Who is hidden by the super injunction

This, I realise, was purely a reflection that there had been many more such injunctions reported in the media over the last few months, rather than there had suddenly been a surge in the numbers compared with what would normally be anyway. I am in no position to know whether there has been a sudden increase or not. I would much appreciate it, as I feel this is an issue which will run and run and will write about in future. Inforrm can be contacted by email inforrmeditorial gmail.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address.

Sign me up! The Privacy Perspective Blog, freelance writer. Inforrm's Blog. Search for:. Like this: Like Loading JTownend April 27, at am.

Morpork April 27, at pm. Leave a Reply Cancel reply. Contact the Inforrm Blog Inforrm can be contacted by email inforrmeditorial gmail. Email Subscription Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. None of that gets much of an outing in the popular media, but it is of the most central importance to the rule of law, and avoiding letting the mob run amok.

It seems to me that the Twitter fury, driven by what must be little more than blind faith in the claims of a Big Brother contestant, is entirely on the wrong track.

Members of that parliament appeared to take a dim view of such tactics, although in the media there was much less criticism, save for a leader in The Guardian which put it in measured and thoughtful terms, as follows:.

Who, even a week ago, could have predicted a constitutional crisis between parliament and courts provoked by a footballer who played away? The mere fact of publication on Twitter can't be an excuse for releasing the press from the internet's 'unfair' advantage To argue that the press must now be free to publish anything on Twitter places self-regulation itself in some peril. A period in the long grass may be a good idea to allow some sense of perspective to return to the debate. The UK tabloid at the centre of the whole controversy, The Sun , then applied to have the injunction dissolved on the footing that the secret was out.

It seems to me that sentiment must be right, for the reasons discussed in The Guardian editorial. As there is an injunction still in operation, I do not propose to repeat what John Hemming said. There will also be the spectacle in the near future where a professional journalist in the UK, Giles Coren, might just have their ticket punched by the court for breaching the terms of a similar but unrelated injunction.

Let not anyone assert that this is an intrusion upon the freedom of the press. If they do, it will be pure humbug. It is very dangerous, in my opinion, for such material to be circulated in this way by means of social media.

This is not Trafigura apparently trying to hide evidence of dumping of toxic waste. I do not like the power of the braying mob that this situation exposes. If this truly is a vision of the future, then god help us all.

We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn, and work. As the judgment itself notes in red bold type at the head of the report: Publication of any report as to the subject-matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to what is contained in this judgment and in the order of the court dated 21 April As the judge noted in the judgment: The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed although that is not how he put it himself.

As the judge went on to record: The Sun was ready to take advantage of these prearranged meetings in order to be able to put forward the claim that it was The Sun which had found him "romping with a busty Big Brother babe".

As the court noted: The majority of cases over the last few years, in which the courts have had to apply those principles, would appear to be of the so called "kiss and tell" variety and they not infrequently involve blackmailing threats. As the judgment noted: It has for several years been repeatedly claimed in media reports that courts are "introducing a law of privacy by the back door". Members of that parliament appeared to take a dim view of such tactics, although in the media there was much less criticism, save for a leader in The Guardian which put it in measured and thoughtful terms, as follows: Who, even a week ago, could have predicted a constitutional crisis between parliament and courts provoked by a footballer who played away?

Posted 26 May 26 May Thu 26 May at am. More on:. Top Stories Celebrity cosmetic surgeon's 'barbaric' attempt to fix a tummy tuck under local anaesthetic. Prime Minister says he does not believe he has told a lie in public life. Live: Victorians on alert for severe weather as heavy rain and high winds forecast to batter the state. Tasmania's electricity connector to mainland, Basslink, goes into administration.

A judge says construction company's punishment must send a message to other employers. Queen to attend Remembrance Day service, in first public appearance since hospitalisation.

Man caught crossing SA border by foot despite wearing camouflage clothing. Warning over teacher shortage at alternative and religious schools amid WA vaccine mandate.

Popular Now 1. Bloggers and users of twitters used their combined power to reveal the information in a mere 12 hours. The fallout from this was that there was a substantial outpouring from anger from MPs for trying to prevent parliamentary discussions being broadcast to the public.

At this point Trafigura gave up the ghost and informed The Guardian they were no longer restricted by the injunction.

Ultimately the order was rejected as the judge felt that the real motive of seeking to restrain the details was financial rather than personal. BBC political commentator and journalist Andrew Marr took out a super injunction in after an extra-marital affair to prevent the information being disclosed.

Initially an interim super injunction was granted which restrained publication of these private details as well as prohibiting any reports of the order to prevent the claimant having any intrusions into their private life. When the case returned to court the anonymity aspect of the injunction was maintained however the super injunction was not arguing that reporting was in the public interest and continuing to restrain this information may actually lead to the public making a more concerted effort to discovering the information.

The judge also stated that anonymity provisions were sufficient to protect the identity of the claimant. Initially, Hutcheson successfully had an interim super injunction granted restraining publication of the material. The two parties negotiated a compromise where they would voluntarily continue the effects of the injunction but the claim would cease to proceed.

News Group Newspapers Ltd. The judge ruled that as they had reached a compromise the interim injunction had not become final and had in fact ceased to be in effect which no longer bound third parties. The claimant then sought a second super injunction against News Group Newspapers Ltd pending the trial.

Having considered the balance of freedom of expression and a right to privacy, the judge rejected the injunction, leaving the newspaper free to publish the details once the appeal was heard which was ultimately rejected as he had engaged in a public spat with his business partner and chef Gordon Ramsay.

This case has been used to demonstrate that if you take a quarrel public, it becomes difficult to differentiate between public and private life and any media coverage would not adversely affect them so therefore injunctions cannot be applied. Perhaps the most infamous super injunction of them all. The case brought up many interesting points. Firstly that Giggs was a victim of the Streisand Effect whereby attempting to hide his identity only made Twitter users more intent on finding out the mystery footballer and therefore actually brought more exposure than had he done nothing.

Giggs may have attempted to bring action against Twitter and other media outlets in the United States however owing to their first amendment rights as well as Section of the Communications Decency Act making platforms immune from what their users post, it would likely have been futile.

Additionally as Giggs had not applied for an interdict the Scottish version of an injunction , the information was not restrained north of the border.