need to calmly work our way through it.

“The law of England and Wales is a constantly evolving organic creature which can reflect current states of opinion.

“But if an act of Parliament decides to create a statute then judges are going to be applying that and that is exactly what they have been doing with the Human Rights Act.”

But Mr Garnier admits there clearly are problems in the digital age where access to information transcends national boundaries in a way that poses an inevitable challenge and used the example of publishing any individual’s medical records to make his point.

“Medical records are confidential and if a newspaper tried to publish someone’s then they could get an injunction,” he said.

“But if that information falls into the hands of someone on Twitter or a blog in California judges have no jurisdiction.

“But there is a deeper philosophical question as to whether you and I have a right to protect our medical information.

“We have to work out how we deal with this – do we just say everybody has a right to access records or do we need protocols and agreements which recognise there is a public interest in protecting certain kinds of information?”

Looking at the recent high profile cases he also acknowledges their complexity.

“Clearly it’s difficult, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone to the Court of Appeal and the court is there to arbitrate when there is doubt. If one party is confident they wouldn’t lose there would be no litigation. Judges decide based on common law and also acts of Parliament.

“Judges have a duty to arbitrate, to work out where they think the balance lies and where justice needs to be found in terms of granting or not granting an injunction.”

While some might see the recent toing and froing to the Court of Appeal – with newspapers continuously tring to overturn them and lawyers for those taking out the injunctions trying to keep them in place – as slightly comical, Mr Garnier says it is actually a reflection of a fluid process that is constantly changing.