But Mr Justice Wall said while he had “considerable sympathy” for both women the laws governing IVF treatment were clear.The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act says that, unless both parties consent to storage and use, the embryos must be destroyed.Mr Justice Wall said that if the law were to be changed then it was a job for Parliament and not the courts. They lived together until last year when he ended the relationship.She claims that Mr Johnston led her to believe that he would never stop her using the embryos as he knew how important having a child was to her.Lorraine Hadley, of Sandwell, West Midlands, was married to Wayne until he left her for another woman in 2000. When they separated, Mr Hadley agreed the embryos should remain in storage but later changed his mind.Lawyers argued that the women’s rights to use the embryos overrode those of their partners. The rights of men to demand the destruction of frozen embryos after a relationship has broken down were upheld by the High Court yesterday in a landmark judgment.
Mr Justice Wall ruled that two women who underwent IVF treatment with their partners must respect the men’s wishes to withdraw consent to use the embryos.Natallie Evans, 31, and Lorraine Hadley, 38, were in court yesterday to hear the judge reject their arguments to allow them to continue with the treatment even though it was Ms Evans’s last chance to have natural children of her own.Ms Evans, from Trowbridge, Wiltshire, who had her ovaries removed after they were found to contain pre-cancerous cells, met her former partner, Howard Johnston, in 1999.

He said: “No longer do members of the public wait for information to be published or broadcast; they are actively seeking it, which is leading to the spread of e-mails, texts, and scurrilous websites.”. Mark Stephens, a solicitor who has represented many celebrity clients, believes there should be new laws to prevent people being named on the internet before police action is taken. Rape case England soccer star tries to stop Daily Express naming him”.Several of the footballers accused of being involved, whose identity is known by journalists, have been approached by the media Even the mother of the England footballer was approached. The media is bound by the defamation laws and the Contempt of Court Act, intended to prevent prejudicial information being made public.But as in the cases of the television presenter John Leslie, who was eventually identified as the unnamed alleged rapist in Ulrika Jonsson’s autobiography, the threat of legal action is often of little deterrence.

Mr Leslie, who was sacked as a presenter of ITV’s This Morning was never charged for the alleged rape He always denied the offence. The first serious step towards identifying the players came yesterday when the Daily Sport named the club, under the headline “Premiership Sex Scandal”, at the centre of the allegations. The names of players suspected of being involved have also been posted on football websites and chatrooms. None of the accused men has been named in the press, but lawyers believe that is only a matter of time. On Tuesday, the Daily Express stopped short of identifying one. Instead it ran a front- page story under the headline “Gagged.