In the last few days there have been numerous articles in the press regarding the injunction granted to protect details of a celebrity’s sexual liaison being printed in England and Wales. Without being able to publish details of the liaison, the English press have concentrated on the fact that Scottish and American press are under no similar restrictions as no similar injunction has been granted in those jurisdictions.
Whilst there remains questions about the usefulness and appropriateness of an injunction when trying to deal global news stories such as this, what the press have achieved is to circumvent the purpose and effect of the injunction by sign posting where details of the liaison can be found.
This was exactly the issue that the much maligned ‘super injunction’ was designed to deal with, preventing not only disclosure of the facts, but also of the grant of the injunction itself. There are issues of open justice that need to be considered when considering super injunctions, but the press do those arguments no favours by taking exactly the course of action which was feared when they don’t agree with the initial court ruling.
A member of Parliament has threatened to name the cheating celebrity who was involved in an extramarital threesome.
Two Court of Appeal judges imposed an injunction, which prevents the married man, who has young children, from being identified.
A tabloid newspaper wanted to publish an account of the man’s sexual exploits with others.