We bring you the best pictures
Let’s Abandon Britain. That’s the conclusion to reach after reading the Daily Mail today. And this is not the conclusion of some weedy pinko – but the only rational response to the paper’s campaign against the growing nonsense of shagging celebrities using gagging orders and superinjunctions to cover up their infidelities (see page 3 today: TV Celebrity wins court order gagging his ex-wife).
It’s easy in particular to moan about superinjunctions, which seem to be granted by the day (there’s been a run of Mail stories on the subject prompting this comment earlier in the week). Their aim is to prevent even the slightest bit of reporting on a topic – indeed their existence itself is supposed to be a secret. And occasionally their purpose is justified (there is one around at the moment connected with a well known news story whose intent everybody on Fleet Street can at least understand).
Yet, their use by agressive lawyers trying to cover up inconvenient truths is another matter. If we are to have a privacy law, preventing any sexual infidelities in the press, then it ought to be decided by Parliament. Why judges get to do it is a quirk of our legislative system, and perhaps the justices should be obliged to declare whether they have had any affairs themselves before they are allowed to decide in such sensitive cases. We ought to know what their prejudices are, after all.
This, though, is obvious stuff. The real point is that is surely time for resistance to head offshore. Who is going to set up an offshore website where it is possible to publish details of superinjunctions that apply to the UK? Anybody out there…
Ellie,
It is not a question of respect, but which side you are on. If you are a lawyer for The Daily Mail, you hate them. If you are a lawyer for a celebrity, you obviously like them. Roy Greenslade (Guardian and Standard) often writes about them and did so yesterday, as did Stephen Glover today in The Independent.
I believe there is currently a working group set up by either The Justice Ministry or such like looking into them. After the one for John Terry was lifted, many presumed that was the end of the celebrity superinjunction. Apparently not.
Elaine,
Thanks, I didn’t realise that. I had heard about the John Terry injunction (super-injunction?) but then I guess that got overruled in the end. How much respect do those in the legal profession have for superinjunctions?
Ellie,
Actually, if the contents of a superinjunction are disclosed, it is contempt of court, not libel, a much more serious allegation. However, it may be contempt of court only if disclosed and/of published within UK jurisdiction, that is what Dan is implying, though I am unsure of the law in this area.
Superinjunctions are granted in private court hearings with only the parties or their lawyers present.
Dan,
I’m afraid it won’t work like that. According to libel law if the website is viewed by UK users it can be tried by the UK courts anytime from a year when the libel is published.
Twitter’s the answer – you’re only six degrees away from the defence lawyers, someone in court always spills the beans. All it takes is a few DMs.
As long as it is not illegal, I will do it from Massachusetts, where as an American citizen I am protected by the new Speech Act, provided The Daily Mail settles the libel claim I have against them and stops consenting to private court hearings requested by my other opponents. It is a bit hypocritical to be against superinjunctions and not object to private hearings.
And I want a decent and adequate long overdue apology and correction. No measly two sentences skirting around the libel to please my opponents and their solicitors.