'Super-injunctions should not be permanent'

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.

Downing Street said the government would consider the report carefully.

FT: 'Footballer wants search order on journalists'

In a new twist in the saga of privacy injunctions, a footballer has asked the High Court for an order to search e-mails and text messages of journalists at the Sun and News of the World publisher News Group Newspapers, the Financial Times reports today.

The FT says the move is an unprecedented effort to see whether the journalists breached the terms of a so-called super-injunction concerning the footballer's alleged affair with a reality TV star.

The paper says: "The application, which the court has not yet ruled on, is likely to send a chill through media organisations at a time of intense debate over privacy law and the efficacy of super-injunctions."

Hugh Tomlinson QC, acting for the footballer who allegedly had an affair with Imogen Thomas, told the High Court that his disclosure application followed comments made by Sun columnist and former editor Kelvin MacKenzie on the BBC’s Today programme.

The FT reports: "MacKenzie had told the programme he was flooded by e-mails from readers asking who had secured injunctions against the newspaper. 'Sometimes I give [the names], sometimes I don’t.' he added.' He is there telling the world that he ... breaks court orders whenever he feels like it,' Mr Tomlinson told Mr Justice Eady."

MacKenzie later told the FT that all he was passing on was gossip not based on any knowledge of super-injunction applications. “It’s a matter of relaying journalistic gossip and nothing is going to stop me doing that,” he said.

Social media speculation puts pressure on judges to lift Sir Fred Goodwin's super-injunction

Judges are facing growing pressure to lift the super-injunction obtained by Sir Fred Goodwin amid speculation on the internet about the nature of the information he is trying to protect, claims the Daily Telegraph today.

The existence of the injunction was revealed under parliamentary priviledge on Thursday by John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, during a business debate in the House of Commons.

The Telegraph says: "The terms of the injunction are so strict that the Telegraph is prevented from disclosing any details, but social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook were rife with speculation about why the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive had taken out the injunction."

Padraig Reidy, of Index on Censorship, tells the Telegraph: “The laws on injunctions and super-injunctions are stuck in the past and really do not take into account the speed and the way people communicate on the internet today.

“It is nigh on impossible once something has broken on social networking sites to put the cat back in the bag. On the internet there is a real sense of a right to information.”

Hemming told Parliament that the super-injunction even prevented Sir Fred from being identified as a banker and asked: “Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?”

The Telegraph says in a leader comment today: "Sir Fred “the Shred” Goodwin, who presided over the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, retired on an annual pension of £342,000 and also received a lump sum of almost £3 million. We have no idea whether he used any of this cash for legal fees to obtain a secret super-injunction banning the publication of information about him. But if it did cost him a lot of money, he must be regretting it. For, although the court granted Sir Fred’s wish, this week a Liberal Democrat MP revealed in Parliament one of the things the injunction was supposed to conceal: the very fact of its existence.

"Given their extreme nature and the public controversy that they engender, super-injunctions do not seem to be particularly hard to obtain. Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe. It is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof.

"Fortunately, there is one thing that trumps the “human right” to silence a free press, and that is the legal privilege of MPs to say anything they like in Parliament, which dates back to the Civil War. Secret super-injunctions are, in theory, extremely powerful instruments – but, thanks to that ancient freedom, this particular one lies in shreds."

Take That star can be named says Appeal Court

The Court of Appeal today allowed the naming of Take That's Howard Donald who has obtained a super-injunction stopping publication of confidential information by a former girlfriend.

According to the Daily Mirror, Donald won the injunction in April after receiving a text message from musician Adakini Ntuli which said: "Why shud I continue 2 suffer financially 4 the sake of loyalty when selling my story will sort my life out?"

It says, before solicitors became involved, Ntul secured the services of publicist Max Clifford and entered into negotiations with the News of the World.

The order granted by Mr Justice Eady restrained her from doing specified but unpublishable things and prevented her and others from publishing the fact that the injunction has been obtained.

Today, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sedley dismissed Ntuli's appeal seeking the discharge of the injunction but allowed her appeal in relation to the super-injunction and anonymity issues.

