Super-injunctions

pH

I'm not interested in discussing specific ones, just how they work in general.

If something is prohibited from being published, and also the fact that it's prohibited is also banned, how does one find out if any given story or fact is covered? Are there an elite class of people who are expected to know which stories are currently banned? Will all stories have to be pre-approved by a group of people with a list of super-injunctions on their desk?

How does this work for an internet poster, can I write to/email someone in a court and ask "Can I write a story about X?" If so who?

If not, how do these injunctions work?

The other side of this is jurisdiction, in general how in Ireland can you determine if you're subject to the jurisdiction of a ruling by a foreign court? UK courts are claiming worldwide jurisdiction, but is there any basis for that claim? Is is just UK courts we need to be aware of, or could we run afoul of rulings from Iran and Saudi Arabia too?

johnnyskeleton

Injunctions are only valid on the people that they are served on. Those injuncitons would be served on all news and media outlets likely to publish the info. It would presumably also cover passing on the information to other media outlets not covered by it.

Then again, they are typically aimed towards specific news outlets as it will often be only one place that has the information.

dynamokev

Over the last few days I have seen several facebook statuses, using a pun on the footballer's name who has allegedly slept with Imogen from big brother and who is at the centre of the super injunction controversy.

Was wondering does the footballer have an action in defamation against all these "online bloggers" and what sort of legal ramifications are there in identifying the footballer on a social networking site.

dynamokev

dynamokev wrote: »

Was wondering does the footballer have an action in defamation against all these "online bloggers" and what sort of legal ramifications are there in identifying the footballer on a social networking site.

It's not defamation if it's true.

EDIT: That's not to say that violating a court order isn't an offence by the way. That's contempt of court.

bladespin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not defamation if it's true.

EDIT: That's not to say that violating a court order isn't an offence by the way. That's contempt of court.

True but would a court order on the general press apply to a personal posting on FB or Twitter?
If so surely we all risk being on the wrong end of a court order everyday unknowingly.

pH

bladespin wrote: »

True but would a court order on the general press apply to a personal posting on FB or Twitter?
If so surely we all risk being on the wrong end of a court order everyday unknowingly.

Which was were I was coming from, but post 2 says clearly that unless this injunction has been served on you then you have nothing to worry about, anyone confirm this?

Also what about jurisdiction, are these UK super injunctions being served on Irish newspapers / news organisations (yes I know that they can't say)?

bladespin

bladespin wrote: »

True but would a court order on the general press apply to a personal posting on FB or Twitter?
If so surely we all risk being on the wrong end of a court order everyday unknowingly.

I have to confess I have no idea how the injunction was worded so it's not possible for me to comment.

I'd be very skeptical, for example, that the order is really enforceable in Ireland. Without knowing more about the order and what power it was issued under I couldn't intelligently comment any further.

The Scottish papers have an interesting take on it this morning:

bladespin

Deleted User wrote: »

The Scottish papers have an interesting take on it this morning:

Lol, that's one way round it

Richie860504

Surely Irish Newspapers can't be covered under an order of a court in another country? That means we're living under the laws of another country, which would make our own constitution rather invalid. So unless the European Court of Justice makes the order, all orders from the courts of another country are invalid outside of it's own jurisdiction. Would I be right in assuming this?

blueythebear

Richie860504 wrote: »

Surely Irish Newspapers can't be covered under an order of a court in another country? That means we're living under the laws of another country, which would make our own constitution rather invalid. So unless the European Court of Justice makes the order, all orders from the courts of another country are invalid outside of it's own jurisdiction. Would I be right in assuming this?

It's not that the Irish Newspapers have to comply with the superinjunction made in the UK. I think the Imogen Thomas injunction was only for England and Wales (so the Scottish Herald published the picture above).
The fact that there is a superinjunction means that the issue has been heard (at least on a preliminary basis) in the UK courts. That the superinjunction was granted suggested that there is a good possibility that the allegations are not true or not provable.

An Irish paper printing such a story could leave themselves wide open to a hefty defamation case which no paper wishes to face.

