Judges’ speeches are not generally known for their racy content. But an address by Mr Justice Eady to the University of Hertfordshire last week seemed to contain more sex than an average night at one of the university’s halls of residence.

Eady was considering the right to privacy in relation to sexual activity. He cited a recent case in which a Blackburn Rovers footballer was the victim of a tabloid kiss and tell story having ‘spent some quality time with two young ladies’ when off the field. Eady then quoted from a second case in which a Court of Appeal judge suggested the right to privacy in such matters would depend on factors such as the degree of intimacy – for example, whether there was full sex – the nature of the relationship in which it took place, and the location. The judgment said: ‘Sexual relations within marriage at home would be at one end of the range or matrix of circumstances to be protected from most forms of disclosure; a one-night stand with a recent acquaintance in a hotel bedroom might very well be protected from press publicity. A transitory engagement in a brothel is yet further away.’

Eady quipped: ‘The mind did indeed begin to boggle at how such intricate jurisprudence was to be applied in practice – and particularly when a judge was confronted by an urgent application over the telephone. Where on the "scale or matrix" would the judge have to place a tent at Glastonbury or the back of a car which had run out of diesel deep in the New Forest? Since it was a relevant factor on this sliding scale to consider "the degree of intimacy" and the "location", would the law afford greater protection for a married couple in a Ford Fiesta than to a newly engaged pair in the back of a Range Rover? It seems that you might gain extra points for actually achieving what the judge called "full sexual intercourse", but have less protection from the law if a freelance photographer, panting through the forest, had managed to burst upon the scene before that stage was reached.’ Well, it certainly beats a discussion about statutory limitation clauses.