Super-injunction imposed news blackout on Chandlers' kidnap ordeal by Somali pirates

The BBC has revealed that a 'super-injunction' imposed a news blackout on the media covering Paul and Rachel Chandler, the British couple who spent more than a year kidnapped by pirates in Somalia.

Jon Williams the BBC World news editor writes on the BBC Editors' blog: "Some months ago, the family of Paul and Rachel Chandler sought what is known as a "super-injunction", prohibiting the media from reporting any developments in their case.

"Lawyers for the family argued that speculation about their health, about any possible ransom and on the negotiations about their release might prolong their captivity. The injunction was designed to protect the safety of the Chandlers - and prevented us from referring even to its existence.

"Some other news organisations did not - which is why, for some hours, during the Chandlers' dangerous journey through Somalia to the safety of Kenya, the BBC stayed silent while pictures of the couple could be seen elsewhere.

"While it wasn't a comfortable position for us, or our audience, to be in, it was the law and a restriction put in place to try to ensure the safety of the Chandlers. Had we done otherwise, we would have been in contempt of court.

"At its simplest, journalism is about telling people things they don't know - so it's always difficult for us not to report a story. But sometimes there are good reasons. There is no public interest in breaking the law, simply to claim a scoop."

Mark Stone of Sky News has also blogged about the super-injunction.

He writes: "In June, a ransom was paid to those thought to be holding the couple [the Chandlers]. The expectation was that they would be released soon after but they weren't.

"At that point, with the advice of many hostage negotiation specialists including, no doubt, some working for the British Government, a decision was taken to seek a 'super-injunction' preventing all media outlets from mentioning the Chandlers or even the fact that the injunction existed.

"The injunction was granted and they were not mentioned in the newspapers or on the television until this morning - do a google search and you'll see the gap in coverage.The reason it was sought, granted and adhered to by the media is simple.

"A view was taken that to continue to show footage of them pleading for help and to publicise the fact that money (private, not government) was being raised sent a message to the pirates. It told them that hostage taking works: Britain was worried and willing to pay out in some form. The concern was that the pirates would simply ask for more and more.

"In short, mentioning the Chandlers existence was hampering significant behind-the-scenes efforts to free them."

Scottish Sunday paper defeats super-injunction bid

The Sunday Herald has claimed a victory for press freedom after defeating a legal move aimed at stopping it reporting a dispute at Strathclyde University, allmediascotland reports.

The Herald says that lawyers acting for the university sought a super-injunction against the paper but failed to convince the judge, Lord Pentland. The paper went on to report the dispute, alongside an article, headed: 'Sunday Herald beats off 'super-injunction' bid'. It said: “The super-injunction would not only have prevented the newspaper from reporting many of the facts surrounding the case, but it would have also banned us from reporting the gagging order itself.

“Legal bids of this nature have been controversial south of the border, where many media commentators and lawyers have expressed concern over what they see as attempts to impose a judge-made privacy law without recourse to Parliament.”

The Sunday Herald says that lawyers for Strathclyde University sought an interdict (the Scottish equivalent of an injunction) against it, despite the newspaper and the university agreeing the form of words on the dispute. “However, the university wanted to go further and sought a permanent undertaking that the Sunday Herald would not return to the story at some point in future without giving advance notice of its intention to do so."

The paper added: “The university also asked Lord Pentland at the Court of Session to prevent publication of any mention of the interdict itself. The judge dismissed the application for interdict and the attempt at a ‘super-injunction’ as unnecessary restrictions on responsible journalism.”

The paper's editor, Richard Walker, is quoted saying Lord Pentland’s decision was an ‘important victory’ for press freedom and a welcome departure from recent decisions in England, where super-injunctions are becoming more common.

Super-injunction granted over sex blackmail claim

A high-profile public figure has been granted a "super-injunction" to prevent publication of claims by a woman who was trying to blackmail him over his sex life, the Daily Telegraph reports today.

It says: "The man obtained a High Court ruling stating that his name and details of his alleged relationship with the woman should not be published, nor even the existence of the gagging order.

"A judge has now agreed that the fact of the injunction can be reported, as the risk of it being leaked onto the internet can never be eliminated, but ruled that the identities of those involved must remain secret.

