Super-injunctions and other anonymised injunctions "can only be granted when they are strictly necessary" and cannot be granted so as to become, in practice, permanent, according to a report by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.
Where super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions are granted they should be kept under review by the court, the report said.
It has also recommended the media should be informed in advance about applications for injunctions and so-called super-injunctions.
Lord Neuberger's report said super-injunctions were now being granted for "short periods" and only where "secrecy is necessary".
The Telegraph notes: "There is no mention in the report of the impact of Twitter or the internet on the enforcement of court orders, but the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, said readers placed greater trust in the content of traditional media than those "who peddle lies" on websites.
Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology, in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police.
"Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked.
The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court.
Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology, in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police.
"Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked.
The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court.
Downing Street said the government would consider the report carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment