UK Super-Injunctions

W

wsionynw

Master Queef
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure if this is exclusive to the UK legal system but more and more often we are hearing (or perhaps not hearing) about so called super-injunctions being taken out by both private individuals and companies.

Simply put judges in the UK have the power to issue an injunction that prohibits any form of media (newspapers, radio and TV news reports, etc) to not only release the details of an event/incident/etc but even the name of the person that wishes something to be kept under wraps. An example would be a famous sports person that has an injunction taken out to prevent details of sexual indiscretions, or in the case of oil firm Trafigura they had a judge stop the reporting of their internal investigations regarding toxic waste being dumped in the ivory coast.:eek: So you see, the press are not even allowed to report that there is an injunction, it's almost beyond belief.

While I think it's fair the press be restricted to a point (a very small tiny point at that), I feel disturbed that judges seem so keen to hand out these injunctions just to save the blushes of the rich and famous. If Tiger Woods was a UK citizen he could have kept his affairs a secret, carried on selling his squeaky clean image and laughing all the way to the bank.

My view is that the UK government need to quickly bring a stop to these injunctions, unless it can be reasonably proved they are in no way in the public interest. Any thoughts?
 
I thought this framed the issue nicely:

In an injunction application, the well-established principles include that neither article 8, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, nor article 10, which guarantees the right to free speech, has as such precedence over the other. Where they are in conflict the court focuses intensely on the facts of the case and the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed, considering the respective justifications for interfering with each right. Then an ultimate balancing test is applied (see Re S (a child) [2005] a AC 593).

Donald argued that his article 8 right was engaged, and in granting the injunction, Eady J agreed that his sexual relations ‘would be matters in respect of which the applicant would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless it could be shown that there was a countervailing public interest or that such matters were already genuinely in the public domain’.
Click to expand...

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/injunctions-and-protecting-private-information

Across the pond he couldn't have stopped her because we refer to it as Prior Restraint, and because of our 1st Amendment essentially limit its use to a few specific cases.

The first has to do with National Security and the other is to preserve a defendents right to a fair trial (Judge issuing gag orders at a trial).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

As to your specific case, can you point to a "super injunction" being issued where the info that was kept underwraps was important for the public to be aware of?

Arthur
 
wsionynw said:
I'm not sure if this is exclusive to the UK legal system but more and more often we are hearing (or perhaps not hearing) about so called super-injunctions being taken out by both private individuals and companies.

Simply put judges in the UK have the power to issue an injunction that prohibits any form of media (newspapers, radio and TV news reports, etc) to not only release the details of an event/incident/etc but even the name of the person that wishes something to be kept under wraps. An example would be a famous sports person that has an injunction taken out to prevent details of sexual indiscretions, or in the case of oil firm Trafigura they had a judge stop the reporting of their internal investigations regarding toxic waste being dumped in the ivory coast.:eek: So you see, the press are not even allowed to report that there is an injunction, it's almost beyond belief.

While I think it's fair the press be restricted to a point (a very small tiny point at that), I feel disturbed that judges seem so keen to hand out these injunctions just to save the blushes of the rich and famous. If Tiger Woods was a UK citizen he could have kept his affairs a secret, carried on selling his squeaky clean image and laughing all the way to the bank.

My view is that the UK government need to quickly bring a stop to these injunctions, unless it can be reasonably proved they are in no way in the public interest. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm not certain if all that is accurate (because I live in the U.S.) but if it is, there's at least one difference - here, they can and DO report when an injunction against reporting has been issued.

Personally, I believe there might be valid reasons for such things. One situation in particular comes to mind - withholding information PRIOR to the initiation of a trial. Why? Because media reporting is quite often faulty/distorted/biased and can easily lead to creating prejudicial mindsets in potential jurors. There have been numerous trials that had a change of venue in an effort to move to a location where all the reporting possibly had not had much influence. An admirable effort, I'll grant, and something that *might* have worked in the 18th century - but not today, since the news is *everywhere*.
 
Dywyddyr said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html
Click to expand...

There's got to be more to the story than that.

This Hyper Injunction was 6 years ago.

So, by now one would think you should know if the paint was bad or not?

As to this Hyper Injunction, since the MPs have Parlimentary Prevlidge it doesn't seem that this Hyper Injunction is all that tight.

Then of course, there's nothing to stop the bloke from writing an anonymous letter to the NY Times, who could care less about a Hyper Injunction in the UK.

Arthur
 
In the latest issue of Private Eye they highlight a few recent super-injunctions. One is a woman that was fired from a large entertainment company after having an affair with one of her superiors at the same company, after the man in question told his bosses that it would be better if he didn't have to see her at work anymore. This is surely in the public interest, no?
 
It now comes to light that Sir Fred Goodwin, largely blamed for the near collapse of RBS bank (that was bailed out for £45billion) had an injunction taken out before he left the bank. UK politicians would like him to come clean about this becuase it could be that his ability to run the bank was affected by whatever it was that made him seek an injunction. He is something of a hate figure in the UK, after he slashed jobs at the bank, nearly collapsed it and then walked off with £3million, a knighthood and £340,000 a year pension. If I was him I would check my meals for piss, shit and sperm when I eat out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top