"It can now be disclosed that the man sought the order because a woman had threatened to reveal her affair with him unless she was paid “very substantial sums.”

Telegraph on lifting of John Terry injunction: 'A step away from a privacy law via the back door'

The Daily Telegraph today welcomes yesterday's court ruling lifting the super-injunction which stopped the press reporting England football captain John Terry's affair.
It says in a leader: "The decision of the High Court yesterday to lift the injunction preventing newspapers identifying John Terry, the Chelsea and England captain, as the footballer alleged to have had an extramarital affair marks an important step away from the imposition by the back door of a privacy law on the British media. It follows the ruling of the Supreme Court this week that removed the blanket anonymity surrounding four suspected terrorists who had challenged a decision by HM Treasury to freeze their assets. The anonymity orders had been granted, as they usually are, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for a private life. Lord Rodger, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court, said there were powerful public interest rights that justified curtailing the right to anonymity. A similar decision has been taken in the Terry case.
"This is not about prurience or a desire to assuage a public appetite for tittle-tattle. There are bigger issues at stake. The courts have been increasingly using "super-injunctions" – catch-all measures that make the reporting of their existence unlawful, as in the Trafigura pollution case, when even a parliamentary question referring to the injunction could not be reported. If we have now seen the end of the super-injunction and a reassertion of the public interest, then it has been a good week for a free press."

Guardian names England captain John Terry as privacy super-injunction is overturned

The Guardian named England captain John Terry today as the footballer at the centre of  a privacy gagging order after a super-injunction preventing the publication of allegations about his private life was overturned today.
Lawyers for Terry succeeded in applying for a high court injunction on Friday last week, having learnt that a Sunday newspaper – believed to be the News of the World – planned to write about his private life.
The Guardian reports: "Under the terms of a super-injunction agreed by a high court judge on privacy grounds, newspaper groups were unable to reveal who had applied to stop the story coming out. But today the judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, lifted the injunction altogether.
"I do not consider that an interim injunction is necessary or proportionate having regard to the level of gravity of the interference with the private life of the applicant that would occur in the event that there is a publication of the fact of the relationship, or that [the applicant] can rely in this case on the interference with the private life of anyone else," he said.
Although the judge did not name Terry in his order, the Guardian says it can reveal that he was the player who made the application.
And while the injunction did not cite a specific paper, the judge said that the evidence named News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of the News of the World.
Apparently the story was posted on the Spurs website on January 25.

Guardian publishes 'super-injunction'

The Guardian today publishes the 'super-injunction' which Trafigura and Carter-Ruck used to gag the paper and 'persons unknown' on September 11. It was granted in private by Mr. Justice Maddison. The Guardian said its purpose in publishing the document is to show how such gagging orders are constructed and shielded from the public.

You can see a pdf here.

Guardian editorial slams super-injunctions

From today's Guardian editorial: "That media organisations were unable to report a parliamentary question was due to a so-called "super-injunction" obtained by the notorious law firm Carter-Ruck on behalf of Trafigura, a large London-based trading company.
A "super-injunction" is one which not only prevents any publication, but which is itself secret. Search in vain for the case in the court lists of the high court in London: it appears only as "RJW and SJW v The Guardian".
The editorial also says: "It is scandalous that a law firm acting on behalf of a wealthy trading company should have thought, for a moment, that it could gag media organisations from reporting parliamentary business.
"These are lawyers who seem to have lost sight of the fact that people risked their liberty and their lives to fight for the right to report what their elected representatives say and do. It is little wonder that some social media websites went into virtual meltdown yesterday at the arrogant effrontery involved.
"Trafigura is an unappetising company which purchases smooth PR (it was the official sponsor of the recent British Lions tour) with the same no-expense-spared approach as it has to buying silence. It has threatened to sue journalists in a number of European countries and is even now involved in another aggressive libel action against BBC2's Newsnight. It is rather shameful that British judges should have spared the company's blushes by handing down secret injunctions. But at least the principle for which John Wilkes fought and was imprisoned in the 1770s – the right to report parliament – has not been clouded."