At the heart of the first high court ruling on the “right to be forgotten” principle in England and Wales is a battle between the right to privacy and the right to know.

The cases focus on two businessmen, convicted of offences more than a decade ago, whose criminal backgrounds are the subject of articles online.

They wanted Google to take down links to those articles over what was essentially an issue of privacy. They argued that the information within the stories is no longer relevant, causes distress and goes up against the principles of rehabilitation laws.

Google is arguing over the issue of the public’s right to know. It says the men are attempting to rewrite history and removing access to important information about their “serious” offending.

Ben Rose, co-founder and partner at Hickman & Rose, sums it up: “There is an inherent tension between an individual’s right to privacy and what information the public interest requires be available. One of the many arenas in which this issue plays out is in access to information about someone’s previous criminal convictions.

“The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 sought to strike a balance on this thorny topic. That held good until the internet and Google’s powerful search engine rather undid matters. The right to be forgotten litigation requires the courts to once again consider where that balance lies, a question which has implications for us all.”

The “right to be forgotten” principle was given a considerable lift by a 2014 ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) – the highest court of the EU.

The ruling escalated from a legal battle launched by a Spanish citizen, Mario Costeja González, who wanted search results to a 1998 newspaper article which detailed that some of his property had been sold to pay debts. The ECJ ultimately ruled in González’s favour – but with some conditions attached.

The ECJ specified that search engines operating in Europe must find a balance between offering information in the public interest and protecting people’s rights to privacy and protection of personal data.

The ruling – in language that has been subject to great criticism for its obscurity – suggests links should be taken down when the information or articles to which they lead appears “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”.

In a key paragraph of the ruling, it effectively states that privacy outranks “the economic rights of the operator of the search engine, but also the interest of the general public in finding that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name”.

However, it does add that a “preponderant interest of the general public” in accessing the information could trump the privacy rights in certain cases and cites “the role played by the data subject in public life”.

Writing for the Conversation, George Brock, professor of journalism at City University of London, said the ruling was vague and opaque.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person. Spent convictions are rather different. The people’s right to rehabilitation is an important one.”

When an agreement cannot be reached, the ECJ ruling said the matter can be taken to a local judge or regulator.