Richie860504

Richie860504 wrote: »

Surely Irish Newspapers can't be covered under an order of a court in another country? That means we're living under the laws of another country, which would make our own constitution rather invalid. So unless the European Court of Justice makes the order, all orders from the courts of another country are invalid outside of it's own jurisdiction. Would I be right in assuming this?

No, not really.

There are a rake of EU regulations and international treaties which make foreign judgments enforceable in Ireland. Brussels I, Lugano and the Brussels Convention for example.

Brussels I is here on recognition of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Mayo Exile

Deleted User wrote: »

The Scottish papers have an interesting take on it this morning:

Hansard have gone a step further..........

NoQuarter

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Hansard have gone a step further..........

What are we supposed to be looking at here?

Tom Young

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Hansard have gone a step further..........

Parliamentary privilege.

NoQuarter

Ah well why didnt you just say so!

*gets back to the constitutional books*

pH

OK, I'm still confused.

The BBC, on reporting Hemming's question in the house of commons said something to the effect that "If it hadn't been said in the house he'd have been in trouble as he was breaching an injunction".

But surely Hemming himself hadn't been served one of these injunctions?

So is everyone subject to them, or just those that have been served them?

Tom Young

Hemming is a Member of Parliament. Hansard is the parliament reporting/transcription system.

Members of Parliament are subject to what is known as parliamentary privilege for utterances made while in the chamber. Same applies to Legal Practitioners, etc.

The injunction would have applied if he had named the person in question outside the cover of privilege.

pH

Tom Young wrote: »

The injunction would have applied if he had named the person in question outside the cover of privilege.

This is what confuses me, are you saying that he had an injunction served on him - therefore he can't name the person covered, or are you saying that an injunction served on one party and the Sun newspaper also covers him?

If the second, given that the injunctions are secret, how is anyone to know what they can and cannot say?

Tom Young

pH wrote: »

This is what confuses me, are you saying that he had an injunction served on him - therefore he can't name the person covered, or are you saying that an injunction served on one party and the Sun newspaper also covers him?

If the second, given that the injunctions are secret, how is anyone to know what they can and cannot say?

No need for the injunction to be served at all. That's why it is a SUPER INJUNCTION

You can read all about it here:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html

beeftotheheels

pH wrote: »

If the second, given that the injunctions are secret, how is anyone to know what they can and cannot say?

It is to do with what you can publish, not what you can say. So every news outlet can be told what they are not allowed to publish, they are just not allowed to publish that which is the subject of the injunction, or the existence of the injunction.

Barclays got an injunction against the Guardian back in 2009 forcing them to remove certain leaked documents from their website but didn't get a super injunction which left them in the daft position that the Guardian could write about the fact that they were gagged...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/barclays-guardian-injunction-tax

jaybeeveedub

This might be a bit dim.... but how does parliamentary privilege prevent Hemmings from being in contempt of court....

I'm assuming here it runs along the same lines as Ireland, that parliamentary privilege is a defence to defamation.....

But surely what he did was break a court order, not make a defamatory comment... I didn't hear it all now, but what I did here was him referring to Giggs being the footballer identified by 75,000 twits as being the one who successfully got a SuperInjunction.... Which isn't defamatory so no need for parliamentary privilege...

Or have I got it ALL wrong!

beeftotheheels

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

This might be a bit dim.... but how does parliamentary privilege prevent Hemmings from being in contempt of court....

I'm assuming here it runs along the same lines as Ireland, that parliamentary privilege is a defence to defamation.....

But surely what he did was break a court order, not make a defamatory comment... I didn't hear it all now, but what I did here was him referring to Giggs being the footballer identified by 75,000 twits as being the one who successfully got a SuperInjunction.... Which isn't defamatory so no need for parliamentary privilege...

Or have I got it ALL wrong!

Privilege is not just a defense to defamation. In the UK it is much broader than that and the wiki is actually kind of okay on it

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

Although the point is that the doctrine is supposed to prevent members of the parliament being gagged in a way which could prevent them doing their jobs properly, but certain members of the Commons, and of the Lib Dem benches in particular seem to be abusing it to make political hay in terms of privacy, which I object to, they are using it to intentionally undermine the judiciary.

jaybeeveedub

Ah good old Parliamentary Supremacy....

don't they know everyone's into 2-1/2 partite these days!!